Effects of Varied Versus Constant Loading Zones on Muscular Adaptations in Trained Men

Maximal Number of Repetitions at Percentages of the One Repetition Maximum: A Meta-Regression and Moderator Analysis of Sex, Age, Training Status, and Exercise

The maximal number of repetitions that can be completed at various percentages of the one repetition maximum (1RM) [REPS ~ %1RM relationship] is foundational knowledge in resistance exercise programming. The current REPS ~ %1RM relationship is based on few studies and has not incorporated uncertainty into estimations or accounted for between-individuals variation. Therefore, we conducted a meta-regression to estimate the mean and between-individuals standard deviation of the number of repetitions that can be completed at various percentages of 1RM. We also explored if the REPS ~ %1RM relationship is moderated by sex, age, training status, and/or exercise. A total of 952 repetitions-to-failure tests, completed by 7289 individuals in 452 groups from 269 studies, were identified. Study groups were predominantly male (66%), healthy (97%), < 59 years of age (92%), and resistance trained (60%). The bench press (42%) and leg press (14%) were the most commonly studied exercises. The REPS ~ %1RM relationship for mean repetitions and standard deviation of repetitions were best described using natural cubic splines and a linear model, respectively, with mean and standard deviation for repetitions decreasing with increasing %1RM. More repetitions were evident in the leg press than bench press across the loading spectrum, thus separate REPS ~ %1RM tables were developed for these two exercises. Analysis of moderators suggested little influences of sex, age, or training status on the REPS ~ %1RM relationship, thus the general main model REPS ~ %1RM table can be applied to all individuals and to all exercises other than the bench press and leg press. More data are needed to develop REPS ~ %1RM tables for other exercises.

Effects of exercise programs on phase angle in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The purpose of this study was to calculate the effects of exercise programs on phase angle (PhA) in older people. A systematic review was undertaken in multiple electronic databases in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement guidelines for the purposes of selecting randomized controlled trials that measured the effects of the exercise programs on PhA in older adults on 31 March 2022. We carried out a random-effect meta-analysis for the effects of exercise programs on PhA. Additionally, we analysed the differences between subgroups in terms of weekly frequency, number of sets and repetitions, and duration of interventions. Studies were methodological assessed through the PEDro scale where one had excellent, ten had good, and three had poor methodological quality. For the purposes of the study, fourteen studies met the criteria for inclusion. However, four studies did not have enough information to be included in the quantitative analysis. The remaining ten articles revealed moderate effects on PhA in favour of intervention groups (p=0.009, SMD=0.72 [0.46-0.99], I2=54%). The meta-analysis also showed that interventions lasting twelve weeks are more successful in generating positive effects on PhA as opposed to eight weeks (SMD's=0.79 vs. 0.64, respectively). These results indicate that resistance training (RT) is an effective and safe to improve PhA in the older people, especially through RT programs lasting from eight to twelve weeks. A novel finding of this study was that RT is the most used type of exercise by authors when assessing the PhA in older adults.

Muscle Hypertrophy Response Is Affected by Previous Resistance Training Volume in Trained Individuals

ABSTRACT

Scarpelli, MC, Nóbrega, SR, Santanielo, N, Alvarez, IF, Otoboni, GB, Ugrinowitsch, C, and Libardi, CA. Muscle hypertrophy response is affected by previous resistance training volume in trained individuals. J Strength Cond Res 36(4): 1153-1157, 2022-The purpose of this study was to compare gains in muscle mass of trained individuals after a resistance training (RT) protocol with standardized (i.e., nonindividualized) volume (N-IND), with an RT protocol using individualized volume (IND). In a within-subject approach, 16 subjects had one leg randomly assigned to N-IND (22 sets·wk-1, based on the number of weekly sets prescribed in studies) and IND (1.2 × sets·wk-1 recorded in training logs) protocols. Muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) was assessed by ultrasound imaging at baseline (Pre) and after 8 weeks (Post) of RT, and the significance level was set at p < 0.05. Changes in the vastus lateralis CSA (difference from Pre to Post) were significantly higher for the IND protocol (p = 0.042; mean difference: 1.08 cm2; confidence interval [CI]: 0.04-2.11). The inferential analysis was confirmed by the CI of the effect size (0.75; CI: 0.03-1.47). Also, the IND protocol had a higher proportion of individuals with greater muscle hypertrophy than the typical error of the measurement (chi-square, p = 0.0035; estimated difference = 0.5, CI: 0.212-0.787). In conclusion, individualizing the weekly training volume of research protocols provides greater gains in muscle CSA than prescribing a group standard RT volume.

