No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Evidence of a Ceiling Effect for Training Volume in Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength in Trained Men – Less is More?
Abstract
Purpose:
To compare the effects of different resistance training volumes on muscle performance and hypertrophy in trained men.
Methods:
37 volunteers performed resistance training for 24 weeks, divided into groups that performed five (G5), 10 (G10), 15 (G15) and 20 (G20) sets per muscle group per week. Ten repetition maximum (10RM) tests were performed for the bench press, lat pull down, 45º leg press, and stiff legged deadlift. Muscle thickness (MT) was measured using ultrasound at biceps brachii, triceps brachii, pectoralis major, quadriceps femoris and gluteus maximus. All measurements were performed at the beginning (pre) and after 12 (mid) and 24 weeks (post).
Results:
All groups showed significant increases in all 10RM tests and MT measures after 12 and 24 weeks when compared to pre (p <0.05). There were no significant differences in any 10RM test or changes between G5 and G10 after 12 and 24 weeks. G5 and G10 showed significantly greater increases for 10RM than G15 and G20 for most exercises at 12 and 24 weeks. There were no group by time interaction for any MT measure.
Conclusions:
The results bring evidence of an inverted "U shaped" curve for the dose response curve for muscle strength. Whilst the same trend was noted for muscle hypertrophy, the results did not reach significance. Five to 10 sets per week might be sufficient for bringing about optimal gains in muscle size and strength in trained men over a 24-week period.
... In two separate but similar 24-week studies in young adult females (91) with at least 3 years of uninterrupted resistance training experience (~3.4 years) and in young adult males (92) with similar training experience (~5.4 years), Barbalho and colleagues randomly allocated their participants (counterbalanced with baseline muscle thickness measurements) to perform 5, 10, 15 or 20 sets of resistance exercise per muscle group per week (G5, G10, G15 and G20, respectively). They trained 3x/week but used a split routine to train each muscle group (3 exercises per muscle group) 1x/week. ...
... Barbalho and colleagues (92) commented that it was not clear if any of their measureable changes in muscle thickness actually translated into noticeable aesthetic improvements. For example, the smallest assessed muscle group (biceps brachii) in females (91) revealed a difference between 5 and 10 sets/week of 0.2 mm and the difference between 15 and 20 sets/week was 1.0 mm. ...
... In the largest assessed muscle group (quadriceps femoris), the difference between 5 and 10 sets/week was 0.7 mm and between 15 and 20 sets/week was 1.6 mm. Similarly in males (92), the difference between 5 and 10 sets/week was 0.6 mm and the difference between 15 and 20 sets/week was 1.2 mm for the biceps; the difference between 5 and 10 sets/week for quadriceps femoris was 1.4 mm, and between 15 and 20 sets/week was 1.8 mm. ...
Researchers have expressed concern recently for standardization of resistance training protocols so that valid comparisons of different training variables such as muscular fatigue, time under tension, pre-exhaust exercise and exercise order, pyramid and drop sets, amount of resistance (load), range of repetitions, frequency and volume of exercise, interset rest intervals, etc. can be more closely studied and compared. This Critical Commentary addresses some recent review articles and training studies specifically focused on the stimulus for muscle hypertrophy in participants with several years of resistance training experience. It reveals that many of the recommended resistance training protocols have their foundation in some long-held, self-described bias.
... In two separate but similar 24-week studies in young adult females (91) with at least 3 years of uninterrupted resistance training experience (~3.4 years) and in young adult males (92) with similar training experience (~5.4 years), Barbalho and colleagues randomly allocated their participants (counterbalanced with baseline muscle thickness measurements) to perform 5, 10, 15 or 20 sets of resistance exercise per muscle group per week (G5, G10, G15 and G20, respectively). They trained 3x/week but used a split routine to train each muscle group (3 exercises per muscle group) 1x/week. ...
... Barbalho and colleagues (92) commented that it was not clear if any of their measureable changes in muscle thickness actually translated into noticeable aesthetic improvements. For example, the smallest assessed muscle group (biceps brachii) in females (91) revealed a difference between 5 and 10 sets/week of 0.2 mm and the difference between 15 and 20 sets/week was 1.0 mm. ...
... In the largest assessed muscle group (quadriceps femoris), the difference between 5 and 10 sets/week was 0.7 mm and between 15 and 20 sets/week was 1.6 mm. Similarly in males (92), the difference between 5 and 10 sets/week was 0.6 mm and the difference between 15 and 20 sets/week was 1.2 mm for the biceps; the difference between 5 and 10 sets/week for quadriceps femoris was 1.4 mm, and between 15 and 20 sets/week was 1.8 mm. ...
Researchers have expressed concern recently for standardization of resistance training protocols so that valid comparisons of different training variables such as muscular fatigue, time under tension, pre-exhaust exercise and exercise order, pyramid and drop sets, amount of resistance (load), range of repetitions, frequency and volume of exercise, interset rest intervals, etc. can be more closely studied and compared. This Critical Commentary addresses some recent review articles and training studies specifically focused on the stimulus for muscle hypertrophy in participants with several years of resistance training experience. It reveals that many of the recommended resistance training protocols have their foundation in some long-held, self-described bias.
... In an effort to maximize such training outcomes, researchers have investigated the effects of the manipulation of several training variables (e.g., intensity, repetition tempo, exercise selection, rest interval, etc.) on RT-induced adaptations (5,8,15,19,25). Among these variables, training volume has received considerable attention from the scientific community (2,7,10,12,18,(21)(22)(23)(24). Recent studies have referred to training volume as the number of sets performed per muscle group per week (2,10,22,23). ...
... Among these variables, training volume has received considerable attention from the scientific community (2,7,10,12,18,(21)(22)(23)(24). Recent studies have referred to training volume as the number of sets performed per muscle group per week (2,10,22,23). ...
... Although a dose-response relationship between training volume and maximum strength adaptations has been reported in untrained individuals (17), such a relationship has not been clearly established for trained ones (2,14,22). A corollary hypothesis would be that a similar dose-response relationship exists for strength endurance as well; however, there is paucity of data on this topic for resistance-trained individuals. ...
This study investigated the effects of 12-SET, 18-SET, and 24-SET lower-body weekly sets on muscle strength and mass accretion. Thirty-five resistance-trained individuals (one repetition maximum [1RM] squat: body mass ratio [1RM: BM] 5 2.09) were randomly divided into 12-SET: n 5 13, 18-SET: n 5 12, and 24-SET: n 5 10. Subjects underwent an 8-week resistance-training (RT) program consisting of 2 weekly sessions. Muscle strength (1RM), repetitions to failure (RTF) at 70% of 1RM, anterior thigh muscle thickness (MT), at the medial MT (MMT) and distal MT (DMT) points, as well as the sum of both sites (SMT), along with region of interest for fat-free mass (ROI-FFM) were measured at baseline and post-testing. For the 1RM, there was a main time effect (p # 0.0001). However, there was a strong trend toward significance (p 5 0.052) for group-by-time interaction, suggesting that 18-SET increased 1RM back squat to a greater extent compared with 24-SET, (24-SET: 9.5 kg, 5.4%; 18-SET: 25.5 kg, 16.2%; 12-SET: 18.3 kg, 11.3%). For RTF, only a main time-effect (p # 0.0003) was observed (24-set: 5.7 reps, 33.1%; 18-SET: 2.4 reps, 14.5%; 12-SET: 5.0 reps, 34.8%). For the MMT, DMT, SMT, and ROI-FFM, there was only main time-effect (p # 0.0001), (MMT: 24-SET: 0.15 cm, 2.7%; 18-SET: 0.32 cm, 5.7%; 12-SET: 0.38 cm, 6.4%-DMT: 24-set: 0.39 cm, 13.1%; 18-SET: 0.28 cm, 8.9%; 12-SET: 0.34 cm, 9.7%-SMT: 24-set: 0.54 cm, 6.1%; 18-SET: 0.60 cm, 6.7%; 12-SET: 0.72 cm, 7.7%, and ROI-FFM: 24-set: 0.70 kg, 2.6%; 18-SET: 1.09 kg, 4.2%; 12-SET: 1.20 kg, 4.6%, respectively). Although all of the groups increased maximum strength, our results suggest that the middle dose range may optimize the gains in back squat 1RM. Our findings also support that differences in weekly set number did not impact in MT and ROI-FFM adaptations in subjects who can squat more than twice their body mass.
