Maximizing strength development in athletes: a meta-analysis to determine the dose-response relationship

The efficiency, safety, and effectiveness of strength training programs are paramount for sport conditioning. Therefore, identifying optimal doses of the training variables allows for maximal gains in muscular strength to be elicited per unit of time and also for the reduction in risk of overtraining and/or overuse injuries. A quantified dose-response relationship for the continuum of training intensities, frequencies, and volumes has been identified for recreationally trained populations but has yet to be identified for competitive athletes. The purpose of this analysis was to identify this relationship in collegiate, professional, and elite athletes. A meta-analysis of 37 studies with a total of 370 effect sizes was performed to identify the dose-response relationship among competitive athletes. Criteria for study inclusion were (a) participants must have been competitive athletes at the collegiate or professional level, (b) the study must have employed a strength training intervention, and (c) the study must have included necessary data to calculate effect sizes. Effect size data demonstrate that maximal strength gains are elicited among athletes who train at a mean training intensity of 85% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM), 2 days per week, and with a mean training volume of 8 sets per muscle group. The current data exhibit different dose-response trends than previous meta-analytical investigations with trained and untrained nonathletes. These results demonstrate explicit dose-response trends for maximal strength gains in athletes and may be directly used in strength and conditioning venues to optimize training efficiency and effectiveness.     

Three sets of weight training superior to 1 set with equal intensity for eliciting strength

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.     

A comparison of linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume and intensity for local muscular endurance

The purpose of this study was to compare linear periodization (LP), daily undulating periodization (DUP), and reverse linear periodization (RLP) for gains in local muscular endurance and strength. Sixty subjects (30 men, 30 women) were randomly assigned to LP, DUP, or RLP groups. Maximal repetitions at 50% of the subject's body weight were recorded for leg extensions as a pretest, midtest, and posttest. Training involved 3 sets (leg extensions) 2 days per week. The LP group performed sets of 25 repetition maximum (RM), 20RM, and 15RM changing every 5 weeks. The RLP group progressed in reverse order (15RM, 20RM, 25RM), changing every 5 weeks. The DUP group adjusted training variables between each workout (25RM, 20RM, 15RM repeated for the 15 weeks). Volume and intensity were equated for each training program. No significant differences were measured in endurance gains between groups (RLP = 73%, LP = 56%, DUP = 55%; p = 0.58). But effect sizes (ES) demonstrated that the RLP treatment (ES = 0.27) was more effective than the LP treatment (control) and the DUP treatment (ES = -0.02) at increasing muscular endurance. Therefore, it was concluded that making gradual increases in volume and gradual decreases in intensity was the most effective program for increasing muscular endurance.     

Dissimilar effects of one- and three-set strength training on strength and muscle mass gains in upper and lower body in untrained subjects

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of single- and multiple-set strength training on hypertrophy and strength gains in untrained men. Twenty-one young men were randomly assigned to either the 3L-1UB group (trained 3 sets in leg exercises and 1 set in upper-body exercises; n = 11), or the 1L-3UB (trained 1 set in leg exercises and 3 sets in upper-body exercises; n = 10). Subjects trained 3 days per week for 11 weeks and each workout consisted of 3 leg exercises and 5 upper-body exercises. Training intensity varied between 10 repetition maximum (RM) and 7RM. Strength (1RM) was tested in all leg and upper-body exercises and in 2 isokinetic tests before training, and after 3, 6, 9, and 11 weeks of training. Cross sectional area (CSA) of thigh muscles and the trapezius muscle and body composition measures were performed before training, and after 5 and 11 weeks of training. The increase in 1RM from week 0 to 11 in the lower-body exercises was significantly higher in the 3L-1UB group than in the 1L-3UB group (41 vs. 21%; p < 0.001), while no difference existed between groups in upper-body exercises. Peak torque in maximal isokinetic knee-extension and thigh CSA increased more in the 3L-1UB group than in the 1L-3UB group (16 vs. 8%; p = 0.03 and 11 vs. 7%; p = 0.01, respectively), while there was no significant difference between groups in upper trapezius muscle CSA. The results demonstrate that 3-set strength training is superior to 1-set strength training with regard to strength and muscle mass gains in the leg muscles, while no difference exists between 1- and 3-set training in upper-body muscles in untrained men.     