Aerobic Adaptations to Resistance Training: The Role of Time under Tension

Generally, skeletal muscle adaptations to exercise are perceived through a dichotomous lens where the metabolic stress imposed by aerobic training leads to increased mitochondrial adaptations while the mechanical tension from resistance training leads to myofibrillar adaptations. However, there is emerging evidence for cross over between modalities where aerobic training stimulates traditional adaptations to resistance training (e.g., hypertrophy) and resistance training stimulates traditional adaptations to aerobic training (e.g., mitochondrial biogenesis). The latter is the focus of the current review in which we propose high-volume resistance training (i.e., high time under tension) leads to aerobic adaptations such as angiogenesis, mitochondrial biogenesis, and increased oxidative capacity. As time under tension increases, skeletal muscle energy turnover, metabolic stress, and ischemia also increase, which act as signals to activate the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma coactivator 1-alpha, which is the master regulator of mitochondrial biogenesis. For practical application, the acute stress and chronic adaptations to three specific forms of high-time under tension are also discussed: Slow-tempo, low-intensity resistance training, and drop-set resistance training. These modalities of high-time under tension lead to hallmark adaptations to resistance training such as muscle endurance, hypertrophy, and strength, but little is known about their effect on traditional aerobic training adaptations.

Loading Recommendations for Muscle Strength, Hypertrophy, and Local Endurance: A Re-Examination of the Repetition Continuum

Loading recommendations for resistance training are typically prescribed along what has come to be known as the “repetition continuum”, which proposes that the number of repetitions performed at a given magnitude of load will result in specific adaptations. Specifically, the theory postulates that heavy load training optimizes increases maximal strength, moderate load training optimizes increases muscle hypertrophy, and low-load training optimizes increases local muscular endurance. However, despite the widespread acceptance of this theory, current research fails to support some of its underlying presumptions. Based on the emerging evidence, we propose a new paradigm whereby muscular adaptations can be obtained, and in some cases optimized, across a wide spectrum of loading zones. The nuances and implications of this paradigm are discussed herein.

Does Performing Different Resistance Exercises for the Same Muscle Group Induce Non-homogeneous Hypertrophy?

The study aimed to compare the effect of performing the same or different exercises for a muscle group on resistance training (RT) sessions on muscle hypertrophy at different sites along muscle length. Twenty-two detrained men (23.3±4.1 years) were randomly allocated to the following groups: a group that performed the same exercises in all training sessions (N-VAR=11) or one that varied the exercises for the same muscle groups (VAR=11). All were submitted to 3 weekly sessions for nine weeks. Muscle thickness was assessed at the proximal, middle, and distal sites of the lateral and anterior thigh, elbow flexors, and extensors by B-mode ultrasound. The VAR group significantly increased all the sites analyzed (P<0.05). Furthermore, the proximal site of the lateral thigh showed a larger relative increase when compared to the middle site (P<0.05). In contrast, the N-VAR group were not revealed significant improvements only for the middle site of the lateral thigh and the proximal site of the elbow flexors (P>0.05). Our results suggest that to perform different resistance exercises can induce hypertrophy of all sites assessed in detrained young men.

Periodization: Variation in the Definition and Discrepancies in Study Design

Over the past several decades, periodization has been widely accepted as the gold standard of training theory. Within the literature, there are numerous definitions for periodization, which makes it difficult to study. When examining the proposed definitions and related studies on periodization, problems arise in the following domains: (1) periodization has been proposed to serve as the macro-management of the training process concerning the annual plan, yet research on long-term effects is scarce; (2) periodization and programming are being used interchangeably in research; and (3) training is not periodized alongside other stressors such as sport (i.e., only resistance training is being performed without the inclusion of sport). Overall, the state of the literature suggests that the inability to define periodization makes the statement of its superiority difficult to experimentally test. This paper discusses the proposed definitions of periodization and the study designs which have been employed to examine the concept.