... This point should be adjusted to each subject and muscle group based on their level of training and ability to adapt and will change as training progresses and based on the approach taken at any given time. Now that we have the volume in weekly series, it is necessary to distribute it in the workouts, to perform all the series for the same muscle group in the same training session is not optimal, especially if this volume is higher than 8-10 series [91]. The recommended would be around 6-8 sets per muscle group per session, not going below 4 and not exceeding 10 sets per muscle group per session. ...
... Frequency has a very high relationship with volume and therefore also with the parameters of optimal volume and tolerable volume, as explained above. As we have seen, the weekly sets that some subjects may require to generate hypertrophy can range from 12 to 25-30 weekly sets [85]; these exceed the 10-12 sets that are tolerable in a single training session [91]. Therefore, for those weekly volumes that exceed the tolerable daily volume, it will be necessary to increase the frequency [96,97], not so much because this will have an effect on hypertrophy but to tolerate and distribute the volume required to hypertrophy. ...
The present chapter delves into the topic of muscle hypertrophy in detail, focusing on defining what muscle hypertrophy is, the types of hypertrophy, the mechanisms, and the relationship with resistance training, as well as the variables affecting hypertrophy such as nutrition, rest, exercise selection, training volume, and training frequency, among others. The importance of mechanical tension, metabolic stress, and muscle damage as triggers for muscle hypertrophy is emphasized. Various types of muscle hypertrophy are explored, including connective tissue hypertrophy and sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar hypertrophy. The text also delves into how hypertrophy mechanisms relate to resistance training, highlighting the significance of mechanical tension and metabolic stress as stimuli for muscle hypertrophy. In a practical point of view, the text also discusses factors like nutrition and recovery, highlighting the importance of maintaining a positive energy balance and adequate protein intake to promote muscle growth optimally. Training variables such as exercise selection, exercise order, intensity, volume, frequency, and tempo of execution are discussed in detail, outlining their impact on muscle hypertrophy. The text provides a comprehensive overview of muscle hypertrophy, analyzing various factors that influence the ability to increase muscle mass. It offers detailed information on the biological mechanisms, types of hypertrophy, training strategies, and nutritional and recovery considerations necessary to achieve optimal results in terms of muscle hypertrophy.
... Barbalho and colleagues (92) commented that it was not clear if any of their measureable changes in muscle thickness actually translated into noticeable aesthetic improvements. For example, the smallest assessed muscle group (biceps brachii) in females (91) revealed a difference between 5 and 10 sets/week of 0.2 mm and the difference between 15 and 20 sets/ week was 1.0 mm. ...
... In the largest assessed muscle group (quadriceps femoris), the difference between 5 and 10 sets/week was 0.7 mm and between 15 and 20 sets/week was 1.6 mm. Similarly in males (92), the difference between 5 and 10 sets/week was 0.6 mm and the difference between 15 and 20 sets/week was 1.2 mm for the biceps; the difference between 5 and 10 sets/week for quadriceps femoris was 1.4 mm, and between 15 and 20 sets/week was 1.8 mm. Barbalho ...
Researchers have expressed concern recently for standardization of resistance training protocols so that valid comparisons of different training variables such as muscular fatigue, time under tension, pre-exhaust exercise and exercise order, pyramid and drop sets, amount of resistance (load), range of repetitions, frequency and volume of exercise, interset rest intervals, etc. can be more closely studied and compared. This Critical Commentary addresses some recent review articles and training studies specifically focused on the stimulus for muscle hypertrophy in participants with several years of resistance training experience. It reveals that many of the recommended resistance training protocols have their foundation in some long-held, self-described bias. Blinding of assessors and statisticians, self-plagiarism, authorship responsibility, and conflicts of interest are briefly discussed as well. The conclusion is that most of the published peer-reviewed resistance training literature failed to provide any compelling evidence that the manipulation of any one or combination of the aforementioned variables can significantly affect the degree of muscle hypertrophy, especially in well-trained participants. Although the specific stimulus for optimal gains in muscle mass is unknown, many authors are desperately clinging to their unsupported belief that a greater volume of exercise will produce superior muscle hypertrophy.
... The training volume (e.g., number of repetitions) is known to play a crucial role in the adaptations induced by resistance training with higher training volumes being associated with greater gains in muscle hypertrophy and strength (Krieger 2010;Radaelli et al. 2015;Ralston et al. 2017;Schoenfeld et al. 2017) until getting to the point of ceiling effect (Hackett et al. 2018;Heaselgrave et al. 2018;Barbalho et al. 2019). In this regard, the study of Lattari et al. (2018b) revealed an increase in the number of repetitions during a single set of the leg press exercise performed until muscular failure after the application of ANODAL tDCS, suggesting that tDCS may be an effective tool to increase resistance training volume. ...
... In this regard, it is important to note that the application of ANODAL tDCS was effective to counteract the velocity loss occurred during the last sets of the training session in comparison with the CATHODAL and SHAM conditions. It is known that, until getting to the ceiling effect point for training volume (Ralston et al. 2017;Hackett et al. 2018;Heaselgrave et al. 2018;Barbalho et al. 2019), a higher resistance training volume is positively associated with both strength (Ralston et al. 2017) and hypertrophy (Krieger 2010;Schoenfeld et al. 2017Schoenfeld et al. , 2019 gains. This is reasonable due to the dose-response relationship between training volume and the phosphorylation of some important proteins for the muscular protein synthesis (Terzis et al. 2010). ...
PurposeThis study aimed to explore the acute effect of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on the force–velocity relationship, strength training volume, movement velocity, and ratings of perceived exertion.Methods
Fourteen healthy men (age 22.8 ± 3.0 years) were randomly stimulated over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex with either ANODAL, CATHODAL or SHAM tDCS for 15 min at 2 mA. The one-repetition maximum (1RM) and force–velocity relationship parameters were evaluated during the bench press exercise before and after receiving the tDCS. Subsequently, participants completed a resistance training session consisting of sets of five repetitions with 1 min of inter-set rest against the 75%1RM until failure.ResultsNo significant changes were observed in the 1RM or in the force–velocity relationship parameters (p ≥ 0.377). The number of repetitions was higher for the ANODAL compared to the CATHODAL (p = 0.025; ES = 0.37) and SHAM (p = 0.009; ES = 0.47) conditions. The reductions of movement velocity across sets were lower for the ANODAL than for the CATHODAL and SHAM condition (p = 0.014). RPE values were lower for the ANODAL compared to the CATHODAL (p = 0.119; ES = 0.33) and SHAM (p = 0.150; ES = 0.44) conditions. No significant differences between the CATHODAL and SHAM conditions were observed for any variable.Conclusion
The application of ANODAL tDCS before a resistance training session increased training volume, enabled the maintenance of higher movement velocities, and reduced RPE values. These results suggest that tDCS could be an effective method to enhance resistance-training performance.
... There was a significant interaction between RT protocol and time (p=0.035). There were significant differences between the first and last set for G 4 For muscle thickness (MT) (Figure 2b) ...
This study aimed to measure the acute effects of resistance training (RT) protocols with a different number of sets and non-equalized volume on muscle thickness, peak force, and physical performance in recreationally trained participants. Fifteen participants performed the unilateral biceps curl exercise in four different RT protocols (G 4 : 4 sets of 10RM, G 8 : 8 sets of 10RM, G 12 : 12 sets of 10RM, and G 16 : 16 sets of 10RM). The average number of repetitions (ANR), the total number of repetitions (TNR), time under tension (TUT), muscle thickness (MT), peak force (PF), and rating of perceived exertion (sRPE) were measured pre-test and post-test. ANOVAs were used to test differences between all dependent variables. For ANR, there were differences between G 4 xG 8 , G 4 xG 12 , and G 4 xG 16. For TNR, there were differences between all RT protocols. For TUT, there were differences between the first and last set for all RT protocols and between RT protocols for the last set. For PF, there were differences between the pre-and post-test for all RT protocols and between RT protocols for Post-0.