Effects of linear vs. daily undulatory periodized resistance training on maximal and submaximal strength gains

The objective of this study was to verify the effect of 2 periodized resistance training (RT) methods on the evolution of 1-repetition maximum (1RM) and 8RM loads. Twenty resistance trained men were randomly assigned to 2 training groups: linear periodization (LP) group and daily undulating periodization (DUP) group. The subjects were tested at baseline and after 12 weeks for 1RM and 8RM loads in leg press (LEG) and bench press (BP) exercises. The training program was performed in alternated sessions for upper (session A: chest, shoulder and triceps) and lower body (session B: leg, back and biceps). The 12-week periodized training was applied only in the tested exercises, and in the other exercises, 3 sets of 6-8RM were performed. Both groups exhibited significant increases in 1RM loads on LEG and BP, but no statistically significant difference between groups was observed. The same occurred in 8RM loads on LEG and BP. However, DUP group presented superior effect size (ES) in 1RM and 8RM loads for LEG and BP exercises when compared to the LP group. In conclusion, periodized RT can be an efficient method for increasing the strength and muscular endurance in trained individuals. Although there was no statistically significant difference between periodization models, DUP promoted superior ES gains in muscular maximal and submaximal strength.     

The influence of volume of exercise on early adaptations to strength training

The purpose of this investigation was to compare the effects of single-set strength training and 3-set strength training during the early phase of adaptation in 18 untrained male subjects (age, 20-30 years). After initial testing, subjects were randomly assigned to either the 3L-1U group (n = 8), which trained 3 sets in leg exercises and 1 set in upper-body exercises, or the 1L-3U group (n = 10), which trained 1 set in leg exercises and 3 sets in upper-body exercises. Testing was conducted at the beginning and at the end of the study and consisted of 2 maximal isometric tests (knee extension and bench press) and 6 maximal dynamic tests (1 repetition maximum [1RM] tests). Subjects trained 3 days per week for 6 weeks. After warm-up, subjects performed 3 leg exercises and 4 upper-body exercises. In both groups, each set consisted of 7 repetitions (reps) with the load supposed to induce muscular failure after the seventh rep (7RM load). After 6 weeks of training, 1RM performance in all training exercises was significantly increased (10-26%, p < 0.01) in both groups. The relative increase in 1RM load in the 3 leg exercises was significantly greater in the 3L-1U group than in the 1L-3U group (21% vs. 14%, p = 0.01). However, the relative increase in 1RM load in the 3 upper-body exercises was similar in the 3L-1U group (16%) and the 1L-3U group (14%). These results show a superior adaptation to 3-set strength training, compared with 1-set strength training, in leg exercises but not in upper-body exercises during the early phase of adaptation.     

Short-term effects of resistance training frequency on body composition and strength in middle-aged women

Although a dose-response relationship between resistance training frequency and strength has been identified, there is limited research regarding the association between frequency and body composition. This study evaluated the effects of 3 vs. 4 d·wk(-1) of resistance training on body composition and strength in middle-aged women. Twenty-one untrained women (age 47.6 ± 1.2 years) completed 8 weeks of resistance training either 3 nonconsecutive days of the week using a traditional total-body protocol (RT3) or 4 consecutive days of the week using an alternating split-training protocol (RT4). The RT3 completed 3 sets of 8 exercises, whereas RT4 completed 3 sets of 6 upper body exercises or 6 sets of 3 lower body exercises. Both groups completed 72 sets per week of 8-12 repetitions at 50-80% 1 repetition maximum. Weekly training volume load was calculated as the total number of repetitions × load (kg) completed per week. Body composition was measured using air displacement plethysmography. At baseline and after 8 weeks of resistance training, there were no significant between-group differences. Both protocols resulted in significant increases in absolute lean mass (1.1 ± 0.3 kg; p = 0.001), body weight (1.02 ± 0.3 kg; p = 0.005), body mass index (0.3 ± 0.1 kg·m(-2); p = 0.006), strength (p < 0.001), and weekly training volume load (p < 0.001). Correlation analysis revealed that weekly training volume load was strongly and positively related to gains in lean mass (r = 0.56, p = 0.05) and strength (r = 0.60, p = 0.006). In these untrained, middle-aged women, initial short-term gains in lean mass and strength were not influenced by training frequency when the number of training sets per week was equated.     

The effects of short-term unilateral and bilateral lower-body resistance training on measures of strength and power

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of short-term unilateral resistance training (UL) and bilateral resistance training (BL) with free weights on several tests of unilateral and bilateral lower-body strength and power in men and women. Thirty-eight untrained men and women (mean body mass 78.3 +/- 21.47 kg; age 20.74 +/- 2.6 years) completed the study. The groups trained 2 days per week for 8 weeks with free weights and 2 days per week for 5 of the 8 weeks with plyometric drills. The resistance-training program consisted of a progression from 3 sets of 15 repetitions at 50% of the subject's predicted 1 repetition maximum (1RM) to 6 sets of 5 repetitions at 87% 1RM. Training volume and intensity were equal for each group. The free-weight squat was used to measure unilateral and bilateral strength. Power was measured by the Magaria-Kalamen stair-climb test and the unilateral and bilateral vertical jump test. Analysis of covariance was used to analyze differences between men and women and the interaction of group and gender. Pretest scores were used as the covariate. The UL group improved more than the BL group on the unilateral vertical jump height (p = 0.001) and relative power (p = 0.013). After adjusting for pretest differences, the improved scores on all tests, except for the unilateral squat, were similar between the men and the women. No significant interactions on all tests were found for the men or women comparison between training groups. These results indicate that UL and BL are equally effective for early phase improvement of unilateral and bilateral leg strength and power in untrained men and women.     

The effect of rest interval length on bench press performance with heavy vs. light loads

The purpose of the current study was to compare the effect of 3 different rest intervals on multiple sets of the bench press exercise performed with heavy vs. light loads. Sixteen resistance-trained men performed 2 testing sessions each week for 3 weeks. During the first testing session each week, 5 consecutive sets of the bench press were performed with 80% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) and with a 1-, 2-, or 3-minute rest interval between sets. During the second testing session each week the same procedures were repeated with 50% of 1RM. The total repetitions completed and the sustainability of repetitions were compared between rest conditions and between loads. For each load, resting 3 minutes between sets resulted in significantly greater total repetitions vs. resting 2 minutes (p = 0.000) or 1 minute (p = 0.000) between sets. However, the sustainability of repetitions was not significantly different between loads (p = 0.849). These results can be applied to weekly bench press workouts that undulate between heavy (i.e., 80% 1RM) and light (i.e., 50% 1RM) intensities. When the training goal is maximal strength development, 3 minutes of rest should be taken between sets to avoid significant declines in repetitions. The ability to sustain repetitions while keeping the intensity constant may result in a higher training volume and consequently greater gains in muscular strength.     

Quantitative analysis of single- vs. multiple-set programs in resistance training

The purpose of this study was to examine the existing research on single-set vs. multiple-set resistance training programs. Using the meta-analytic approach, we included studies that met the following criteria in our analysis: (a) at least 6 subjects per group; (b) subject groups consisting of single-set vs. multiple-set resistance training programs; (c) pretest and posttest strength measures; (d) training programs of 6 weeks or more; (e) apparently "healthy" individuals free from orthopedic limitations; and (f) published studies in English-language journals only. Sixteen studies generated 103 effect sizes (ESs) based on a total of 621 subjects, ranging in age from 15-71 years. Across all designs, intervention strategies, and categories, the pretest to posttest ES in muscular strength was (chi = 1.4 +/- 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-3.8; p < 0.001). The results of 2 x 2 analysis of variance revealed simple main effects for age, training status (trained vs. untrained), and research design (p < 0.001). No significant main effects were found for sex, program duration, and set end point. Significant interactions were found for training status and program duration (6-16 weeks vs. 17-40 weeks) and number of sets performed (single vs. multiple). The data indicated that trained individuals performing multiple sets generated significantly greater increases in strength (p < 0.001). For programs with an extended duration, multiple sets were superior to single sets (p < 0.05). This quantitative review indicates that single-set programs for an initial short training period in untrained individuals result in similar strength gains as multiple-set programs. However, as progression occurs and higher gains are desired, multiple-set programs are more effective.     