Effects of resistance training with controlled versus self-selected repetition duration on muscle mass and strength in untrained men

The aim of this study was to compare the effect of self-selected repetition duration (SELF), with and without volume load (VL) equalized with controlled repetition duration (CON) on muscle strength and hypertrophy in untrained males. We used a within-subjects design in which 20 volunteers (age: 24.7 ± 2.9 years) had one leg randomly assigned to CON (i.e., 2 s concentric, 2 s eccentric) and the other to SELF or to self-selected repetition duration with equalized volume load (SELF-EV). One repetition maximum (1-RM) and muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) were measured at baseline (Pre) and after (Post) resistance training (RT; 2×/wk for 8 weeks). For the main study variables (1-RM and muscle CSA), a mixed-model analysis was performed, assuming repetition duration (SELF, SELF-EV and CON), and time (Pre and Post) as fixed factors and the subjects as random factor for each dependent variable (1-RM and CSA). All RT protocols showed significant increases in values of 1-RM from Pre (CON: 73.7 ± 17.6 kg; SELF: 75.9 ± 17.7 kg; and SELF-EV: 72.6 ± 16.9 kg) to Post (CON: 83.4 ± 19.9 kg, effect size (ES): 0.47; SELF: 84 ± 19.1 kg, ES: 0.43; and SELF-EV: 83.2 ± 19.9 kg, ES: 0.57, P < 0.0001). Muscle CSA values increased for all protocols from Pre (CON: 12.09 ± 3.14 cm²; SELF: 11.91 ± 3.71 cm²; and SELF-EV: 11.93 ± 2.32 cm²) to Post (CON: 13.03 ± 3.25 cm², ES: 0.29; SELF: 13.2 ± 4.16 cm², ES: 0.32; and SELF-EV: 13.2 ± 2.35 cm², ES: 0.53, P < 0.0001). No significant differences between protocols were found for both 1-RM and CSA (P > 0.05). Performing RT with SELF, regardless of VL, was equally effective in inducing increases in muscle strength and hypertrophy compared to CON in untrained men.

To Flex or Rest: Does Adding No-Load Isometric Actions to the Inter-Set Rest Period in Resistance Training Enhance Muscular Adaptations? A Randomized-Controlled Trial

We aimed to investigate the effects of resistance training (RT) combined with no-load isometric actions (iso-holds) during the inter-set recovery period versus RT that involves passive inter-set rest on muscular strength, muscular hypertrophy, and muscular endurance in resistance-trained men. Twenty-seven resistance-trained male volunteers were randomly assigned to either a traditional group (TRAD) that performed a hypertrophy-oriented RT routine with the rest intervals spent passively (n = 13) or to a group that supplemented traditional RT with iso-holds (ISO) for the working muscle group between each set (n = 14). Training for both routines consisted of three weekly sessions performed for 8 weeks. Three sets of 8–12 repetitions were performed per exercise. A 2-min rest interval was afforded between sets; the ISO group performed iso-holds for the first 30 s of each rest interval and then recovered for the final 90 s. Maximal strength was assessed using the one repetition maximum (1RM) tests in the leg press and bench press. Upper-body muscle endurance was assessed by performing the bench press to failure at 50% of 1RM. Muscle thickness (MT) of the elbow flexors, elbow extensors, mid-thigh, and lateral thigh was assessed using B-mode ultrasound. Results indicated a favorable effect of ISO on MT in the mid-thigh. Alternatively, there was a possible detrimental effect for ISO on leg press strength. No other notable differences were seen between conditions. In conclusion, the use of inter-set iso-holds may be a time-efficient strategy to enhance development of the quadriceps femoris; conversely, it may be detrimental to maximizing lower body strength.

The effects of exercise variation in muscle thickness, maximal strength and motivation in resistance trained men

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.

