ArticlePDF Available

Treinamento da força muscular: concordância entre os padrões metodológicos e a prescrição por profissionais do fitness Strength training: the agreement between methodological standards and prescription by fitness professionals Revista Brasileira de Fisiologia do Exercício RBFEx

Authors:

Abstract

How to cite: Cantieri FP, Arruda GA, Coledam DHC, Gomes AC, Aranha ACM, Barros MVG, et al. Strength training: the agreement between methodological standards and prescription by fitness professionals. Rev Bras Fisiol Exerc 2022;21(1):15-25. https://doi. ABSTRACT Introduction: The scientific advances have resulted in proposed methodologic standards to assist the prescription of physical exercise, but it is not clear whether there is a practical application of these standards by fitness professionals. Objective: To analyze the agreement between the methodologic standard for strength training and the methodology used by the fitness professionals. Methods: 461 professionals (men = 68.1%), aged 31.3 (± 6.8) years old, from the city of Londrina/PR and São Paulo/SP participated in the study, who filled out a questionaire containing 16 objective questions about strength training methodology. The Binomial test (cutoffs: 50% and 70%) was used for statistical analysis (p < 0.05). Results: Agreement significantly greater than 70% was obtained for 37.5% of the questions when considering agreement greater than 50%, plus 12.5% of the questtions were added. Agreements significantly less than 50% were identified for the number of repetitions for local muscle endurance (33.5%), load percentage for muscle power (39.5%), as well as for the rest interval for local muscle endurance (19.3%), hypertrophy (33.8%) and muscle power (20.3%). Conclusion: In general, the prescriptions indicated by fitness professionals had low agreement with the analyzed methodologic standards. RESUMO Introdução: Avanços científicos resultaram em padrões metodológicos propostos para auxiliar na prescri-ção do exercício físico, porém ainda não está claro se há aplicação prática de tais padrões por profissionais do fitness. Objetivo: Analisar a concordância entre padrões metodológicos para treinamento de força muscular e a metodologia utilizada por profissionais que atuam na área do fitness. Métodos: Participa-ram do estudo 461 profissionais (homens = 68,1%) com média de 31,3 (± 6,8) anos da cidade de Londrina/ PR e São Paulo/SP, que preencheram um questionário contendo 16 questões objetivas sobre metodologia do treinamento de força. O teste Binomial (cutoffs: 50% e 70%) foi utilizado para as análises estatísticas (p < 0,05). Resultados: Concordância significativamente maior que 70% foi obtida para 37,5% das questões. Ao considerar concordância maior que 50% mais 12,5% das questões foram adicionadas. Concordâncias significativamente inferiores a 50% foram identificadas para o número de repetições para a resistência muscular localizada (33,5%), percentual de carga para potência (39,5%), bem como para o intervalo de re-cuperação para resistência muscular localizada (19,3%), hipertrofia (33,8%) e potência (20,3%). Conclusão: A prescrição apontada pelos profissionais que atuam com fitness em geral apresentou baixa concordância com os padrões metodológicos analisados. Palavras-chave: treinamento resistido; exercício; diretrizes práticas; aptidão física; saúde.
15
Treinamento da força muscular: concordância entre os padrões metodológicos
e a prescrição por profissionais do fitness
Strength training: the agreement between methodological
standards and prescription by fitness professionals
Correspondence: Francys Paula Cantieri, Rua Olavo Bilac, 72/1204, 51021-480 Recife PE. francyspaulapersonal@
gmail.com
Received: March 30, 2021; Accepted: November 5, 2021.
Francys Paula Cantieri1 , Gustavo Aires de Arruda1 , Diogo Henrique Constantino Coledam2 ,
Antonio Carlos Gomes3 , Ágata Cristina Marques Aranha4 , Mauro Virgilio Gomes de Barros1 ,
Marzo Edir Da Silva Grigoletto5
1. Universidade de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brazil
2. Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
3. Instituto Olimpico Brasileiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
4. Universidade Trás-dos-Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal
5. Universidade Federal de Sergipe, Aracaju, SE, Brazil
How to cite: Cantieri FP, Arruda GA, Coledam DHC, Gomes AC, Aranha ACM, Barros MVG, et al. Strength training: the agreement
between methodological standards and prescription by fitness professionals. Rev Bras Fisiol Exerc 2022;21(1):15-25. https://doi.
org/10.33233/rbfex.v21i1.4270
ABSTRACT
Introduction: The scientific advances have resulted in proposed methodologic standards to assist the
prescription of physical exercise, but it is not clear whether there is a practical application of these stan-
dards by fitness professionals. Objective: To analyze the agreement between the methodologic standard
for strength training and the methodology used by the fitness professionals. Methods: 461 professionals
(men = 68.1%), aged 31.3 (± 6.8) years old, from the city of Londrina/PR and São Paulo/SP participated in
the study, who filled out a questionaire containing 16 objective questions about strength training metho-
dology. The Binomial test (cutoffs: 50% and 70%) was used for statistical analysis (p < 0.05). Results: Agree-
ment significantly greater than 70% was obtained for 37.5% of the questions when considering agreement
greater than 50%, plus 12.5% of the questtions were added. Agreements significantly less than 50% were
identified for the number of repetitions for local muscle endurance (33.5%), load percentage for muscle
power (39.5%), as well as for the rest interval for local muscle endurance (19.3%), hypertrophy (33.8%) and
muscle power (20.3%). Conclusion: In general, the prescriptions indicated by fitness professionals had
low agreement with the analyzed methodologic standards.
Keywords: resistance training; exercise; practice guidelines; physical fitness; health.
RESUMO
Introdução: Avanços científicos resultaram em padrões metodológicos propostos para auxiliar na prescri-
ção do exercício físico, porém ainda não está claro se há aplicação prática de tais padrões por profissionais
do fitness. Objetivo: Analisar a concordância entre padrões metodológicos para treinamento de força
muscular e a metodologia utilizada por profissionais que atuam na área do fitness. Métodos: Participa-
ram do estudo 461 profissionais (homens = 68,1%) com média de 31,3 (± 6,8) anos da cidade de Londrina/
PR e São Paulo/SP, que preencheram um questionário contendo 16 questões objetivas sobre metodologia
do treinamento de força. O teste Binomial (cutoffs: 50% e 70%) foi utilizado para as análises estatísticas (p
< 0,05). Resultados: Concordância significativamente maior que 70% foi obtida para 37,5% das questões.
Ao considerar concordância maior que 50% mais 12,5% das questões foram adicionadas. Concordâncias
significativamente inferiores a 50% foram identificadas para o número de repetições para a resistência
muscular localizada (33,5%), percentual de carga para potência (39,5%), bem como para o intervalo de re-
cuperação para resistência muscular localizada (19,3%), hipertrofia (33,8%) e potência (20,3%). Conclusão:
A prescrição apontada pelos profissionais que atuam com fitness em geral apresentou baixa concordância
com os padrões metodológicos analisados.
Palavras-chave: treinamento resistido; exercício; diretrizes práticas; aptidão física; saúde.
Original article
Revista Brasileira de
Fisiologia do Exercício
ISSN Online: 2675-1372
RBFEx
16
Rev Bras Fisiol Exerc 2022;21(1):15-25
Introduction
The popularization of strength training stimulated the investigation of this
phenomenon to identify its health benefits, as well as its applicability in the pre-
vention and treatment of degenerative diseases related to physical inactivity [1,2].
Scientific evidence has pointed out many possible health benefits of strength trai-
ning to different population groups at various stages of life. Among these effects are
increase resting metabolic rate and a decrease of low-density lipoprotein [3], post-
-exercise hypotension [4], benefits in the neuromuscular system [5,6] along cognitive
and mental health aspects [7].
In 2007, the descriptor “muscle strength” was introduced in the National Li-
brary of Medical Subject Headings and defined as the amount of force generated by
muscle contraction. Stimuli of different magnitudes applied to the muscular system
through strength training promote distinct functional and morphological adapta-
tions in the body [8,9]. Therefore, the prescription process must be based on the as-
pect of the neuromuscular activity specificity, the percentage of musculature invol-
ved in the action, the type of fiber, muscle work and motor necessity [10,11].
The total training intensity is represented as the product of the total number
of sets and repetitions performed in one session multiplied by the load used in each
repetition [12,13] and directly depends on the rest interval adopted between the sets.
Muscle adaptations depend both on the type of program used and the mani-
pulation of total training intensity [1,9,10,14]. It can alter the final result in the maxi-
mal muscle strength (MS) which could be described as the increase in the capacity to
generate strength against maximum resistance, in muscle hypertrophy (MH) repre-
sented by an increase in muscle volume, local muscle endurance (ME) characterized
by higher resistance to fatigue during prolonged efforts, as well as muscle power
(MP) that could be defined as the ability of the neuromuscular system to overcome
resistance by applying high contraction speeds [1,10,12,15,16].
Although there is the understanding that professional practice is guided by
scientific knowledge acquired during academic training [17], there seem to be diver-
gences between methodologic standards and the practical application of professio-
nals. The knowledge of professionals about such guidelines was previously investi-
gated [18,19]; however, to the best of our knowledge, there are no studies that verify
the agreement between the scientific standards and professional practice. This infor-
mation can contribute to professional practices, just like in the curriculum reformu-
lation of higher education courses.
In this perspective, the present study aimed to analyze the agreement betwe-
en the methodologic standards for muscle strength training and the methodology
used by the fitness professional.
17
Rev Bras Fisiol Exerc 2022;21(1):15-25
Methods
This is an observational study with a cross-sectional design as part of a lar-
ger project with data collected in 2014 over two months. All participants signed the
consent form, and the study protocol was approved by the Human Research Ethics
Committee No: 1.013.727.
Participants
The sample consisted of 461 Physical Education professionals who attend
postgraduate courses in Londrina/PR or São Paulo/SP.
Only professionals enrolled in the Federal Council of Physical Education
(CONFEF) were included in the study. Those who did not answer all of the instru-
ment’s questions regarding strength training or indicated more than one alternative
for the same question were excluded from the analysis.
Instrument
A questionnaire was specifically constructed for this study containing 46 ob-
jective questions with six alternatives for each question [20]. For this study, were
used 16 questions comprising aspects such as training method, motor performance,
and exercise volume and intensity variables related to strength training variables, as
described in chart I.
Chart I - Questions related to strength training variables
Questions A B C D E F
Load (% 1RM)
1. What percentage of load do you prescribe to
develop maximum strength?
1-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100* P.N.A
2. What percentage of load do you prescribe to
develop endurance?
1-20 21-40 41-60* 61-80 81-100 P.N.A
3. What percentage of load do you prescribe to
develop hypertrophy?
1-20 21-40 41-60 61-80* 81-100 P.N.A
4. What percentage of load do you prescribe to
develop power?
1-20 21-40* 41-60* 61-80 81-100 P.N.A
Number of sets (average)
9. How many sets of each exercise do you prescri-
be endurance?
1 2 3* 4* >4 P.N.A
10. How many sets of each exercise do you pres-
cribe for hypertrophy?
1 2 3 4* >4* P.N.A
11. How many sets of each exercise do you pres-
cribe for maximum strength?
1 2 3* 4* >4 P.N.A
12. How many sets of each exercise do you pres-
cribe for power?
1 2 3 4* >4* P.N.A
Number of repetitions (average)
13. How many repetitions per set do you prescri-
be maximum strength?
1-4* 5-8* 9-12 13-16 >16 P.N.A
18
Rev Bras Fisiol Exerc 2022;21(1):15-25
14. How many repetitions per set do you prescri-
be hypertrophy?
1-4 5-8* 9-12* 13-16 >16 P.N.A
15. How many repetitions per set do you prescri-
be power?
1-4* 5-8* 9-12 13-16 >16 P.N.A
16. How many repetitions per set do you prescri-
be endurance?
1-4 5-8 9-12 13-16 >16* P.N.A
Rest interval (sec) (average)
17. How much rest interval between sets do you
prescribe for maximun strength?
30 31-45 46-60 61-90 >90* P.N.A
18. How much rest interval between sets do you
prescribe for endurance?
30 31-45 46-60 61-90* >90* P.N.A
19. How much rest interval between sets do you
prescribe hypertrophy?
30 31-45 46-60 61-90* >90* P.N.A
20. How rest interval between sets do you pres-
cribe for power?
30 31-45 46-60 61-90 >90* P.N.A
P.N.A: I prefer not to answer; *the alternative considered to be in accordance with the standard
The instrument had acceptable test-retest reliability by Kappa test (fair to
good), and Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.8, the questions used were just those related to
muscle strength training.
To respond to the objective of the present study and considering a large
amount of information available regarding the prescription of strength training, it
was decided to adopt the training standard described by scientific studies with in-
ternational recognition for each strength training variable, as described in chart II.
Chart II - Description of the scientific training standard used as criteria for analysis of strength
training
Load
(% 1RM)
Sets Repetitions Rest Interval
(Sec)
Maximal strenght 81 - 100 3 - 4 1 - 8 90
Muscle local endurance 41 - 60 3 - 4 >16 > 60 - 120
Muscle hipertrophy 61 - 80 > 3 5 - 12 > 60
Muscle power 21 - 60 > 3 1 - 8 90
Adapted from: Garber et al. [1]; Ratamess et al. [9]; Schoenfeld et al. [10]; Verkhoshansky and Stiff
[11]; Fleck and Kraemer [12]; Krieger [13]; Bird et al. [15]; Schoenfeld et al. [16]; Perterson et al. [21];
Schoenfeld et al. [23]; Kraemer and Ratamess [24]; Wernbom et al. [26]; Grgic et al. [27]; Bottaro et al.
[28]; Hill-Haas et al. [29]
Procedures
All participants were instructed to answer all questions in the questionnaire,
indicating only one of the options and, in case of doubt, when not solved, choose the
option “Prefer not to answer (P.N.A). The collection was carried out in predetermi-
ned dates and times, during the intervals of the specialization classes and under the
supervision of the researcher responsible for the study. No clarification on methodo-
logical doubts was provided to the participants also were not allowed consultations
with specialized literature, or search sites.
Chart I - Continuation.
Questions A B C D E F
19
Rev Bras Fisiol Exerc 2022;21(1):15-25
The data were analyzed using measures of frequency for the 16 questions. For
dichotomized questions, the confidence intervals of 95% for frequencies were perfor-
med with Bootstrap (1000 samples). The binomial test was used to verify if the pro-
portion of participants who agreed or disagreed with the methodologic standards
was significantly different (proportion 50%). Considering that 70% is an acceptable
cutoff in several evaluation institutions, binomial tests were used to identify whether
the proportion of professionals who agree with the methodologic standards differs
significantly from these criteria [21]. The variables percentual of load (%), number
of sets and repetitions and rest intervals between sets were analyzed for all types of
strength. The level of significance adopted was p < 0.05. All analyses were performed
with IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 20 (IBM Corp., Armonk, N.Y., USA).
Results
The sample consisted of 314 men with an average age of 31.1 (± 6.6) years and
147 women with an average age of 31.4 (± 6.9) years.
Concerning the MS, a higher percentage of respondents opted for loads be-
tween 81 and 100% of 1RM, 3 sets, between 1 to 4 repetitions per set and adopted rest
intervals above 90 seconds. For ME prescription, the majority opted for loads betwe-
en 41 to 60% of 1RM, 3 series, between 13 to 16 repetitions and indicated between 31
to 45 seconds of the rest interval. The prescription aiming at MH presented a higher
frequency for percentages of loads between 61 to 80, most use 4 sets, between 9 to
12 and rest interval varying from 46 to 60 seconds. Finally, for MP, most participants
prescribed loads between 61 to 80% of 1RM, adopted 4 sets, with repetitions between
5 to 8 and a rest interval of 45 to 60 seconds (Table I).
In general, using the cutoff of 70% the MH presented the highest number of
questions that showed significant agreement with three questions (75%) and a lower
number of questions were found for ME and MP, both with just one question (25%).
Considering the analysis by variables, the one with the highest number of questions
that agree was the number of sets (75%) and the lowest was the rest interval, which
did not present any question with a significant agreement (Table II).
From the cutoff of 50%, the MS was the variable with the highest number of
agreement questions (100%) and the lowest number found for MP (25%). Considering
only the variables of strength training, the number of sets showed 100% agreement
of the questions and the rest interval was the one with the lowest number of agree-
ment questions (25%) (Table II).
20
Rev Bras Fisiol Exerc 2022;21(1):15-25
Table I - Frequency of responses in training variables (load, number of sets, number of repetitions, and
rest interval) in the different strength training
Type of
strenght
Load % (%) Nº Set (%) Nº Repetition (%) Rest Interval (%)
MS 1 - 20
21 - 40
41 - 60
61 - 80
81 - 100
P.N.A
0.2
0.3
3.3
14.5
78.6
3.1
1
2
3
4
> 4
P.N.A
12.8
15.2
30.8
18.1
17.6
5.5
1 - 4
5 - 8
9 - 12
13 - 16
> 16
P.N.A
73.0
17.3
4.2
0.7
0.4
4.4
30
31 -45
46 - 60
61 - 90
> 90
P.N.A
2.7
5.5
8.4
16.4
62.1
4.9
ME 1 - 20
21 - 40
41 - 60
61 - 80
81 - 100
P.N.A
0.5
4.2
52.8
36.1
3.1
3.3
1
2
3
4
> 4
P.N.A
0.4
5.6
44.5
33.1
12.8
3.6
1 - 4
5 - 8
9 - 12
13 - 16
> 16
P.N.A
4.9
9.4
10.5
38.4
33.5
3.3
30
31 - 45
46 - 60
61 - 90
> 90
P.N.A
16.0
33.2
28.1
16.7
2.6
3.4
MH 1 - 20
21 - 40
41 - 60
61 - 80
81 - 100
P.N.A
0.0
0.2
5.7
67.5
21.8
4.8
1
2
3
4
> 4
P.N.A
0.2
2.9
36.8
47.5
10.4
2.2
1 - 4
5 - 8
9 - 12
13 - 16
>16
P.N.A
3.4
25.5
61.5
4.9
1.1
3.6
30
31 - 45
46 - 60
61 - 90
> 90
P.N.A
7.5
19.9
36.6
27.2
6.6
2.2
MP 1 - 20
21 - 40
41 - 60
61 - 80
81 - 100
P.N.A
0.9
12.2
27.3
30.2
18.1
11.3
1
2
3
4
> 4
P.N.A
0.2
2.9
36.8
47.5
10.4
2.2
1 - 4
5 - 8
9 - 12
13 - 16
> 16
P.N.A
14.4
32.4
23.9
15.5
3.8
10.0
30
31 - 45
46 - 60
61 - 90
> 90
P.N.A
8.6
15.7
23.4
21.6
20.3
10.4
MS = maximal muscular strength; ME = endurance; MH = hypertrophy; MP = power; P.N.A: I Prefer not
to answer
Based on the results obtained by the binomial analysis, the proportion of
agreement was significantly higher than 50% on the following questions: 1 and 3,
related to (% of load MS and MH) 9, 10, 12, (sets ME, MH, MP respectively) 13 and
14 (repetitions MS and MH) and 17 (rest MS). Questions 2 (% load ME), 11 (sets MS)
and 15 (repetitions MP) had similar proportions of agreement and disagreement. The
proportion of agreement for questions 4 (% of load MP), 16 (repetitions ME), 18, 19
and 20 (rest ME, MH, MP respectively) was significantly less than 50%. Using the 70%
cutoff point, it was observed that 37.5% of the questions agree with the standards,
they are, questions 1 (% of load MS), 9, 10,12 (sets ME, MH, MP respectively), 13 and
14 (repetitions MS and MH). Questions 2 and 4 (% of load ME and MP), 11 (sets MS),
15 and 16 (repetitions MP and ME), 17, 18, 19 and 20 (rest MS, ME, MH, MP) were sig-
nificantly below the cutoff point and only question 3 (% of load MH) it did not differ
significantly from 70% agreement (table II).
21
Rev Bras Fisiol Exerc 2022;21(1):15-25
Table II - Agreement between methodological scientific training standard for strength training
prescription and fitness professionals’ practice
Load Agreement (%) 95%CI
Question 01 - MS 78.6 (75.1 - 82.2)*†
Question 02 - ME 52.8 (47.9 - 57.7)†
Question 03 - MH 67.5 (63.0 - 71.8)*
Question 04 - MP 39.5 (34.8 - 43.8)*†
Sets
Question 09 - ME 77.6 (73.8 - 81.4)*†
Question 10 - MH 94.7 (92.5 - 96.7)*†
Question 11 - MS 48.9 (44.3 - 53.5)†
Question 12 - MP 81.1 (77.3 - 84.6)*†
Repetition
Question 13 - MS 90.4 (87.7 - 93.0)*†
Question 14 - MH 87.0 (83.9 - 89.9)*†
Question 15 - MP 46.8 (42.1 - 51.4)†
Question 16 - ME 33.5 (29.0 - 37.9)*†
Rest
Question 17 - MS 62.1 (57.6 - 66.3)*†
Question 18 - ME 44.8 (40.0 - 49.0)*†
Question 19 - MH 33.8 (29.1 - 38.0)*†
Question 20 - MP 20.3 (16.6 -24.1)*†
*Significantly different (p < 0.05) from desagree by Binomial test (proportion 50%); † Significantly
different (p < 0.05) from reference cutoff (proportion 70%) by Binomial test. MS = maximal muscular
strength; ME = endurance; MH = hypertrophy; MP = power
Discussion
Professionals, in general, do not prescribe strength training according to
scientific recommendations. A relevant proportion of questions showed agreement
below the minimum cut-off point adopted. Considering the type of adaptation, mus-
cle hypertrophy was the training that showed the highest agreement, while the mus-
cle power training was the one that showed the lowest agreement with the scientific
training standards. When observing the training variables regardless of the type of
training, the one with the highest number of concordance questions was the number
of series and the rest interval was the variable that showed the least agreement with
methodologic standards.
Although there is no cut-off point established in the literature regarding the
agreement between the prescription adopted by the professionals and the scientific
recommendations because it is not objectively an assessment of the knowledge, it
was expected that most professionals would answer the questions in a manner cor-
responding to the methodologic standard.
22
Rev Bras Fisiol Exerc 2022;21(1):15-25
Studies suggest that MS training should prioritize loads close to maximum
capacity, with a number of average sets, reduced number of repetitions and inter-
vals above 90 seconds, to promote neural adaptations with increased recruitment of
motor units and optimization of intramuscular coordination [9,11,12,22-24]. In the
present study, all questions related to the variables of the training of MS presented
agreement greater than 50%, with emphasis on the percentage of load and number of
repetitions that exceeded 70% of agreement.
Considering the ME, only two of the four variables analyzed had an agree-
ment greater than 50% and only the number of sets exceeded the cutoff point of 70%.
In general, it was expected that, if not all, most variables would obtain an agreement
greater than 70%, since the literature indicates the development of ME in all areas of
physical exercise, due to its relevance in maintaining the parameters health of indivi-
duals, as well as in the general phases of sports training, due to its preparatory nature
for the development of other types of specific training. The low agreement observed
evidence the need for future studies that aim to diagnose the importance attributed
by professionals to the development of endurance for health and sports performance
and the frequency with which these prescriptions are carried out.
It is essential to highlight the high percentage of professionals who opted
for the number of repetitions between 1 and 12, and a rest interval below the recom-
mended. The training aimed at increasing local muscle endurance requires a high
number of repetitions with not too long intervals, which allow partial recovery of
energy substrates and promote an increase in mitochondrial and capillary numbers,
fiber type transitions and buffer capacity [1,12,15,25]. The portion of professionals
who opted for very short intervals may be referring to circuit training, however, the
recommendation for this type of prescription suggests lower loads than those indi-
cated by professionals [12].
The scientific literature advises that training aimed at hypertrophy should be
programmed with loads between 60 to 80% of maximum capacity, with a number of
sets greater than 3 and repetitions ranging from 5 to 12, with rest intervals above 60
seconds.Three of the four questions, percentage of load, number of sets and repeti-
tions related to MH were in accordance with the standard above 70% [1,9,11,13,26],
with only the question regarding the agreement rest interval being presented below
50%. This high agreement observed between professionals’ prescriptions and scien-
tific recommendations can be justified by the fact that it is a training modality wi-
dely used among professionals both for health promotion and sports performance.
In addition, the preference of practitioners for stronger and muscle definition can
lead professionals working with fitness to prioritize this type of prescription. This
interest observed in practice is reflected by the high number of scientific papers pu-
blished annually on the subject.
It was expected that the rest interval would also show an agreement greater
than 70%, since the adequate rest interval is essential for the good development of
muscle hypertrophy. Results indicate that intervals longer than 60 seconds allow the
23
Rev Bras Fisiol Exerc 2022;21(1):15-25
energetic substrates to be adequately replaced in the muscle in action [1,12,27-30]
and shorter intervals can generate early fatigue and impair the performance of sub-
sequent series and not allow significant gains in hypertrophy [29,30]. However, in
the present study, these standards were adopted by less than 40% of professionals.
When analyzing the prescription for the development of MP, only the ques-
tion regarding the number of sets had an agreement greater than 70%. The questions
related to the percentage of load and rest interval were below 50% of the scientific re-
commendations. The MP occurs when a greater number of movements is performed
in a certain period of execution or when the same number of movements is perfor-
med in a shorter period [11]. In this sense, the recommendation for the development
of MP involves moderate loads not exceeding 60% of 1RM with a rest interval similar
to those proposed to develop maximum strength ( 90 seconds) allowing adequate
replacement of muscle phosphogen [1,9,11,12].
The development of MP through traditional training has good results, howe-
ver, the current literature proposes other alternatives as efficient forms of training
that were not included in this questionnaire, such as plyometrics. In addition, stren-
gth training is generally related to sports performance and most professionals who
took part in this study develop physical fitness programs focused on health. These
particularities related to MP training may explain the low agreement observed in
most of the analyzed variables.
The low agreement observed in the present study between the prescription of
variables that make up a strength training program and scientific recommendations
is worrying, since such recommendations, proposed with a high level of scientific
evidence, seem to be neglected by most fitness professionals.
The exponential increase in the number of university students in physical
education courses observed in recent decades and the low rate of failure, associated
with the curricular contents of academic training that do not include every pheno-
menon observed in practice, can influence the prescription made by professionals.
The absence of a single guideline can make the process of professional training di-
fficult, as it does not allow for adequate preparation for evidence-based decision-
-making. On the other hand, the ease of access to content through digital platforms,
which in some cases disclose information with low scientific rigor, can influence
professionals in their decisions.
In the present study, only one component of the training was evaluated, howe-
ver, it should be considered that its prescription occurs concomitantly with the other
components of physical fitness. In addition, the form of prescription was analyzed
through a questionnaire, not allowing to verify its applicability in the real context.
However, the use of this type of instrument allows the analysis of large samples.
Regarding the choice of the 70% cutoff point, it may not indicate an ideal pro-
portion of agreement in all contexts, but it is a reference widely used in several aca-
demic evaluation processes, as the minimum acceptable. Another aspect to be consi-
dered is that the present study may not represent the level of knowledge of Brazilian
24
Rev Bras Fisiol Exerc 2022;21(1):15-25
professionals, since the professionals who participated in the research were already
at a postgraduate training level. Finally, it was not evaluated whether the 1RM load
was obtained using any specific tests or by predictive equations.
Conclusion
A low agreement was observed between the professional prescription and the
training standards proposed in the scientific literature. Muscle hypertrophy was the
training that showed the highest agreement, while endurance and power training
were the ones that least agreed with the recommendations. When considering the
training variables regardless of the type of training, the one with the highest number
of concordant questions was the number of sets and the rest interval was the variable
that showed the least agreement with the methodologic standards.
Acknowledgment
National Postdoctoral Program of CAPES (PNPD/CAPES) and Foundation for Science and Technology
Support from Pernambuco (FACEPE).
Potential conflict of interest
No conflicts of interest with potential potential for this article have been reported
Financing source
There were no external sources of funding for this study.
Authors’ contributions
Conception and research design: Cantieri FP, Gomes AC, Aranha ACM; Obtaining data: Cantieri FP,
Arruda GA; Data analysis and interpretation: Cantieri FP, Arruda GA, Aranha ACM, Coledam DHC;
Writing of the manuscript: Cantieri FP, Arruda GA, Coledam DHC, Gomes AC, Barros MVG, Silva-Gri-
goletto ME. Statistical analysis: Arruda GA, Gomes AC, Barros MVG; Critical revision of the manuscript
for important intellectual content : Silva- Grigoletto ME, Barros MVG, Aranha ACM
References
1. Garber CE, Blissmer B, Deschenes MR, Franklin BA, Lamonte MJ, Lee I, et al. American College of Sports Medicine
position stand. Quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory, musculoskele-
tal, and neuromotor fitness in apparently healthy adults: guidance for prescribing exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc
2011;43;7:1334-59. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318213fefb
2. Powell KE, King AC, Buchner DM, Campbell WW, DiPietro L, Erickson KI, cols. The Scientific Foundation for the
Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, 2nd Edition. Journal of Physical Activity and Health 2019;16:1-11. doi:
10.1123/jpah.2018-0618
3. Westcott WL. Resistance training is medicine: effects of strength training on health. Curr Sports Med Rep
2012;11(4):209-16. doi: 10.1249/JSR.0b013e31825dabb8
4. MacDonald HV, Johnson BT, Huedo-Medina TB, Livingston J, Forsyth KC, Kraemer WJ, et al. Dynamic resistance
training as stand-alone antihypertensive lifestyle therapy: a meta-analysis. J Am Heart Assoc 2016;5(10):e003231.
doi: 10.1161/ jaha.116.003231
5. Walker S, Santolamazza F., Kraemer WJ, Häkkinen K. Effects of prolonged hypertrophic resistance training on
acute endocrine responses in young and older men. J Aging Phys Act 2015;23:230-6. doi: 10.1123 / japa.2013-0029
6. Calle MC, Fernandez ML. Effects of resistance training on the inflammatory response. Nutrition Research and
Practice 2010;4(4):259-69. doi: 10.4162/nrp.2010.4.4.259
7. O’Connor PJ, Herring MP, Caravalho A. Mental health benefits of strength training in adults. Am J Lifestyle Med
2010;4(5):377-96. doi: 10.1177/1559827610368771
8. Folland JP, Williams AG. The adaptations to strength training: Morphological and neurological contributions to
increased strength. Sports Med 2007;37(2):145-68. doi: 10.2165 / 00007256-200737020-00004
25
Rev Bras Fisiol Exerc 2022;21(1):15-25
9. Ratamess NA, Alvar BA, Evetoch TK, Housh TJ, Kibler WB, Kraemer WJ cols. Progression models in resistance
training for healthy adults. American College of Sports Medicine 2009:687-780. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181915670
10. Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Strength and hypertrophy adaptations between low- vs. high-load
resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 2017;31;12:3508-23. doi: 10.1519/jsc.0000000000002200
11. Verkhoshansky Y, Stiff MC. Supertraining 2009. 6th ed. Ed. Verkhoshansky.com
12. Fleck SJ, Kraemer WJ. Fundamentos do treinamento de força muscular. 4ª ed. Porto Alegre : Artmed; 2017.
13. Krieger JW. Single vs. multiple sets of resistance exercise for muscle hypertrophy: a meta-analysis. J Strength
Cond Res 2010;24;4:1150-9. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181d4d436
14. Baz-Valle E, Schoenfeld BJ, Torres-Unda J, Santos-Concejero J, Balsalobre-Fernandez C. The effects of exercise
variation in muscle thickness, maximal strength and motivation in resistance trained men. PLoS ONE 2019;14;12:
e0226989. doi: 10.1371/journal. pone.0226989
15. Bird SP, Tarpenning KM, Marino FE. Designing resistance training programmes to enhance muscular fitness: A
review of the acute programme variables. Sports Med 2005;35(10):841-51. doi: 10.2165/00007256-200535100-00002
16. Schoenfeld BJ, Vigotsky AD, Grgic J, Haun C, Contreras B, Delcastillo K, et al. Do the anatomical and physiological
properties of a muscle determine its adaptive response to different loading protocols? Physiol Rep 2020;8(9):e14427.
doi: 10.14814/phy2.14427
17. Verenguer RCG, Campanelli JR, Kallas D, Freire ES, Costa FC. Mercado de trabalho em Educação Física: significa-
do da intervenção. Motriz [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2022 Feb 8];14(4):452-61.
18. Zenko Z, Ekkekakis P. Knowledge of exercise prescription guidelines among certified exercise professionals. J
Strength Cond Res 2015;29;5:1422-32 doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000771
19. Ceschini F, Figueira Junior A, Andrade EL de, Araújo TL, Rica, RL, Miranda, ML, et al. Nível de conhecimento dos
profissionais de educação física sobre prescrição de exercício aeróbico e de resistência para idosos. Rev Bras Med
Esporte 2018;24;6:465-470. doi: 10.1590/1517-869220182406188634
20. Cantieri FP, Gomes AC, Arruda GA, Coledam DHC, Ribeiro EAG, Barros MVG, Aranha ACM. Methodology of
physical exercise: A proposal and reliability of a questionnaire for fitness professionals. Baltic Journal of Health and
Physical Activity 2021;13(4). doi: 10.29359/BJHPA.13.4.01
21. Zieky MJ, Perie M, Livingston SA. Cutscores : a manual for setting standards of performance on educational and oc-
cupational tests book; Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service September 2008;230. doi: 10.1177/0013164413502037
22. Peterson MD, Rhea MR, Alvar BA. Applications of the dose-response for muscular strength development: a re-
view of meta-analytic efficacy and reliability for designing training prescription. J Strength Cond Res 2005;19;4:950-
8. doi: 10.1519/R-16874.1
23. Ronnestad BR, Egeland W, Kvamme NH, Refsnes PE, Kadi F. Raastad T. Dissimilar effects of one- and three-set
strength training on strength and muscle mass gains in upper and lower body in untrained subjects. J Strength
Cond Res 2007;21;1:157-63. doi: 10.1519/R-19895.1
24. Schoenfeld BJ, Wilson JM, Lowery RP, Krieger JW. Muscular adaptations in low- versus high-load resistance trai-
ning: A meta-analysis, Eur J Sport Sci 2014;16;1:1-10. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2014.989922
25. Kraemer WJ, Ratamess NA. Fundamentals of resistance training: progression and exercise prescription. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 2004;36(4):674-88. doi: 10.1249/01.mss.0000121945.36635.61
26. Lasevicius T, Ugrinowitsch C, Schoenfeld BJ, Roschel H, Tavares,LD, Souza EO, et al. Effects of different intensities
of resistance training with equated volume load on muscle strength and hypertrophy. Eur J Sport Sci 2018;18(6):772-
80. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2018.1450898
27. Wernbom M, Augustsson J. Thomee R. The influence of frequency, intensity, volume and mode of strength trai-
ning on whole musclecross-sectional area in humans. Sports Med 2007;37;3:225-64. doi: 10.2165/00007256-200737030-
00004
28. Grgic J, Schoenfeld BJ, Skrepnik M. Davies TB, Mikulic P. Effects of rest interval duration in resistance training on
measures of muscular strength. Sports Med 2017;48;1:137-51 doi: 10.1007/s40279-017-0788-x
29. Bottaro M, Martins B, Gentil P, Wagner D. Effects of rest duration between sets of resistance training on acute
hormonal responses in trained women. J Sci Med Sport 2009;12:73-8. doi : 10.1016/j.jsams.2007.10.013
30. Hill-Haas S, Bishop D, Dawson B, Goodman C, Edge J. Effects of rest interval during high-repetition re-
sistance training on strength, aerobic fitness, and repeated-sprint ability. J Sports Sci 2007;25;6:619-28. doi:
10.1080/02640410600874849
This open access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0),
which allows unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Background: Several benefits of physical exercise for health are described in the literature and knowing the methodology adopted by professionals is relevant. Objective: Proposal and analysis of the psychometric properties of a questionnaire on the methodological practice of professionals working in the fitness area. Material and methods: Design: Reproducibility study. Method: The questionnaire was prepared following the steps: search for existing instruments, elaboration of the questions, pretesting (n = 30), face/content validity (n = 5), and reliability (n = 333). The internal consistency (Cronbach's Alpha), magnitude of the association between nominal questions (Cramer's V or Phi) and test-retest reliability (Kappa coefficient) were analyzed. Results: The Cronbach's Alpha value was 0.78 (95%CI: 0.70–0.83). The mean value of Cramer's V was 0.16 (±0.06). Test-retest reliability values ranged from fair to good, with percentage agreement ranging from 48.8% (95%CI: 37.8–59.8) to 90.3% (95%CI: 81.3–95.4). Conclusions: The questionnaire serves the purpose for which it was created and can be applied to identify how professionals structure their practices.