... Indeed, large, and questionable effect sizes are only a portion of the biases in resistance training studies. Possibly containing the above mentioned aspects, two studies brought suspicion of scientific misconduct, involving trained women, (21) and men, (22). They were retracted and received further attention in a whitepaper, which outlined important data abnormalities that suggested data fabrication, (23). ...
... These factors, consequently, generate better anabolic responses in the presence of adequate recovery 10,11 . In fact, the literature has shown that higher training volumes have provided high myofibrillar protein synthesis responses 12 and several chronic studies support higher training volume by maximizing muscle hypertrophy. This has been suggested in a recent meta-analysis 13,14 . ...
Introduction
There are few studies on the effectiveness of training models with high volume sets per session in particular muscle groups.
Objective
The aim of the study was to investigate the effects of different resistance training (RT) repetitions with equalized volumes on muscle adaptations.
Methods
This study used an experimental design in which forty-seven volunteers underwent 8 weeks of RT after having been distributed randomly into three groups: ten sets of three maximum repetitions (10x3), three sets of ten maximum repetitions (3x10) and five sets of six maximum repetitions (5x6) for each muscular group per training session. Maximum strength (1RM test) and muscle thickness (MT) were evaluated as outcomes.
Results
A significant main effect (p=0.001) of time on maximum strength was observed for the three groups, but no significance was observed (p>0.05) in time x group interactions. A significant main effect (p=0.001) of time was observed on MT for biceps, triceps and vastus lateralis, without significant differences for time x group interactions. Significant correlations were found between maximum strength and muscle thickness after general statistical analyses for all protocols.
Conclusion
Improvements in maximum strength and muscle thickness are similar when repetition volumes are equalized through the number of series and repetitions. Level of evidence I; Therapeutic studies, investigation of treatment results.
... The RT2 group performed 4 sets per exercise in each training session, which may induce stimulation of muscular hypertrophy, by signalling pathways that increase protein synthesis and providing mechanical stress in the muscle fibers (Fernandes et al., 2012Padilha et al., 2019. However, it seems that the muscle hypertrophy expansion is more impressed by volume of training and, considering that both groups trained at what has been shown to be the optimal dose (Barbalho et al., 2019), it can be derived that frequency of RT might play a subsidiary figure relevant to this and further investigations are needed to illuminate the effects of training frequency under volume-equated conditions on muscle size. In addition, whilst circumference measures has been shown to be reliable and reproducible and might be an appropriate field-centred criterion (De França et al., 2015), to make careful deductions based on the evidence, subsequent studies should focus on the use of direct gauges of muscle mass increase using MRI, DXA, ultrasound or BIA; however, previous studies used the aforementioned equipment and reported small gains in muscle hypertrophy using different training frequencies , Colquhoun et al., 2018Zaroni et al., 2019;Yue et al., 2018;Schoenfeld, Ogborn & Krieger, 2016;. ...
Background: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of 8 weeks resistance training (RT) with two sessions versus four sessions per week under volume load-equated conditions on body composition, maximal strength, and explosive actions performance in recreationally trained men.
Methods: Thirty-five healthy young men participated in the study and were randomly divided into a two sessions per-week RT (RT2, n=12), four sessions per-week RT (RT4, n=13) or a control group (CG, n=10). All subjects were evaluated for thigh, chest and arm circumference, countermovement jump (CMJ), medicine ball throw (MBT), 1-repetition maximum (1RM) leg press, bench press, arm curl, muscular endurance (i.e., 60% of 1RM to failure) for leg press, and bench press at pre, mid (week 4) and post an 8-week training intervention.
Results: A two-way analysis of variance with repeated measures (3 [group] x 3 [time]) revealed that both training groups increased chest and thigh circumferences, strength and explosive actions performance tests in comparison to CG following 8 weeks of training (p=0.01 to 0.04). Group × time interactions were also noted in 1RM bench press (effects size [ES] = 1.07 vs. 0.89) and arm curl (ES = 1.15 vs. 0.89), with greater gains for RT4 than RT2 (p=0.03). Conclusion: RT improved muscle strength, explosive actions performance and markers of muscle size in recreationally trained men; however, four sessions of resistance training per week produced greater gains in muscular strength for the upper body measures (i.e, 1RM bench press and arm curl) when compared to two sessions per week under volume-equated conditions.
... For example, in the studies included, MT was specific to the elbow flexors, while AC also involves elbow extensors. The previous studies have shown that different muscles might experience different patterns of hypertrophy with time in response to RT [23]; however, this has not been evaluated between elbow extensors and flexors, the previous studies showed that the mean change in MT was similar between them [24,25]. Another possible source of the disagreement between percentage changes from each measure is that AC does not consider the possible influence of subcutaneous fat, while MT involves only muscle. ...
Background:
The present study aimed to compare changes in muscle size when measured by ultrasound (US) muscle thickness (MT) and arm circumference (AC) using data from young men.
Methods:
The investigation involved data from three previous studies involving a total of 67 young men who performed resistance training (RT) for 10-12 weeks. Before and after the training period, elbow flexor MT was evaluated by US and AC was measured. We conducted two-stage individual patient data random-effects meta-analyses using both Frequentist and Bayesian hypothesis testing. One-sample analyses examined the absence or presence of a change in both MT and AC, and paired analyses examined whether these differed from one another or equivalent.
Results:
One-sample analysis supported that both AC (+4.9%; tp=0.0002; BF10=6,255,759,515) and MT (+3.9%; P<0.0001; BF10=7,958,241,773) suggested that change in muscle size had occurred. Frequentist paired comparisons suggested that the estimates of change between both AC and MT measures did not significantly differ (P=0.1092), but were not statistically equivalent. Bayesian paired comparisons, however, suggested that MT estimates where greater in magnitude than AC estimates for change in muscle size (BF10=16.39174).
Conclusion:
Both MT and AC are able to detect RT-induced changes in muscle size of the upper arm, but that the magnitude of changes may differ. Thus, care should be taken when comparing or combining estimates using either approach.
Relevance for patients:
The use of AC might be considered as a practical and low-cost alternative to detect changes in muscle size.
... However, it is possible that single sets may be sufficient to promote some degree of hypertrophy, at least, in untrained subjects. Furthermore, a ceiling effect is noted for very high training volumes, with no advantages observed when training a muscle group with volumes >10 sets·week-1 (Barbalho et al., 2019). For this reason, it is recommended that novice weightlifters start with single sets and gradually increase the volume to somewhere in the range of five to 10 sets per muscle group, according to their desired training goals. ...
Studies from the 20th century had proposed that exercise-derived anabolism is the result of acute release of anabolic hormones. Recent advances in molecular biology have validated the hormonal theory, but have raised the question of whether exercise-induced anabolic hormones are related to chronic hypertrophy. Intrinsic factors of muscle contraction, on the other hand, seem to play an important role in exercise-induced protein synthesis and hypertrophy. This review seeks to highlight the role of anabolic pathways related to resistance exercise and express its applicability in resistance training considering the following variables: (a) intensity; (b) volume; (c) rest interval; (d) types of contraction; (e) velocity of contraction; (f) exercise order; and (g) frequency. We conclude that resistance training-induced hypertrophy is likely explained by intrinsic factors rather than by the hormonal theory. Regarding the following training recommendations, multiple sets, long rest intervals, dynamic and high-velocity contractions and prioritizing the exercise order are most likely to produce the greatest enhancement in skeletal muscle hypertrophy. Training intensity may vary, as low (30% one-repetition maximum [1RM]) or high (80% 1RM) intensities induce similar improvements in hypertrophy when performed to a maximal level of effort. Likewise, training frequency may vary according to individual needs, as the total volume performed within a training week appears to be more strongly related to hypertrophy than the number of weekly training sessions. This review contributes to the development of sports performance, aesthetics, and quality of life, and to the prevention or treatment of muscle loss caused by aging or illness.