Myofibrillar protein synthesis and muscle hypertrophy individualized responses to systematically changing resistance training variables in trained young men

The manipulation of resistance training (RT) variables is used among athletes, recreational exercisers, and compromised populations (e.g., elderly) attempting to potentiate muscle hypertrophy. However, it is unknown whether an individual’s inherent predisposition dictates the RT-induced muscle hypertrophic response. Resistance-trained young [26 (3) y] men ( n = 20) performed 8 wk unilateral RT (2 times/wk), with 1 leg randomly assigned to a standard progressive RT [control (CON)] and the contralateral leg to a variable RT (VAR; modulating exercise load, volume, contraction type, and interset rest interval). The VAR leg completed all 4 RT variations every 2 wk. Bilateral vastus lateralis cross-sectional area (CSA) was measured, pre- and post-RT and acute integrated myofibrillar protein synthesis (MyoPS) rates were assessed at rest and over 48 h following the final RT session. Muscle CSA increase was similar between CON and VAR ( P > 0.05), despite higher total training volume (TTV) in VAR ( P < 0.05). The 0–48-h integrated MyoPS increase postexercise was slightly greater for VAR than CON ( P < 0.05). All participants were considered “responders” to RT, although none benefited to a greater extent from a specific protocol. Between-subjects variability (MyoPS, 3.30%; CSA, 37.8%) was 40-fold greater than the intrasubject (between legs) variability (MyoPS, 0.08%; CSA, 0.9%). The higher TTV and greater MyoPS response in VAR did not translate to a greater muscle hypertrophic response. Manipulating common RT variables elicited similar muscle hypertrophy than a standard progressive RT program in trained young men. Intrinsic individual factors are key determinants of the MyoPS and change in muscle CSA compared with extrinsic manipulation of common RT variables.

NEW & NOTEWORTHY Systematically manipulating resistance training (RT) variables during RT augments the stimulation of myofibrillar protein synthesis (MyoPS) and training volume but fails to potentiate muscle hypertrophy compared with a standard progressive RT. Any modest further MyoPS increase and higher training volumes do not reflect in a greater hypertrophic response. Between-subject variability was 40-fold greater than the variability promoted by extrinsic manipulation of RT variables, indicating that individual intrinsic factors are stronger determinants of the hypertrophic response.

Periodized Resistance Training for Enhancing Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength: A Mini-Review

Prescribing the proper resistance training (RT) program is critical to optimize skeletal muscle hypertrophy and strength. Periodization is a strategy that entails planned manipulations of training variables to maximize fitness adaptations while minimizing the risk of overtraining. Multiple meta-analyses have shown periodized RT to be superior to non-periodized RT for enhancing muscular strength. These findings are consistent irrespective of training status or training volume. Both the linear model and the undulating model are effective for enhancing strength, although a greater benefit might be achieved through the undulating model. Despite the suggested superiority of periodized RT for strength development, some authors suggest that this might be a consequence of the study designs employed rather than the nature of periodized training. In addition, several limitations exist in the periodization literature, making it difficult to accurately assess the efficacy of periodized RT. With regard to enhancing skeletal muscle hypertrophy, both the undulating model and the linear model appear equally effective; however, this conclusion can only be generalized to untrained populations. When comparing periodized RT to non-periodized RT programs, the research is unclear on whether periodized RT is necessary to maximize skeletal muscle hypertrophy.

Effects of linear and daily undulating periodized resistance training programs on measures of muscle hypertrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Periodization is an important component of resistance training programs. It is meant to improve adherence to the training regimen, allow for constant progression, help in avoiding plateaus, and reduce occurrence and severity of injuries. Previous findings regarding the effects of different periodization models on measures of muscle hypertrophy are equivocal. To provide a more in-depth look at the topic, we undertook a systematic review of the literature and a meta-analysis of intervention trials comparing the effects of linear periodization (LP) and daily undulating periodization (DUP) resistance training programs on muscle hypertrophy.

Materials and Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted through PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD) and Open Access Theses and Dissertations (OATD).

Results

The pooled standardized mean difference (Cohen’s d) from 13 eligible studies for the difference between the periodization models on muscle hypertrophy was −0.02 (95% confidence interval [−0.25, 0.21], p = 0.848).

Conclusions

The meta-analysis comparing LP and DUP indicated that the effects of the two periodization models on muscle hypertrophy are likely to be similar. However, more research is needed in this area, particularly among trained individuals and clinical populations. Future studies may benefit from using instruments that are more sensitive for detecting changes in muscle mass, such as ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging.