Weight training and strength, cardiorespiratory functioning and body composition of men

Effects of Different Weekly Set Volumes on Strength and Perceptual Responses in Athletes

This study investigated the effects of different resistance training (RT) volumes quantified by weekly sets at high intensity (load and effort) on dynamic strength adaptations and psychophysiological responses in trained individuals. Twenty-four athletes were randomly allocated to three groups that performed three (3 S, n=8), six (6 S, n=8), and nine (9 S, n=8) weekly sets, respectively, three times a week on the barbell back squat and bench press during an 8-week period. While all groups showcased strength gains (p<0.05), post hoc comparisons revealed that 6 S and 9 S elicited greater strength adaptations than 3 S in barbell back squat (p=0.027 and p=0.004, respectively) and bench press (p=0.001 and p=0.044, respectively). There were no differences between 6 S and 9 S conditions for back squat (p=0.999) and bench press (p=0.378). Although a time effect was observed for Session-RPE (p=0.014) and Total Quality Recovery scale (p=0.020), psychophysiological responses were similar among groups. Our findings suggest that performing six and nine weekly sets at high intensities led to greater strength gains compared to three weekly sets in strength-trained individuals, despite similar psychophysiological responses.

Re-examination of 1- vs. 3-Sets of Resistance Exercise for Pre-spaceflight Muscle Conditioning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Recommendations on resistance training (RT) set-volume protocols in preparation for spaceflight muscular strength conditioning remains equivocal. A meta-analysis was performed on the effects of single-set (S), or three-set (M3) RT on muscular strength per exercise for different body segments and joint types (multi-joint and single-joint). Methods: Computerized searches were performed on PubMed, MEDLINE and SPORTDiscus™. Twelve studies were considered appropriate according to pre-set eligibility criteria. Outcomes analyzed were pre-to-post-muscular strength change on; multi-joint and single-joint combined; upper body only; lower body only; multi-joint exercises only; single-joint exercises only. Results: Upper body exercise analysis on combined subjects and untrained subjects only reported greater but not significant strength gains with M3 (ES 0.37; 95% CI 0.09-0.82; P = 0.11 and ES 0.35; 95% CI-0.49 to 1.19; P = 0.42). Trained only subjects reported superior strength gains with M3 (ES 0.63; 95% CI 0.34-0.92; P = <0.0001). Lower body exercise on combined subjects and untrained subjects only reported superior strength gains with M3 (ES 0.35; 95% CI 0.10-0.60; P = 0.006 and ES 0.49; 95% CI 0.14-0.83; P = 0.005). Trained subjects only observed greater but not significant strength gains with M3 (ES 0.18; 95% CI -0.23 to 0.58; P = 0.39). Multi-joint exercise on combined subjects reported greater strength gains with M3 (ES 0.83; 95% CI 0.14-1.51; P = 0.02). Trained only subjects reported greater strength gains with M3 (ES 0.52; 95% CI 0.10-0.94; P = 0.02). Single-joint exercise on combined subjects and untrained only observed greater strength gains for M3 (ES 0.49; 95% CI 0.26-0.72; P = <0.0001 and ES 0.56; 95% CI 0.21-0.91; P = 0.002). Trained only subjects reported greater but not significant strength gains with M3 (ES 0.37; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.75; P = 0.06). Conclusion: For astronauts in space-flight preparation, the findings suggest that M3 training appears to be preferable over S for developing muscular strength. Nevertheless, depending on the physical conditioning of the crew member or tight pre-flight scheduling, S is still able to provide a positive strength training stimulus.

Resistance Isn't Futile: The Physiological Basis of the Health Effects of Resistance Exercise in Individuals With Type 1 Diabetes

The importance of regular exercise for glucose management in individuals with type 1 diabetes is magnified by its acknowledgment as a key adjunct to insulin therapy by several governmental, charitable, and healthcare organisations. However, although actively encouraged, exercise participation rates remain low, with glycaemic disturbances and poor cardiorespiratory fitness cited as barriers to long-term involvement. These fears are perhaps exacerbated by uncertainty in how different forms of exercise can considerably alter several acute and chronic physiological outcomes in those with type 1 diabetes. Thus, understanding the bodily responses to specific forms of exercise is important for the provision of practical guidelines that aim to overcome these exercise barriers. Currently, the majority of existing exercise research in type 1 diabetes has focused on moderate intensity continuous protocols with less work exploring predominately non-oxidative exercise modalities like resistance exercise. This is surprising, considering the known neuro-muscular, osteopathic, metabolic, and vascular benefits associated with resistance exercise in the wider population. Considering that individuals with type 1 diabetes have an elevated susceptibility for complications within these physiological systems, the wider health benefits associated with resistance exercise may help alleviate the prevalence and/or magnitude of pathological manifestation in this population group. This review outlines the health benefits of resistance exercise with reference to evidence in aiding some of the common complications associated with individuals with type 1 diabetes.

The Importance of Muscular Strength: Training Considerations

This review covers underlying physiological characteristics and training considerations that may affect muscular strength including improving maximal force expression and time-limited force expression. Strength is underpinned by a combination of morphological and neural factors including muscle cross-sectional area and architecture, musculotendinous stiffness, motor unit recruitment, rate coding, motor unit synchronization, and neuromuscular inhibition. Although single- and multi-targeted block periodization models may produce the greatest strength-power benefits, concepts within each model must be considered within the limitations of the sport, athletes, and schedules. Bilateral training, eccentric training and accentuated eccentric loading, and variable resistance training may produce the greatest comprehensive strength adaptations. Bodyweight exercise, isolation exercises, plyometric exercise, unilateral exercise, and kettlebell training may be limited in their potential to improve maximal strength but are still relevant to strength development by challenging time-limited force expression and differentially challenging motor demands. Training to failure may not be necessary to improve maximum muscular strength and is likely not necessary for maximum gains in strength. Indeed, programming that combines heavy and light loads may improve strength and underpin other strength-power characteristics. Multiple sets appear to produce superior training benefits compared to single sets; however, an athlete's training status and the dose-response relationship must be considered. While 2- to 5-min interset rest intervals may produce the greatest strength-power benefits, rest interval length may vary based an athlete's training age, fiber type, and genetics. Weaker athletes should focus on developing strength before emphasizing power-type training. Stronger athletes may begin to emphasize power-type training while maintaining/improving their strength. Future research should investigate how best to implement accentuated eccentric loading and variable resistance training and examine how initial strength affects an athlete's ability to improve their performance following various training methods.

The Effect of Weekly Set Volume on Strength Gain: A Meta-Analysis

Background

Strength training set organisation and its relationship to the development of muscular strength have yet to be clearly defined. Current meta-analytical research suggests that different population groups have distinctive muscular adaptations, primarily due to the prescription of the strength training set dose.

Objectives

We conducted a meta-analysis with restrictive inclusion criteria and examined the potential effects of low (LWS), medium (MWS) or high weekly set (HWS) strength training on muscular strength per exercise. Secondly, we examined strength gain variations when performing multi-joint or isolation exercises, and probed for a potential relationship between weekly set number and stage of subjects’ training (trained versus untrained).

Methods

Computerised searches were performed on PubMed, MEDLINE, SWETSWISE, EMBASE and SPORTDiscus™ using the terms ‘strength training’, ‘resistance training’, ‘single sets’, ‘multiple sets’ and ‘volume’. As of September 2016, 6962 potentially relevant studies were identified. After review, nine studies were deemed eligible per pre-set inclusion criteria. Primary data were pooled using a random-effect model. Outcomes for strength gain, strength gain with multi-joint and isolation exercise were analysed for main effects. Sensitivity analyses were calculated for several subgroups by separating the data set and by calculation of separate analyses for each subgroup. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the Cochran Q and I² statistics.

Results

Pre- versus post-training strength analysis comprised 61 treatment groups from nine studies. For combined multi-joint and isolation exercises, pre- versus post- training strength gains were greater with HWS compared with LWS [mean effect size (ES) 0.18; 95% CI 0.06–0.30; p = 0.003]. The mean ES for LWS was 0.82 (95% CI 0.47–1.17). The mean ES for HWS was 1.01 (95% CI 0.70–1.32). Separate analysis of the effects of pre- versus post-training strength for LWS or MWS observed marginally greater strength gains with MWS compared with LWS (ES 0.15; 95% CI 0.01–0.30; p = 0.04). The mean ES for LWS was 0.83 (95% CI 0.53–1.13). The mean ES for MWS was 0.98 (95% CI 0.62–1.34). For multi-joint exercises, greater strength gains were observed with HWS compared with LWS (ES 0.18; 95% CI 0.01–0.34; p = 0.04). The mean ES for LWS was 0.81 (95% CI 0.65–0.97). The mean ES for HWS was 1.00 (95% CI 0.77–1.23). For isolation exercises, greater strength gains were observed with HWS compared with LWS (ES 0.23; 95% CI 0.06–0.40; p = 0.008). The mean ES for LWS was 0.95 (95% CI 0.30–1.60). The mean ES for HWS was 1.10 (95% CI 0.26–1.94). For multi-joint and isolation exercise-specific one repetition maximum (1 RM), marginally greater strength gains were observed with HWS compared with LWS (ES 0.14; 95% CI −0.01 to 0.29; p = 0.06). The mean ES for LWS was 0.80 (95% CI 0.47–1.13). The mean ES for HWS was 0.97 (95% CI 0.68–1.26).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis presents additional evidence regarding a graded dose–response relationship between weekly sets performed and strength gain. The use of MWS and HWS was more effective than LWS, with LWS producing the smallest pre- to post-training strength difference. For novice and intermediate male trainees, the findings suggest that LWSs do not lead to strength gains compared with MWS or HWS training. For those trainees in the middle ground, not a novice and not advanced, the existing data provide a relationship between weekly sets and strength gain as set configurations produced different pre- to post-training strength increases. For well trained individuals, the use of either MWS or HWS may be an appropriate dose to produce strength gains.