... This might be important to consider in programming in order to avoid potential overtraining or performance of unnecessary training volume. It is important point out, that there are a compelling evidences for an upper threshold for RT volume regarding RT adaptations [27,35,36], therefore, if an excessive volume is performed by a cer-tain muscle group it might lead to overtraining, or at the least constitute a potential waste of time. ...
The study compared the effects of resistance training programs composed by multi-joint (MJ), single-joint (SJ) and the combination of multi- and single-joint (MJ+SJ) exercises on muscle strength and hypertrophy in trained women. Thirty participants were divided into groups that performed only MJ exercises, SJ exercises and MJ+SJ exercises for six months. Participants were tested for 1-repetition maximum (RM) and muscle thickness (MT) before and after the intervention. All groups showed significant gains on 1RM tests from pre- to post-training (P<0.01). However, MJ and MJ+SJ groups obtained greater gains in 1RM for the MJ exercises in comparison with the SJ group. Increases in 1RM for the SJ exercises were similar among groups, with the exception of leg curl, where the SJ group obtained greater gains than MJ and MJ+SJ. All groups obtained significant increases in MT from pre- to post-training for all muscle groups. However, MJ and MJ+SJ groups presented greater increases in gluteus maximus, quadriceps femoris and pectoralis major in comparison with the SJ group. Therefore, our results suggest that, in general, performing MJ exercises seems to be necessary to obtain optimal results from a resistance training program; however SJ might be necessary to provide optimal strength gains in knee flexion.
... One objective variable that indirectly quantifies mechanical tension within a session is the volume load (sets ⇥ reps ⇥ load kg). While there is some controversy [9,10], it has been suggested that producing greater training volumes per session would optimize muscle mass accrual [5,11]. Additionally, the literature also suggests that other factors associated with metabolic stress (i.e. ...
There is a paucity of data on how manipulating joint angles during isolation exercises may impact overall session muscle activation and volume load in resistance-trained individuals. We investigated the acute effects of varying glenohumeral joint angle on the biceps brachii with a crossover repeated measure design with three different biceps curls. One session served as the positive control (CON), which subjects performed 9 sets of bicep curls with their shoulder in a neutral position. The experimental condition (VAR), varied the glenohumeral joint angle by performing 3 sets in shoulder extension (30°), 3 sets neutral (0°), and 3 sets in flexion (90°). Volume load and muscle activation (EMG) were recorded during the training sessions. Muscle swelling and strain were assessed via muscle thickness and echo-intensity responses at pre, post, 24 h, 48 h, and 72 h. There were no significant differences between conditions for most dependent variables. However, the overall session EMG amplitude was significantly higher (p = 0.0001) in VAR compared to CON condition (95%-CI: 8.4% to 23.3%). Our findings suggest that varying joint angles during resistance training (RT) may enhance total muscle activation without negatively affecting volume load within a training session in resistance-trained individuals.
Introduction: The purpose of the present study was to compare the effects of different volumes of resistance training (RT) on muscle performance and hypertrophy in trained women. Methods: The study included 40 volunteers that performed RT for 24 weeks divided in to groups that performed five (G5), 10 (G10), 15 (G15) and 20 (G20) sets per muscle group per session. Ten repetition maximum (10RM) tests were performed for the bench press, lat pull down, 45º leg press, and stiff legged deadlift. Muscle thickness (MT) was measured using ultrasound at biceps brachii, triceps brachii, pectoralis major, quadriceps femoris, and gluteus maximus. Results: All groups significantly increased all MT measures and 10RM tests after 24 weeks of RT (p<0.05). Between group comparisons revealed no differences in any 10RM test between G5 and G10 (p>0.05). G5 and G10 showed significantly greater 10RM increases than G15 for lat pulldown, leg press and stiff legged deadlift. 10RM changes for G20 were lower than all other groups for all exercises (p<0.05). G5 and G10 showed significantly greater MT increases than G15 and G20 in all sites (p<0.05). MT increased more in G15 than G20 in all sites (p<0.05). G5 increases were
higher than G10 for pectoralis major MT, while G10 showed higher increases in quadriceps MT
than G5 (p<0.05). Conclusions: Five to 10 sets per week might be sufficient for attaining gains
in muscle size and strength in trained women during a 24-week RT program. There appears no
further benefit by performing higher exercise volumes. Since lack of time is a commonly cited
barrier to exercise adoption, our data supports RT programs that are less time consuming, which
might increase participation and adherence.
Purpose:
The purpose of this study was to evaluate muscular adaptations between low-, moderate-, and high-volume resistance training (RT) protocols in resistance-trained men.
Methods:
Thirty-four healthy resistance-trained men were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 experimental groups: a low-volume group (1SET) performing 1 set per exercise per training session (n = 11); a moderate-volume group (3SET) performing 3 sets per exercise per training session (n = 12); or a high-volume group (5SET) performing 5 sets per exercise per training session (n = 11). Training for all routines consisted of three weekly sessions performed on non-consecutive days for 8 weeks. Muscular strength was evaluated with 1 repetition maximum (RM) testing for the squat and bench press. Upper-body muscle endurance was evaluated using 50% of subjects bench press 1RM performed to momentary failure. Muscle hypertrophy was evaluated using B-mode ultrasonography for the elbow flexors, elbow extensors, mid-thigh and lateral thigh.
Results:
Results showed significant pre-to-post intervention increases in strength and endurance in all groups, with no significant between-group differences. Alternatively, while all groups increased muscle size in most of the measured sites from pre-to-post intervention, significant increases favoring the higher volume conditions were seen for the elbow flexors, mid-thigh, and lateral thigh.
Conclusion:
Marked increases in strength and endurance can be attained by resistance-trained individuals with just three, 13-minute weekly sessions over an 8-week period, and these gains are similar to that achieved with a substantially greater time commitment. Alternatively, muscle hypertrophy follows a dose-response relationship, with increasingly greater gains achieved with higher training volumes.
The manipulation of resistance training (RT) variables is widely considered an essential strategy to maximize muscular adaptations. One variable that has received substantial attention in this regard is RT volume. This paper provides evidence-based guidelines as to volume when creating RT programs designed to maximize muscle hypertrophy.
Repetitions in Reserve' (RIR) scales in resistance training (RT) are used to control effort but assume people accurately predict performance a priori (i.e. the number of possible repetitions to momentary failure (MF)). This study examined the ability of trainees with different experience levels to predict number of repetitions to MF. One hundred and forty-one participants underwent a full body RT session involving single sets to MF and were asked to predict the number of repetitions they could complete before reaching MF on each exercise. Participants underpredicted the number of repetitions they could perform to MF (Standard error of measurements [95% confidence intervals] for combined sample ranged between 2.64 [2.36-2.99] and 3.38 [3.02-3.83]). There was a tendency towards improved accuracy with greater experience. Ability to predict repetitions to MF is not perfectly accurate among most trainees though may improve with experience. Thus, RIR should be used cautiously in prescription of RT. Trainers and trainees should be aware of this as it may have implications for the attainment of training goals, particularly muscular hypertrophy. Subjects Anatomy and Physiology, Kinesiology
Purpose:
To describe the acute and delayed time course of recovery following resistance training (RT) protocols differing in the number of repetitions (R) performed in each set (S) out of the maximum possible number (P).
Methods:
Ten resistance-trained men undertook three RT protocols [S × R(P)]: (1) 3 × 5(10), (2) 6 × 5(10), and (3) 3 × 10(10) in the bench press (BP) and full squat (SQ) exercises. Selected mechanical and biochemical variables were assessed at seven time points (from - 12 h to + 72 h post-exercise). Countermovement jump height (CMJ) and movement velocity against the load that elicited a 1 m s(-1) mean propulsive velocity (V1) and 75% 1RM in the BP and SQ were used as mechanical indicators of neuromuscular performance.
Results:
Training to muscle failure in each set [3 × 10(10)], even when compared to completing the same total exercise volume [6 × 5(10)], resulted in a significantly higher acute decline of CMJ and velocity against the V1 and 75% 1RM loads in both BP and SQ. In contrast, recovery from the 3 × 5(10) and 6 × 5(10) protocols was significantly faster between 24 and 48 h post-exercise compared to 3 × 10(10). Markers of acute (ammonia, growth hormone) and delayed (creatine kinase) fatigue showed a markedly different course of recovery between protocols, suggesting that training to failure slows down recovery up to 24-48 h post-exercise.
Conclusions:
RT leading to failure considerably increases the time needed for the recovery of neuromuscular function and metabolic and hormonal homeostasis. Avoiding failure would allow athletes to be in a better neuromuscular condition to undertake a new training session or competition in a shorter period of time.
Background
Strength training set organisation and its relationship to the development of muscular strength have yet to be clearly defined. Current meta-analytical research suggests that different population groups have distinctive muscular adaptations, primarily due to the prescription of the strength training set dose. Objectives
We conducted a meta-analysis with restrictive inclusion criteria and examined the potential effects of low (LWS), medium (MWS) or high weekly set (HWS) strength training on muscular strength per exercise. Secondly, we examined strength gain variations when performing multi-joint or isolation exercises, and probed for a potential relationship between weekly set number and stage of subjects’ training (trained versus untrained). Methods
Computerised searches were performed on PubMed, MEDLINE, SWETSWISE, EMBASE and SPORTDiscus™ using the terms ‘strength training’, ‘resistance training’, ‘single sets’, ‘multiple sets’ and ‘volume’. As of September 2016, 6962 potentially relevant studies were identified. After review, nine studies were deemed eligible per pre-set inclusion criteria. Primary data were pooled using a random-effect model. Outcomes for strength gain, strength gain with multi-joint and isolation exercise were analysed for main effects. Sensitivity analyses were calculated for several subgroups by separating the data set and by calculation of separate analyses for each subgroup. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the Cochran Q and I2 statistics. ResultsPre- versus post-training strength analysis comprised 61 treatment groups from nine studies. For combined multi-joint and isolation exercises, pre- versus post- training strength gains were greater with HWS compared with LWS [mean effect size (ES) 0.18; 95% CI 0.06–0.30; p = 0.003]. The mean ES for LWS was 0.82 (95% CI 0.47–1.17). The mean ES for HWS was 1.01 (95% CI 0.70–1.32). Separate analysis of the effects of pre- versus post-training strength for LWS or MWS observed marginally greater strength gains with MWS compared with LWS (ES 0.15; 95% CI 0.01–0.30; p = 0.04). The mean ES for LWS was 0.83 (95% CI 0.53–1.13). The mean ES for MWS was 0.98 (95% CI 0.62–1.34). For multi-joint exercises, greater strength gains were observed with HWS compared with LWS (ES 0.18; 95% CI 0.01–0.34; p = 0.04). The mean ES for LWS was 0.81 (95% CI 0.65–0.97). The mean ES for HWS was 1.00 (95% CI 0.77–1.23). For isolation exercises, greater strength gains were observed with HWS compared with LWS (ES 0.23; 95% CI 0.06–0.40; p = 0.008). The mean ES for LWS was 0.95 (95% CI 0.30–1.60). The mean ES for HWS was 1.10 (95% CI 0.26–1.94). For multi-joint and isolation exercise-specific one repetition maximum (1 RM), marginally greater strength gains were observed with HWS compared with LWS (ES 0.14; 95% CI −0.01 to 0.29; p = 0.06). The mean ES for LWS was 0.80 (95% CI 0.47–1.13). The mean ES for HWS was 0.97 (95% CI 0.68–1.26). Conclusion
This meta-analysis presents additional evidence regarding a graded dose–response relationship between weekly sets performed and strength gain. The use of MWS and HWS was more effective than LWS, with LWS producing the smallest pre- to post-training strength difference. For novice and intermediate male trainees, the findings suggest that LWSs do not lead to strength gains compared with MWS or HWS training. For those trainees in the middle ground, not a novice and not advanced, the existing data provide a relationship between weekly sets and strength gain as set configurations produced different pre- to post-training strength increases. For well trained individuals, the use of either MWS or HWS may be an appropriate dose to produce strength gains.
Purpose: The present study examined the progressive implementation of a high effort resistance training (RT) approach in older adults over 6 months and through a 6 month follow-up on strength, body composition, function and wellbeing of older adults.
Methods: Twenty three older adults (aged 61 to 80 years) completed a 6 month supervised RT intervention applying progressive introduction of higher effort set end points. After completion of the intervention participants could choose to continue performing RT unsupervised until 6 months follow-up.
Results: Strength, body composition, function, and wellbeing all significantly improved over the intervention. Over the follow-up, body composition changes reverted to baseline values, strength was reduced though remained significantly higher than baseline, and wellbeing outcomes were mostly maintained. Comparisons over the follow-up between those who did, and those who did not, continue with RT revealed no significant differences for changes in any outcome measure.
Conclusions: Supervised RT employing progressive application of high effort set end points is well tolerated and effective in improving strength, body composition, function and wellbeing in older adults. However, whether participants continued, or did not, with RT unsupervised at follow-up had no effect on outcomes perhaps due to reduced effort employed during unsupervised RT.
Designing resistance training (RT) programs is a complex task that involves the manipulation of numerous variables that interact with each other, influencing the program outcomes (Tan, 1999; Paoli, 2012). The attempt to clearly define the combination of variables which would bring optimal adaptations for different outcomes is undermined by the large number of studies involving RT, the conflicting findings reported by many of them and the lack of methodological clarity and consistency in previous studies' protocols. As such, meta-analyses emerge as an attractive approach since they allow the combination of multiple studies in an attempt to estimate the effect size of a single variable, surpassing possible inadequacies of statistical power within individual studies. With this aggregation of information, a more robust estimation of the effects is possible.
However, Field (2015) has noted a pertinent philosophical objection to these types of analyses that might apply to RT studies; in essence we have a replication crisis. Researchers often attempt to perform replications of the findings from earlier studies, yet frequently they do not adequately replicate the conditions of the original study. For example, one study may examine the effects of low or high set volume whilst participants train at a frequency of twice a week using repetition ranges of 8–12 and perform sets to momentary failure. Another may examine the effects of low or high set volume whilst participants train at a frequency of five times a week using 10 repetitions per set and not having participants perform sets to momentary failure. Though the two studies might appear to be examining whether low or high set volumes produce greater adaptations, they are in fact examining these within the context of different manipulations of other RT variables. There is likely a reason for this lack of proper replication, as was noted by Richard Feynman1. Indeed, we would argue that the currently heterogeneous body of literature on the effects of the manipulation of different RT variables is evidence of this replication crisis being alive and well in our field.
In this current opinion article we explain specifically why it might be unwise to conduct meta-analyses with such heterogeneous RT studies noting the effects of different confounding RT variables, and also suggest that it might be irresponsible to make general estimates of RT effects and propose recommendations.
Prior resistance training (RT) recommendations and position stands have discussed variables that can be manipulated when producing RT interventions. However, one variable that has received little discussion is set end points (i.e. the end point of a set of repetitions). Set end points in RT are often considered to be proximity to momentary failure and are thought to be a primary variable determining effort in RT. Further, there has been ambiguity in use and definition of terminology that has created issues in interpretation of research findings. The purpose of this paper is to: 1) provide an overview of the ambiguity in historical terminology around set end points; 2) propose a clearer set of definitions related to set end points; and 3) highlight the issues created by poor terminology and definitions. It is hoped this might permit greater clarity in reporting, interpretation, and application of RT interventions for researchers and practitioners.
The purpose of this paper was to systematically review the current literature and elucidate the effects of total weekly resistance training (RT) volume on changes in measures of muscle mass via meta-regression. The final analysis comprised 34 treatment groups from 15 studies. Outcomes for weekly sets as a continuous variable showed a significant effect of volume on changes in muscle size (P = 0.002). Each additional set was associated with an increase in effect size (ES) of 0.023 corresponding to an increase in the percentage gain by 0.37%. Outcomes for weekly sets categorised as lower or higher within each study showed a significant effect of volume on changes in muscle size (P = 0.03); the ES difference between higher and lower volumes was 0.241, which equated to a percentage gain difference of 3.9%. Outcomes for weekly sets as a three-level categorical variable (<5, 5-9 and 10+ per muscle) showed a trend for an effect of weekly sets (P = 0.074). The findings indicate a graded dose-response relationship whereby increases in RT volume produce greater gains in muscle hypertrophy.
Muscle strength is often measured through the performance of a one-repetition maximum (1RM). However, we that feel a true measurement of ‘strength’ remains elusive. For example, low-load alternatives to traditional resistance training result in muscle hypertrophic changes similar to those resulting from traditional high-load resistance training, with less robust changes observed with maximal strength measured by the 1RM. However, when strength is measured using a test to which both groups are ‘naive’, differences in strength become less apparent. We suggest that the 1RM is a specific skill, which will improve most when training incorporates its practice or when a lift is completed at a near-maximal load. Thus, if we only recognize increases in the 1RM as indicative of strength, we will overlook many effective and diverse alternatives to traditional high-load resistance training. We wish to suggest that multiple measurements of strength assessment be utilized in order to capture a more complete picture of the adaptation to resistance training.
Most studies of resistance training (RT) examine methods that do not resemble typical training practices of persons participating in RT. Ecologically valid RT programs more representative of such practices are seldom compared. This study compared two such approaches to RT. Thirty participants (males, n=13; females, n=17) were randomised to either a group performing low volume 'High Intensity Training' (HIT; n=16) or high volume 'Body-building' (3ST; n=14) RT methods 2x/week for 10 weeks. Outcomes included muscular performance, body composition, and participant's subjective assessments. Both HIT and 3ST groups improved muscular performance significantly (as indicated by 95% confidence intervals) with large effect sizes (ES; 0.97 to 1.73 and 0.88 to 1.77 respectively). HIT had significantly greater muscular performance gains for 3 of 9 tested exercises compared with 3ST (p < 0.05) and larger effect sizes for 8 of 9 exercises. Body composition did not significantly change in either group. However, effect sizes for whole body muscle mass changes were slightly more favourable in the HIT group compared with the 3ST group (0.27 and -0.34 respectively) in addition to whole body fat mass (0.03 and 0.43 respectively) and whole body fat percentage (-0.10 and -0.44 respectively). Significant muscular performance gains can be produced using either HIT or 3ST. However, muscular performance gains may be greater when using HIT. Future research should look to identify which components of ecologically valid RT programs are primarily responsible for these differences in outcome.
The study's purpose was to compare the response of performing 1, 3 and 5-sets on measures of performance and muscle hypertrophy. Forty eight men, with no weight training experience, were randomly assigned to one of three training groups, 1-SET, 3-SETS, 5-SETS, or control group (CG). All training groups performed three resistance training sessions per week for six months. The 5RM for all training groups increased in the bench press (BP), front lat pull down (LPD), shoulder press (SP) and leg press (LP) (p≤0.05), with the 5RM increases in the BP and LPD being significantly greater for 5-SETS compared to the other training groups (p ≤ 0.05). BP 20RM in the 3- and 5-SETS groups significantly increased with the increase being significantly greater than the 1-SET group and the 5-SETS group increase being significantly greater than the 3-SETS group (p≤0.05). LP 20RM increased in all training groups (p≤0.05), with the 5-SETS group showing a significantly greater increase than the 1-SET group (p≤0.05). The 3- and 5-SETS groups significantly increased elbow flexor muscle thickness (MT) with the 5-SETS increase being significantly greater than the other two training groups (p≤0.05). The 5-SETS group significantly increased elbow extensor MT with the increase being significantly greater than the other training groups (p≤0.05). All training groups decreased percent body fat, increased fat free mass and vertical jump ability (p≤0.05), with no differences between groups. The results demonstrate a dose response for the number of sets per exercise and a superiority of multiple sets compared to a single set per exercise for strength gains, muscle endurance and upper arm muscle hypertrophy.
Aim:
This study examined low volume resistance training (RT) in trained participants with and without advanced training methods.
Methods:
Trained participants (RT experience 4+3 years) were randomised to groups performing single set RT;; ssRM (n = 21) performing repetitions to self--determined repetition maximum (RM), ssMMF (n = 30) performing repetitions to momentary muscular failure (MMF), and ssRP (n = 28) performing repetitions to self--determined RM using a rest pause (RP) method. Each performed supervised RT 2x/week for 10 weeks. Outcomes included maximal isometric strength and body composition using bioelectrical impedance analysis.
Results:
The ssRM group did not significantly improve in any outcome. The ssMMF and ssRP groups both significantly improved strength (p < 0.05). Magnitude of changes using effect size (ES) was examined between groups. Strength ES's were considered large for ssMMF (0.91 to 1.57) and ranging small to large for ssRP (0.42 to 1.06). Body composition data revealed significant improvements (p < 0.05) in muscle and fat mass and percentages for whole body, upper limbs and trunk for ssMMF, but only upper limbs for ssRP. Body composition ES's ranged moderate to large for ssMMF (0.56 to 1.27) and ranged small to moderate for ssRP (0.28 to 0.52). ssMMF also significantly improved (p < 0.05) total abdominal fat and increased intracellular water with moderate ES's (--0.62 and 0.56 respectively).
Conclusion:
Training to self--determined RM is not efficacious for trained participants. Training to MMF produces greatest improvements in strength and body composition, however, RP style training does offer some benefit.
Training attendance is an important variable for attaining optimal results after a resistance training (RT) program, however, the association of attendance with the gains of muscle strength is not well defined. Therefore, the purpose of the present study is to verify if attendance would affect muscle strength gains in healthy young males.
Ninety two young males with no previous RT experience volunteered to participate in the study. RT was performed 2 days a week for 11 weeks. One repetition maximum (1RM) in the bench press and knee extensors peak torque (PT) were measured before and after the training period. After the training period, a two step cluster analysis was used to classify the participants in accordance to training attendance, resulting in three groups, defined as high (92 to 100%), intermediate (80 to 91%) and low (60 to 79%) training attendance.
According to the results, there were no significant correlations between strength gains and training attendance, however, when attendance groups were compared, the low training attendance group showed lower increases in 1RM bench press (8.8%) than the other two groups (17.6% and 18.0% for high and intermediate attendance, respectively).
Although there is not a direct correlation between training attendance and muscle strength gains, it is suggested that a minimum attendance of 80% is necessary to ensure optimal gains in upper body strength.
This study examined the effects of different volumes of resistance training on muscle size and function over a 10-wk period. Low volume = 3 sets per muscle group per week; moderate = 6 sets; high = 12 sets. Twenty-seven men with 1-4 yrs weight training experience were randomly assigned to the different training volumes and trained 4 days a week. A periodized routine was used; exercises, training intensity, and number of training days were the same for each group. The only variation between conditions was the number of sets per exercise. Pre and post measurements assessed muscular size via ultrasound; strength via maximum squat and bench press; and power via vertical jump and bench press throw. Urinary concentrations of test-osterone and cortisol were also analyzed to assess the responses to training conditions. All 3 training volumes significantly (p < 0.05) increased muscle size, strength, and upper body power, with no significant between-group differences. There were no significant changes in hormonal concentrations. The results support the use of low volume training for muscular development over a 10-wk period.
(C) 1997 National Strength and Conditioning Association
The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of 8 wk of resistance training to failure versus not to failure training regimens at both moderate and low volumes for increasing upper-body strength and power as well as cardiovascular parameters into a combined resistance and endurance periodized training scheme.
Forty-three trained male rowers were matched and then randomly assigned to four groups that performed the same endurance training but differed on their resistance training regimen: four exercises leading to repetition failure (4RF; n = 14), four exercises not leading to failure (4NRF; n = 15), two exercises not to failure (2NRF; n = 6), and control group (C; n = 8). One-repetition maximum strength and maximal muscle power output during prone bench pull (BP), average power during a 20-min all-out row test (W 20 min), average row power output eliciting a blood lactate concentration of 4 mmol x L(-1) (W 4 mmol x L(-1)), and power output in 10 maximal strokes (W 10 strokes) were assessed before and after 8 wk of periodized training.