Article
Full-text available
It has been proposed that superior muscle hypertrophy may be obtained by training muscles predominant in type I fibers with lighter loads and those predominant in type II fibers with heavier loads. Purpose: To evaluate longitudinal changes in muscle strength and hypertrophy of the soleus (a predominantly slow-twitch muscle) and gastrocnemius (muscle with a similar composition of slow and fast-twitch fibers) when subjected to light (20-30 repetition maximum) and heavy (6-10 repetition maximum) load plantarflexion exercise. Methods: The study employed a within-subject design whereby 26 untrained young men had their lower limbs randomized to perform plantarflexion with a low-load (LIGHT) and a high-load (HEAVY) for 8 weeks. Muscle thickness was estimated via B-mode ultrasound and maximal strength was determined by isometric dynamometry. Results: Results showed that changes in muscle thickness were similar for the soleus and the gastrocnemius regardless of the magnitude of load used in training. Furthermore, each of the calf muscles demonstrated robust hypertrophy, with the lateral gastrocnemius showing greater gains compared to the medial gastrocnemius and soleus. Both HEAVY and LIGHT training programs elicited similar hypertrophic increases in the triceps surae. Finally, isometric strength increases were similar between loading conditions. Conclusions: The triceps surae muscles respond robustly to regimented exercise and measures of muscle hypertrophy and isometric strength appear independent of muscle fiber type composition. Moreover, the study provides further evidence that low-load training is a viable strategy to increase hypertrophy in different human muscles, with hypertrophic increases similar to that observed using heavy loads.
Article
Full-text available
Background The objective of the present study was to compare the effects of a traditional resistance training program (fixed exercises and repetition ranges) to a resistance training program where exercises and repetition ranges were randomized on a session-by-session basis on markers of muscular adaptations and intrinsic motivation. Methods Twenty-one resistance trained men were randomized to perform an 8-week resistance training program using either a fixed exercise selection (CON) or having exercises randomly varied each session via a computerized app. Both groups performed 3 sets of 6 exercises, with training carried out 4 times per week. Results Both conditions promoted large, statistically significant increases in the bench press and back-squat 1 repetition maximum without differences between groups. Muscle thickness (MT) measures for the individual quadriceps showed large, statistically significant increases in of the vastus lateralis and rectus femoris for both conditions, with no observed between-group differences. Although no between-group in MT were noted for the vastus intermedius, only the CON displayed significant increases from baseline. Participants in EXP showed a significant, moderate improvement in the intrinsic motivation to training, while participants in the CON group presented non-significant decreases in this variable. Conclusions Varying exercise selection had a positive effect on enhancing motivation to train in resistance-trained men, while eliciting similar improvements in muscular adaptations
Article
Full-text available
The present study investigated the effects of different intensities of resistance training (RT) on elbow flexion and leg press one-repetition maximum (1RM) and muscle cross-sectional area (CSA). Thirty men volunteered to participate in an RT programme, performed twice a week for 12 weeks. The study employed a within-subject design, in which one leg and arm trained at 20% 1RM (G20) and the contralateral limb was randomly assigned to one of the three conditions: 40% (G40); 60% (G60), and 80% 1RM (G80). The G20 started RT session with three sets to failure. After G20 training, the number of sets was adjusted for the other contralateral limb conditions with volume-matched. CSA and 1RM were assessed at pre, post-6 weeks, and post-12 weeks. There was time effect for CSA for the vastus lateralis (VL) (8.9%, 20.5%, 20.4%, and 19.5%) and elbow flexors (EF) (11.4%, 25.3%, 25.1%, and 25%) in G20, G40, G60, and G80, respectively (p > .05). G80 showed higher CSA than G20 for VL (19.5% vs. 8.9%) and EF (25% vs. 11.4%) at post-12 weeks (p < .05). There was time effect for elbow flexion and unilateral leg press strength for all groups post-12 weeks (p < .05). However, the magnitude of increase was higher in G60 and G80. In conclusion, when low to high intensities of RT are performed with volume-matched, all intensities were effective for increasing muscle strength and size; however, 20% 1RM was suboptimal in this regard, and only the heavier RT intensity (80% 1RM) was shown superior for increasing strength and CSA compared to low intensities.
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this paper was to conduct a systematic review of the current body of literature and a meta-analysis to compare changes in strength and hypertrophy between low- versus high-load resistance training protocols. Searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and Scopus were conducted for studies that met the following criteria: 1) an experimental trial involving both low- (≤60% 1 RM) and high- (>60% 1 RM) load training; 2) with all sets in the training protocols being performed to momentary muscular failure; 3) at least one method of estimating changes in muscle mass and/or dynamic, isometric or isokinetic strength was used; 4) the training protocol lasted for a minimum of 6 weeks; 5) the study involved participants with no known medical conditions or injuries impairing training capacity. A total of 21 studies were ultimately included for analysis. Gains in 1RM strength were significantly greater in favor of high- versus low-load training, while no significant differences were found for isometric strength between conditions. Changes in measures of muscle hypertrophy were similar between conditions. The findings indicate that maximal strength benefits are obtained from the use of heavy loads while muscle hypertrophy can be equally achieved across a spectrum of loading ranges.