Moderate resistance training volume produces more favorable strength gains than high or low volumes during a short-term training cycle

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of 3 resistance training volumes on maximal strength in the snatch (Sn), clean & jerk (C&J), and squat (Sq) exercises during a 10-week training period. Fifty-one experienced (>3 years), trained junior lifters were randomly assigned to one of 3 groups: a low-volume group (LVG, n = 16), a moderate-volume group (MVG, n = 17), and a high-volume group (HVG, n = 18). All subjects trained 4-5 days a week with a periodized routine using the same exercises and relative intensities but a different total number of sets and repetitions at each relative load: LVG (1,923 repetitions), MVG (2,481 repetitions), and HVG (3,030 repetitions). The training was periodized from moderate intensity (60- 80% of 1 repetition maximum [1RM]) and high number of repetitions per set (2-6) to high intensity (90-100% of 1RM) and low number of repetitions per set (1-3). During the training period, the MVG showed a significant increase for the Sn, C&J, and Sq exercises (6.1, 3.7, and 4.2%, respectively, p < 0.01), whereas in the LVG and HVG, the increase took place only with the C&J exercise (3.7 and 3%, respectively, p < 0.05) and the Sq exercise (4.6%, p < 0.05, and 4.8%, p < 0.01, respectively). The increase in the Sn exercise for the MVG was significantly higher than in the LVG (p = 0.015). Calculation of effect sizes showed higher strength gains in the MVG than in the HVG or LVG. There were no significant differences between the LVG and HVG training volume-induced strength gains. The present results indicate that junior experienced lifters can optimize performance by exercising with only 85% or less of the maximal volume that they can tolerate. These observations may have important practical relevance for the optimal design of strength training programs for resistance-trained athletes, since we have shown that performing at a moderate volume is more effective and efficient than performing at a higher volume.     

Strength training and determinants of VO2max in older men

The effects of strength training on maximal aerobic power (VO2max) and some of its determinants were studied in 12 healthy older men (60-72 yr). They underwent 12 wk of strength conditioning of extensors and flexors of each knee with eight repetitions per set, three sets per session, and three sessions per week at 80% of the one repetition maximum (1 RM). Left knee extensors showed a 107% increase in 1 RM, a 10% increase in isokinetic strength at 60 degrees/s, and a 23% increase in total work performed during 25 contractions on an isokinetic dynamometer. Strength measurements of the untrained left elbow extensors showed no change. Leg cycle ergometer VO2max per unit fat-free mass increased by an average 1.9 ml (P = 0.034) whereas arm cycle VO2max was unchanged. Pulmonary function, hemoglobin concentration, erythrocyte volume, plasma volume, and total blood volume did not change. Biopsies of the vastus lateralis showed a 28% increase in mean fiber area, no change in fiber type distribution, a 15% increase in capillaries per fiber, and a 38% increase in citrate synthase activity. The data suggest that the small increase in leg cycle VO2max in older men may be due to adaptations in oxidative capacity and increased mass of the strength-trained muscles.     

Increased number of forced repetitions does not enhance strength development with resistance training

Some research suggests that strength improvements are greater when resistance training continues to the point at which the individual cannot perform additional repetitions (i.e., repetition failure). Performing additional forced repetitions after the point of repetition failure and thus further increasing the set volume is a common resistance training practice. However, whether short-term use of this practice increases the magnitude of strength development with resistance training is unknown and was investigated here. Twelve basketball and 10 volleyball players trained 3 sessions per week for 6 weeks, completing either 4 x 6, 8 x 3, or 12 x 3 (sets x repetitions) of bench press per training session. Compared with the 8 x 3 group, the 4 x 6 protocol involved a longer work interval and the 12 x 3 protocol involved higher training volume, so each group was purposefully designed to elicit a different number of forced repetitions per training session. Subjects were tested on 3- and 6-repetition maximum (RM) bench press (81.5 +/- 9.8 and 75.9 +/- 9.0 kg, respectively, mean +/- SD), and 40-kg Smith Machine bench press throw power (589 +/- 100 W). The 4 x 6 and 12 x 3 groups had more forced repetitions per session (p < 0.01) than did the 8 x 3 group (4.1 +/- 2.6, 3.1 +/- 3.5, and 1.2 +/- 1.8 repetitions, respectively), whereas the 12 x 3 group performed approximately 40% greater work and had 30% greater concentric time. As expected, all groups improved 3RM (4.5 kg, 95% confidence limits, 3.1- 6.0), 6RM (4.7 kg, 3.1-6.3), bench press throw peak power (57 W, 22-92), and mean power (23 W, 4-42) (all p < or = 0.02). There were no significant differences in strength or power gains between groups. In conclusion, when repetition failure was reached, neither additional forced repetitions nor additional set volume further improved the magnitude of strength gains. This finding questions the efficacy of adding additional volume by use of forced repetitions in young athletes with moderate strength training experience.     

The effect of different rest intervals between sets on volume components and strength gains

The purpose of this study was to compare squat strength gains and volume components when resting 2 minutes vs. 4 minutes between sets over multiple mesocycles. After the first squat 1 repetition maximum, 15 trained men were matched and randomly assigned to either a 2-minute (n = 7) or a 4-minute (n = 8) rest interval group. Each group performed the same training program, with the only difference being the length of the rest interval between sets. Subjects performed two squat workouts per week; one was labeled as Heavy and the other was labeled as Light. The squat workouts varied in the intensity, number of sets, and repetitions performed per set in a nonlinear periodized manner throughout each mesocycle. Differences in strength gains and volume components (the load utilized per set, the repetitions performed per set, the intensity per set, and the volume performed per workout) were compared between groups. Both groups demonstrated large strength gains; however, these differences were not significant between groups (P = 0.47). During all mesocycles, the 4-minute group demonstrated significantly higher total volumes for the Heavy workouts (P < 0.05). The findings of the present study indicate that large squat strength gains can be achieved with a minimum of 2 minutes' rest between sets, and little additional gains are derived from resting 4 minutes between sets. Therefore, athletes attempting to achieve specific volume goals may need longer rest intervals initially but may later adapt so that shorter rest intervals can be utilized without excessive fatigue, leaving additional time to focus on other conditioning priorities.     

The contribution of volume, technique, and load to single-repetition and total-repetition kinematics and kinetics in response to three loading schemes

This study examined the effect of volume, technique, and load upon single-repetition and total-repetition kinematics and kinetics during three loading schemes. Eleven recreationally trained males each performed a power (8 sets of 6 repetitions at 45% of one-repetition maximum [1RM], 3-minute rest periods, explosive and ballistic movements), hypertrophy (10 sets of 10 repetitions at 75% 1RM, 2-minute rest periods, controlled movements), and maximal strength (6 sets of 4 repetitions at 88% 1RM, 4-minute rest periods, explosive intent) scheme involving squats. Examination of repetition data showed that load intensity (% 1RM) generally had a direct effect on forces, contraction times, impulses, and work (i.e., increasing with load), whereas power varied across loads (p < 0.001). However, total-repetition forces, contraction times, impulses, work, and power were all greater in the hypertrophy scheme (p < 0.001), because of the greater number of repetitions performed (volume) as well as lifting technique. No differences in total forces were found between the equal-volume power and maximal strength schemes, but the former did produce greater total contraction times, work, and power (p < 0.001), which may also be attributed to repetition and technique differences. Total impulses were the only variable greater in the maximal strength scheme (p < 0.001). Thus, the interaction of load, volume, and technique plays an important role in determining the mechanical responses (stimuli) afforded by these workouts. These findings may explain disparities cited within research, regarding the effectiveness of different loading strategies for hypertrophy, maximal strength, and power adaptation.     