4NRF group experienced larger gains in one- repetition maximum strength and muscle power output (4.6% and 6.4%, respectively) in BP compared with both 4RF (2.1% and j1.2%) and 2NRF (0.6% and -0.6%). 4NRF and 2NRF groups experienced larger gains in W 10 strokes (3.6% and 5%) and in W 20 min (7.6% and 9%) compared with those found after 4RF (-0.1% and 4.6%), whereas no significant differences between groups were observed in the magnitude of changes in W 4 mmol x L(-1) (4NRF = 6.2%, 4RF = 5.3%, 2NRF = 6.8%, and C = 4.5%).
An 8-wk linear periodized concurrent strength and endurance training program using a moderate number of repetitions not to failure (4NRF group) provides a favorable environment for achieving greater enhancements in strength, muscle power, and rowing performance when compared with higher training volumes of repetitions to failure in experienced highly trained rowers.
Strength training is an important component in sports training and rehabilitation. Quantification of the dose-response relationships between training variables and the outcome is fundamental for the proper prescription of resistance training. The purpose of this comprehensive review was to identify dose-response relationships for the development of muscle hypertrophy by calculating the magnitudes and rates of increases in muscle cross-sectional area induced by varying levels of frequency, intensity and volume, as well as by different modes of strength training.
Computer searches in the databases MEDLINE, SportDiscus® and CJNAHL® were performed as well as hand searches of relevant journals, books and reference lists. The analysis was limited to the quadriceps femoris and the elbow flexors, since these were the only muscle groups that allowed for evaluations of dose-response trends. The modes of strength training were classified as dynamic external resistance (including free weights and weight machines), accommodating resistance (e.g. isokinetic and semi-isokinetic devices) and isometric resistance. The subcategories related to the types of muscle actions used. The results demonstrate that given sufficient frequency, intensity and volume of work, all three types of muscle actions can induce significant hypertrophy at an impressive rate and that, at present, there is insufficient evidence for the superiority of any mode and/or type of muscle action over other modes and types of training. Tentative dose-response relationships for each variable are outlined, based on the available evidence, and interactions between variables are discussed. In addition, recommendations for training and suggestions for further research are given.
Purpose:
A linear dose-response relationship between resistance training (RT) volume and hypertrophy/strength has been proposed when ≤10-12 weekly sets are implemented. The present study aimed to understand the impact of low-to-high weekly RT volume on muscular adaptations in trained young males over 6-weeks of RT.
Methods:
RT-experienced males (n=49) were randomly allocated to a LOW (n=17), moderate (MOD; n=15) or HIGH (n=17) volume group, performing 9, 18 or 27 weekly sets of biceps RT, respectively, for 6-weeks. RT was performed once (LOW) or twice (MOD and HIGH) weekly. Post-exercise protein intake was controlled with both dietary intake and external training volume recorded. Prior-to and following RT, assessments of biceps muscle thickness (MT) via ultrasound, isometric and one repetition maximum (1RM) strength were performed. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA (baseline characteristics) and repeated measures ANOVA (within and between group pre-to-post change) Results: MT significantly increased in all groups (4.3±7.9%, 9.5±11.8% and 5.4±6.3% for LOW, MOD, HIGH, respectively, p<0.05) as did 1RM strength (p≤0.001 for all). Isometric strength increased significantly in HIGH only (8.5±15.1%, p<0.05). There were no significant differences between groups in MT or indices of strength. However, effect size estimates revealed the magnitude of response was 'moderate-to-large' for MOD and HIGH when compared with LOW.
Conclusion:
Our findings demonstrate that 9 weekly sets of biceps-focused RT, performed in one weekly session, is sufficient to increase MT, whilst 18-27 sets, performed over two weekly sessions, may confer greater strength increases.
Resistance exercise (RE) volume is recognized as an important factor that stimulates muscle protein synthesis (MPS) and is considered, at least in part, to be involved in the mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1)-associated signaling. However, the effects of relatively high-volume RE on mTORC1 and MPS remain unclear. In the present study, we used an animal model of RE to investigate the relationship between RE volume and MPS. Male Sprague-Dawley rats were subjected to RE, and muscle samples were obtained 6 h after performing 1, 3, 5, 10, or 20 sets of RE. Although 1 set of RE did not increase MPS [measured by the surface sensing of translation (SUnSET) method], multiple sets (3, 5, 10, and 20 sets) significantly increased MPS. However, the increase in MPS reached a plateau after 3 or 5 sets of RE, and no further increase in MPS was observed with additional RE sets. In contrast to the MPS response, we observed that p70S6K phosphorylation at Thr389, a marker of mTORC1 activity, and Ser240/244 phosphorylation of rpS6, a downstream target of p70S6K, gradually increased with higher RE volume. The above results suggest that the relationship between RE volume and MPS was not linear. Thus the increase in MPS with increasing RE volume saturates before p70S6K phosphorylation, suggesting a threshold effect for the relationship between p70S6K activation and MPS.
NEW & NOTEWORTHY The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between resistance exercise (RE) volume and muscle protein synthesis. We found that the relationship between RE volume and p70S6K phosphorylation was almost linear, but the increase in muscle protein synthesis began to plateau after approximately five sets of RE.
This study investigated the effects of a 10-week resistance training to failure on neuromuscular adaptations in young women. Eighty-nine active young women were randomly assigned to one of three groups: 1) repetitions to failure (RF; three sets of repetitions to failure); 2) repetitions not to failure with equalized volume (RNFV; four sets of 7 repetitions); and 3) repetitions not to failure (RNF; three sets of 7 repetitions). All groups performed the elbow flexor exercise (bilateral biceps curl) and trained 2 days per week using 70% of 1RM. There were significant increases (p<0.05) in muscle strength after 5 (15.9% for RF, 18.4% for RNF, and 19.9% for RNFV) and 10 (28.3% for RF, 26.8% for RNF, and 28.3% for RNFV) weeks of training, with no significant differences between groups. Additionally, muscular endurance increased after 5 and 10 weeks, with no differences between groups. However, peak torque (PT) increased significantly at 180°.s-1 in the RNFV (13.7%) and RNF (4.1%) groups (p<0.05), whereas no changes were observed in the RF group (-0.5%). Muscle thickness increased significantly (p<0.05) in the RF and RNFV groups after 5 (RF: 8.4% and RNFV: 2.3%) and 10 weeks of training (RF: 17.5%, and RNFV: 8.5%), whereas no significant changes were observed in the RNF group (3.9 and 2.1% after 5 and 10 weeks, respectively). These data suggest that short-term training of repetitions to failure do not yield additional overall neuromuscular improvements in young women.
German Volume Training (GVT), or the 10 sets method, has been used for decades by weightlifters to increase muscle mass. To date, no study has directly examined the training adaptations following GVT. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of a modified GVT intervention on muscular hypertrophy and strength. Nineteen healthy males were randomly assign to 6 weeks of 10 or 5 sets of 10 repetitions for specific compound resistance exercises included in a split-routine performed 3 times per week. . Total and regional lean body mass, muscle thickness, and muscle strength were measured before and after the training program. Across groups, there were significant increases in lean body mass measures, however greater increases in trunk (p = 0.043; ES = -0.21) and arm (p = 0.083; ES = -0.25) lean body mass favored the 5-SET group. No significant increases were found for leg lean body mass or measures of muscle thickness across groups. Significant increases were found across groups for muscular strength, with greater increases in the 5-SET group for bench press (p = 0.014; ES = -0.43) and lat pull-down (p = 0.003; ES = -0.54). It seems that the modified GVT program is no more effective than performing 5 sets per exercise for increasing muscle hypertrophy and strength. To maximize hypertrophic training effects it is recommended that 4-6 sets per exercise be performed, as it appears gains will plateau beyond this set range and may even regress due to overtraining.
Objectifs
Étudier les effets du volume d’entraînement en résistance sur les adaptations des différents groupements musculaires chez des jeunes gens non-entraînés.