Article
Full-text available
Background Aerobic exercise (AE) is recommended as first‐line antihypertensive lifestyle therapy based on strong evidence showing that it lowers blood pressure (BP) 5 to 7 mm Hg among adults with hypertension. Because of weaker evidence showing that dynamic resistance training (RT) reduces BP 2 to 3 mm Hg among adults with hypertension, it is recommended as adjuvant lifestyle therapy to AE training. Yet, existing evidence suggests that dynamic RT can lower BP as much or more than AE. Methods and Results We meta‐analyzed 64 controlled studies (71 interventions) to determine the efficacy of dynamic RT as stand‐alone antihypertensive therapy. Participants (N=2344) were white (57%), middle‐aged (47.2±19.0 years), and overweight (26.8±3.4 kg/m²) adults with prehypertension (126.7±10.3/76.8±8.7 mm Hg); 15% were on antihypertensive medication. Overall, moderate‐intensity dynamic RT was performed 2.8±0.6 days/week for 14.4±7.9 weeks and elicited small‐to‐moderate reductions in systolic BP (SBP; d+=−0.31; 95% CIs, −0.43, −0.19; −3.0 mm Hg) and diastolic BP (DBP; d+=−0.30; 95% CIs, −0.38, −0.18; −2.1 mm Hg) compared to controls (Ps<0.001). Greater BP reductions occurred among samples with higher resting SBP/DBP: ≈6/5 mm Hg for hypertension, ≈3/3 mm Hg for prehypertension, and ≈0/1 mm Hg for normal BP (Ps<0.023). Furthermore, nonwhite samples with hypertension experienced BP reductions that were approximately twice the magnitude of those previously reported following AE training (−14.3 mm Hg [95% CIs, −19.0, −9.4]/−10.3 mm Hg [95% CIs, −14.5, −6.2]). Conclusions Our results indicate that for nonwhite adult samples with hypertension, dynamic RT may elicit BP reductions that are comparable to or greater than those reportedly achieved with AE training. Dynamic RT should be further investigated as a viable stand‐alone therapeutic exercise option for adult populations with high BP.
Article
Full-text available
Abstract There has been much debate as to optimal loading strategies for maximising the adaptive response to resistance exercise. The purpose of this paper therefore was to conduct a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials to compare the effects of low-load (≤60% 1 repetition maximum [RM]) versus high-load (≥65% 1 RM) training in enhancing post-exercise muscular adaptations. The strength analysis comprised 251 subjects and 32 effect sizes (ESs), nested within 20 treatment groups and 9 studies. The hypertrophy analysis comprised 191 subjects and 34 ESs, nested with 17 treatment groups and 8 studies. There was a trend for strength outcomes to be greater with high loads compared to low loads (difference = 1.07 ± 0.60; CI: -0.18, 2.32; p = 0.09). The mean ES for low loads was 1.23 ± 0.43 (CI: 0.32, 2.13). The mean ES for high loads was 2.30 ± 0.43 (CI: 1.41, 3.19). There was a trend for hypertrophy outcomes to be greater with high loads compared to low loads (difference = 0.43 ± 0.24; CI: -0.05, 0.92; p = 0.076). The mean ES for low loads was 0.39 ± 0.17 (CI: 0.05, 0.73). The mean ES for high loads was 0.82 ± 0.17 (CI: 0.49, 1.16). In conclusion, training with loads ≤50% 1 RM was found to promote substantial increases in muscle strength and hypertrophy in untrained individuals, but a trend was noted for superiority of heavy loading with respect to these outcome measures with null findings likely attributed to a relatively small number of studies on the topic.
Article
Background: The 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee Scientific Report provides the evidence base for the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, 2nd Edition. Methods: The 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee addressed 38 questions and 104 subquestions selected for their public health relevance, potential to inform public policies and programs, maturity of the relevant science, and applicability to the general US population. Rigorous systematic literature searches and literature reviews were performed using standardized methods. Results: Newly described benefits of physical activity include reduced risk of excessive weight gain in children and adults, incidence of 6 types of cancer, and fall-related injuries in older people. Physical activity is associated with enhanced cognitive function and mental health across the life span, plus improved mental health and physical function. There is no threshold that must be exceeded before benefits begin to accrue; the accrual is most rapid for the least active individuals. Sedentary time is directly associated with elevated risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, incident cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes, and selected cancer sites. A wide range of intervention strategies have demonstrated success in increasing physical activity. Conclusion: The 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee Scientific Report provides compelling new evidence to inform physical activity recommendations, practice, and policy.
Article
This survey assessed the knowledge of the "Guidance for prescribing exercise" issued by the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) in 2011 among certified exercise professionals. A sample of 1,808 certified exercise professionals (66.70% women, Mage ± SD = 38.28 ± 12.56 years) responded to electronic invitations. The 11-question online questionnaire assessed knowledge of the recommended frequency, duration, and intensity ranges in terms of heart rate, metabolic equivalents, and ratings of perceived exertion. Respondents had 7.45 ± 8.07 years of work experience and represented all 50 US states. On average, participants answered 42.87% ± 1.69% of the questions correctly. Gender, age, and years of professional experience were not associated with overall knowledge of the guidelines. Likewise, having 1, 2, or 3+ certifications made no difference in overall knowledge. On the other hand, there were significant differences between levels of education (F = 7.12, P < 0.001), from 38.72% ± 1.62% for "some college" to 47.01% ± 1.71% for "doctorate". There were also significant differences by primary job role (F = 3.45, P < 0.001) but no category exceeded 49% (e.g., personal trainers: 40.59% ± 1.66%; clinical exercise physiologists: 44.18% ± 1.70%). The respondents rated their knowledge of the exercise prescription guidelines as 7.01 ± 1.69 out of 10 but rated the level of knowledge necessary to practice safely and effectively as 8.32 ± 1.64 (t = 28.60, P < 0.001). This survey, the first at this scale to investigate the knowledge of exercise prescription guidelines among certified exercise professionals, showed that there is room for improvement, considering that the average score was below 50%.