The salivary testosterone and cortisol response to three loading schemes

This aim of this study was to examine the free hormone (in saliva) responses to squat workouts performed by recreationally weight-trained males, using either a power (8 sets of 6 reps, 45% 1 repetition maximum [1RM], 3-minute rest periods, ballistic movements), hypertrophy (10 sets of 10 reps, 75% 1RM, 2-minute rest periods, controlled movements), or maximal strength scheme (6 sets of 4 reps, 88% 1RM, 4-minute rest periods, explosive intent). To determine the relative importance of the different training variables, these schemes were equated by workout duration with the power and strength schemes also equated by load volume. Salivary testosterone (T) and cortisol (C) both increased following the hypertrophy scheme (P < 0.05), with little to no hormonal change across the power and maximal strength schemes (P > 0.05). In general, the postexercise T and C responses to the hypertrophy scheme exceeded the other two schemes (P < 0.05). The greater volume of load lifted in the hypertrophy protocol over the same workout duration may explain the endocrine differences observed. The similar T and C responses to the power and maximal strength schemes (of equal volume) support such a view and suggest that differences in load intensity, rest periods, and technique are secondary to volume. Because the acute hormonal responses to resistance exercise contribute to protein metabolism, then load volume may be the most important workout variable activating the endocrine system and stimulating muscle growth.     

Effects of short vs. long rest period between sets on elbow-flexor muscular endurance during resistance training to failure

This study aimed to examine short-term resistance training effects of resting period length between sets on maximal number of repetitions and mean velocity over a moderate-intensity (60% of the maximum voluntary isometric contraction [MVIC]) set to failure on elbow-flexor muscles. The MVIC and surface electromyographic activity (sEMG) were also measured. Twenty-one untrained subjects were divided into 3 groups: short rest between sets (1 minute; SR), long rest between sets (4 minutes; LR), and nontraining control group (CG). The SR and LR performed 3 sets to failure in an arm-curl machine, 2 days per week for 5 weeks, with moderate loads (60-75% of the MVIC). The LR completed a significantly higher (31.6%, p < 0.05) total training volume than the SR. Both training groups enhanced the maximal number of repetitions to failure, with no significant differences in the magnitude of gains. The posttraining average velocity achieved by the SR at 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% of the total number of repetitions completed was significantly higher (p < 0.05) than the corresponding average velocity achieved on pretraining conditions, whereas no significant differences were observed in the LR. No significant changes in the MVIC or sEMG were observed in any group. We conclude that short-term elbow-flexor resistance training to failure, allowing 1 or 4 minutes of rest between sets, induces similar gains concerning local muscular endurance. Nevertheless, only the SR training approach reduced the rate of decline in the average repetition velocity during a set to failure. This can be of some importance in sport modalities in which not only the maximal number of repetitions (e.g., muscle endurance), but also a greater maintenance of high repetition velocities, may be critical for performance.     

The effect of resistance-training intensity on strength-gain response in the older adult

This study examined how training intensity affects strength gains in older adults over an 18-week training period using nonperiodized, progressive resistance-training protocols. Untrained men and women participants were separated into 4 groups: group A (n = 17, 71.4 +/- 4.6 years) performed 2 sets of 15 repetitions maximum (RM), group B (n = 13, 71.5 +/- 5.2 years) performed 3 sets of 9 RM, group C (n = 17, 69.4 +/- 4.4 years) performed 4 sets of 6 RM, group D (n = 14, 72.3 +/- 5.9 years) served as controls. Training groups exercised 2 days/week performing 8 resistance exercises. Except for training intensity, the acute program variables were equated between groups. A 1RM for 8 exercises was obtained every 6 weeks. The total of 1RM for the 8 exercises served as the dependent variable. Results: repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Scheffe post hoc revealed that, at 6 weeks, only groups B and C were significantly stronger than group D (p < 0.01). By weeks 12 and 18, all training groups were significantly stronger than controls (p < 0.01). However, no difference existed between groups A, B, and C at any time. The data suggests that, for protocols with equated acute program variables, strength gain is similar over 18 weeks for training intensities ranging from 6 to 15 RM in previously untrained older adults. When programming nonperiodized, progressive resistance exercise for novice senior lifters, in the initial phases of the program, a wide range of intensities may be employed with similar strength gain.     

Effect of short-term equal-volume resistance training with different workout frequency on muscle mass and strength in untrained men and women

Changes in muscle mass and strength will vary, depending on the volume and frequency of training. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of short-term equal-volume resistance training with different workout frequency on lean tissue mass and muscle strength. Twenty-nine untrained volunteers (27-58 years; 23 women, 6 men) were assigned randomly to 1 of 2 groups: group 1 (n = 15; 12 women, 3 men) trained 2 times per week and performed 3 sets of 10 repetitions to fatigue for 9 exercises, group 2 (n = 14; 11 women, 3 men) trained 3 times per week and performed 2 sets of 10 repetitions to fatigue for 9 exercises. Prior to and following training, whole-body lean tissue mass (dual energy x-ray absorptiometry) and strength (1 repetition maximum squat and bench press) were measured. Both groups increased lean tissue mass (2.2%), squat strength (28%), and bench press strength (22-30%) with training (p < 0.05), with no other differences. These results suggest that the volume of resistance training may be more important than frequency in developing muscle mass and strength in men and women initiating a resistance training program.     

Short vs. long rest period between the sets in hypertrophic resistance training: influence on muscle strength, size, and hormonal adaptations in trained men

Acute and long-term hormonal and neuromuscular adaptations to hypertrophic strength training were studied in 13 recreationally strength-trained men. The experimental design comprised a 6-month hypertrophic strength-training period including 2 separate 3-month training periods with the crossover design, a training protocol of short rest (SR, 2 minutes) as compared with long rest (LR, 5 minutes) between the sets. Basal hormonal concentrations of serum total testosterone (T), free testosterone (FT), and cortisol (C), maximal isometric strength of the leg extensors, right leg 1 repetition maximum (1RM), dietary analysis, and muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) of the quadriceps femoris by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were measured at months 0, 3, and 6. The 2 hypertrophic training protocols used in training for the leg extensors (leg presses and squats with 10RM sets) were also examined in the laboratory conditions at months 0, 3, and 6. The exercise protocols were similar with regard to the total volume of work (loads x sets x reps), but differed with regard to the intensity and the length of rest between the sets (higher intensity and longer rest of 5 minutes vs. somewhat lower intensity but shorter rest of 2 minutes). Before and immediately after the protocols, maximal isometric force and electromyographic (EMG) activity of the leg extensors were measured and blood samples were drawn for determination of serum T, FT, C, and growth hormone (GH) concentrations and blood lactate. Both protocols before the experimental training period (month 0) led to large acute increases (p < 0.05-0.001) in serum T, FT, C , and GH concentrations, as well as to large acute decreases (p < 0.05-0.001) in maximal isometric force and EMG activity. However, no significant differences were observed between the protocols. Significant increases of 7% in maximal isometric force, 16% in the right leg 1RM, and 4% in the muscle CSA of the quadriceps femoris were observed during the 6-month strength-training period. However, both 3-month training periods performed with either the longer or the shorter rest periods between the sets resulted in similar gains in muscle mass and strength. No statistically significant changes were observed in basal hormone concentrations or in the profiles of acute hormonal responses during the entire 6-month experimental training period. The present study indicated that, within typical hypertrophic strength-training protocols used in the present study, the length of the recovery times between the sets (2 vs. 5 minutes) did not have an influence on the magnitude of acute hormonal and neuromuscular responses or long-term training adaptations in muscle strength and mass in previously strength-trained men.