Équipements et méthodes
Les volontaires ont été répartis aléatoirement en deux groupes : (1) trois séries d’extension du genou et une unique série de flexion du coude (3G-1C, n = 11), ou (2) une unique série d’extension du genou et trois séries de flexion du coude (1G-3C ; n = 13). Les volontaires ont été entraînés deux jours par semaine pendant 12 semaines. Le pic du torque (PT) a été mesuré à 60° s−1. L’épaisseur musculaire (EM) a été mesurée par échographie.
Résultats
L’EM des fléchisseurs du coude a augmenté de manière significative pour les deux groupes (7,2 % pour 3G-1C et 5,9 % pour 1G-3C), tandis que les changements dans les EM des quadriceps ne sont pas significatifs pour les deux groupes (2,5 % pour 3G-1C et 2,9 % pour 1G-3C). Les augmentations de PT des fléchisseurs du coude ont été de 11,2 % pour 3G-1C et 12,5 % pour 1G-3C (p < 0,05 pour les deux). Les changements des PT des extenseurs du genou ont été significatifs pour 3G-1C (10,9 %, p < 0,05) mais pas pour 1G-3C (5,1 %, p > 0,05).
Conclusion
Les protocoles d’entraînement avec des séries simples peuvent être suffisants pour augmenter la force et l’EM des fléchisseurs du coude et la force musculaire des extenseurs du genou chez les personnes non-entraînées. Par ailleurs, aucune des stimulations de l’entraînement (une ou trois séries) n’a été suffisante pour améliorer l’EM des extenseurs du genou.
To investigate the role of fatigue in strength training, strength increases produced by a training protocol in which subjects rested between contractions were compared with those produced when subjects did not rest. Forty-two healthy subjects were randomly allocated to either a no-rest group, a rest group, or a control group. Subjects in the two training groups trained their elbow flexor muscles by lifting a 6RM weight 6-10 times on 3 d each week for 6 wk. Subjects in the no-rest group performed repeated lifts without resting, whereas subjects in the rest group rested for 30 s between lifts. Both training groups performed the same number of lifts at the same relative intensity. The control group did not train. Subjects who trained without rests experienced significantly greater mean increases in dynamic strength (56.3% +/- 6.8% (SD)) than subjects who trained with rests (41.2% +/- 6.6%), and both training groups experienced significantly greater mean increases in dynamic strength than the control group (19.7% +/- 6.6%). It was concluded that greater short-term strength increases are achieved when subjects are required to lift training weights without resting. These findings suggest that processes associated with fatigue contribute to the strength training stimulus.
The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of increasing training volume from one set to three sets on muscular strength, muscular endurance, and body composition in adult recreational weight lifters.
Forty-two adults (age 39.7 +/- 6.2 yr; 6.2 +/- 4.6 yr weight training experience) who had been performing one set using a nine-exercise resistance training circuit (RTC) for a minimum of 1 yr participated in this study. Subjects continued to perform one set (EX-1; N = 21) or performed three sets (EX-3; N = 21) of 8-12 repetitions to muscular failure 3 d x wk(-1) for 13 wk using RTC. One repetition maximums (1-RM) were measured for leg extension (LE), leg curl (LC), chest press (CP), overhead press (OP), and biceps curl (BC). Muscular endurance was evaluated for the CP and LE as the number of repetitions to failure using 75% of pretraining 1-RM. Body composition was estimated using the sum of seven skinfold measures.
Both groups significantly improved muscular endurance and 1 RM strength (EX-1 by: 13.6% LE; 9.2% LC; 11.9% CP; 8.7% OP; 8.3% BC; and EX-3 by: 12.8% LE; 12.0% LC; 13.5% CP; 12.4% OP; 10.3% BC) (P < 0.05). Both groups significantly improved lean body mass (P < 0.05). No significant differences between groups were found for any of the test variables (P > 0.05).
Both groups significantly improved muscular fitness and body composition as a result of the 13 wk of training. The results show that one-set programs are still effective even after a year of training and that increasing training volume over 13 wk does not lead to significantly greater improvements in fitness for adult recreational weight lifters.
The purpose of this study was to compare single and multiple sets of weight training for strength gains in recreationally trained individuals. Sixteen men (age = 21 +/- 2.0) were randomly assigned to 1 set (S-1; n = 8) or 3 set (S-3; n = 8) groups and trained 3 days per week for 12 weeks. One repetition maximum (1RM) was recorded for bench press and leg press at pre-, mid-, and posttest. Subjects trained according to daily undulating periodization (DUP), involving the bench press and leg press exercises between 4RM and 8RM. Training intensity was equated for both groups. Analysis of variance with repeated measures revealed statistically significant differences favoring S-3 in the leg press (p < 0.05, effect size [ES] = 6.5) and differences approaching significance in the bench press (p = 0.07, ES = 2.3). The results demonstrate that for recreationally trained individuals using DUP training, 3 sets of training are superior to 1 set for eliciting maximal strength gains.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the importance of training leading to repetition failure in the performance of 2 different tests: 6 repetition maximum (6RM) bench press strength and 40-kg bench throw power in elite junior athletes. Subjects were 26 elite junior male basketball players (n = 12; age = 18.6 +/- 0.3 years; height = 202.0 +/- 11.6 cm; mass = 97.0 +/- 12.9 kg; mean +/- SD) and soccer players (n = 14; age = 17.4 +/- 0.5 years; height = 179.0 +/- 7.0 cm; mass = 75.0 +/- 7.1 kg) with a history of greater than 6 months' strength training. Subjects were initially tested twice for 6RM bench press mass and 40-kg Smith machine bench throw power output (in watts) to establish retest reliability. Subjects then undertook bench press training with 3 sessions per week for 6 weeks, using equal volume programs (24 repetitions x 80-105% 6RM in 13 minutes 20 seconds). Subjects were assigned to one of two experimental groups designed either to elicit repetition failure with 4 sets of 6 repetitions every 260 seconds (RF(4 x 6)) or allow all repetitions to be completed with 8 sets of 3 repetitions every 113 seconds (NF(8 x 3)). The RF(4 x 6) treatment elicited substantial increases in strength (7.3 +/- 2.4 kg, +9.5%, p < 0.001) and power (40.8 +/- 24.1 W, +10.6%, p < 0.001), while the NF(8 x 3) group elicited 3.6 +/- 3.0 kg (+5.0%, p < 0.005) and 25 +/- 19.0 W increases (+6.8%, p < 0.001). The improvements in the RF(4 x 6) group were greater than those in the repetition rest group for both strength (p < 0.005) and power (p < 0.05). Bench press training that leads to repetition failure induces greater strength gains than nonfailure training in the bench press exercise for elite junior team sport athletes.
The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of 11 wk of resistance training to failure vs. nonfailure, followed by an identical 5-wk peaking period of maximal strength and power training for both groups as well as to examine the underlying physiological changes in basal circulating anabolic and catabolic hormones. Forty-two physically active men were matched and then randomly assigned to either a training to failure (RF; n = 14), nonfailure (NRF; n = 15), or control groups (C; n = 13). Muscular and power testing and blood draws to determine basal hormonal concentrations were conducted before the initiation of training (T0), after 6 wk of training (T1), after 11 wk of training (T2), and after 16 wk of training (T3). Both RF and NRF resulted in similar gains in 1-repetition maximum bench press (23 and 23%) and parallel squat (22 and 23%), muscle power output of the arm (27 and 28%) and leg extensor muscles (26 and 29%), and maximal number of repetitions performed during parallel squat (66 and 69%). RF group experienced larger gains in the maximal number of repetitions performed during the bench press. The peaking phase (T2 to T3) after NRF resulted in larger gains in muscle power output of the lower extremities, whereas after RF it resulted in larger gains in the maximal number of repetitions performed during the bench press. Strength training leading to RF resulted in reductions in resting concentrations of IGF-1 and elevations in IGFBP-3, whereas NRF resulted in reduced resting cortisol concentrations and an elevation in resting serum total testosterone concentration. This investigation demonstrated a potential beneficial stimulus of NRF for improving strength and power, especially during the subsequent peaking training period, whereas performing sets to failure resulted in greater gains in local muscular endurance. Elevation in IGFBP-3 after resistance training may have been compensatory to accommodate the reduction in IGF-1 to preserve IGF availability.