Effect of supervised, periodized exercise training vs. self-directed training on lean body mass and other fitness variables in health club members

Conventional wisdom suggests that exercise training with a personal trainer (PTr) is more beneficial for improving health-related fitness than training alone. However, there are no published data that confirm whether fitness club members who exercise with a PTr in the fitness club setting obtain superior results compared with self-directed training. We hypothesized that club members randomized to receive an evidence-based training program would accrue greater improvements in lean body mass (LBM) and other fitness measures than members randomized to self-training. Men, aged 30-44 years, who were members of a single Southern California fitness club were randomized to exercise with a PTr administering a nonlinear periodized training program (TRAINED, N = 17) or to self-directed training (SELF, N = 17); both groups trained 3 days per week for 12 weeks. Lean body mass was determined by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Secondary outcomes included muscle strength 1 repetition maximum (1RM), leg power (vertical jump), and aerobic capacity (V[Combining Dot Above]O2max). TRAINED individuals increased LBM by 1.3 (0.4) kg, mean (SEM) vs. no change in SELF, p = 0.029. Similarly, significantly greater improvements were seen for TRAINED vs. SELF in chest press strength (42 vs. 19%; p = 0.003), peak leg power (6 vs. 0.6%; p < 0.0001), and V[Combining Dot Above]O2max (7 vs. -0.3%; p = 0.01). Leg press strength improved 38 and 25% in TRAINED and SELF, respectively (p = 0.14). We have demonstrated for the first time in a fitness club setting that members whose training is directed by well-qualified PTrs administering evidence-based training regimens achieve significantly greater improvements in LBM and other dimensions of fitness than members who direct their own training.

Strength training reduces arterial blood pressure but not sympathetic neural activity in young normotensive subjects

The effects of resistance training on arterial blood pressure and muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) at rest have not been established. Although endurance training is commonly recommended to lower arterial blood pressure, it is not known whether similar adaptations occur with resistance training. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis that whole body resistance training reduces arterial blood pressure at rest, with concomitant reductions in MSNA. Twelve young [21 +/- 0.3 (SE) yr] subjects underwent a program of whole body resistance training 3 days/wk for 8 wk. Resting arterial blood pressure (n = 12; automated sphygmomanometer) and MSNA (n = 8; peroneal nerve microneurography) were measured during a 5-min period of supine rest before and after exercise training. Thirteen additional young (21 +/- 0.8 yr) subjects served as controls. Resistance training significantly increased one-repetition maximum values in all trained muscle groups (P < 0.001), and it significantly decreased systolic (130 +/- 3 to 121 +/- 2 mmHg; P = 0.01), diastolic (69 +/- 3 to 61 +/- 2 mmHg; P = 0.04), and mean (89 +/- 2 to 81 +/- 2 mmHg; P = 0.01) arterial blood pressures at rest. Resistance training did not affect MSNA or heart rate. Arterial blood pressures and MSNA were unchanged, but heart rate increased after 8 wk of relative inactivity for subjects in the control group (61 +/- 2 to 67 +/- 3 beats/min; P = 0.01). These results indicate that whole body resistance exercise training might decrease the risk for development of cardiovascular disease by lowering arterial blood pressure but that reductions of pressure are not coupled to resistance exercise-induced decreases of sympathetic tone.

A meta-analysis to determine the dose response for strength development

PURPOSE

The identification of a quantifiable dose-response relationship for strength training is important to the prescription of proper training programs. Although much research has been performed examining strength increases with training, taken individually, they provide little insight into the magnitude of strength gains along the continuum of training intensities, frequencies, and volumes. A meta-analysis of 140 studies with a total of 1433 effect sizes (ES) was carried out to identify the dose-response relationship.

METHODS

Studies employing a strength-training intervention and containing data necessary to calculate ES were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

ES demonstrated different responses based on the training status of the participants. Training with a mean intensity of 60% of one repetition maximum elicits maximal gains in untrained individuals, whereas 80% is most effective in those who are trained. Untrained participants experience maximal gains by training each muscle group 3 d.wk and trained individuals 2 d.wk. Four sets per muscle group elicited maximal gains in both trained and untrained individuals.

CONCLUSION

The dose-response trends identified in this analysis support the theory of progression in resistance program design and can be useful in the development of training programs designed to optimize the effort to benefit ratio.

Physiological effects of exercise on the cardiopulmonary system

The cardiopulmonary adaptations made to dynamic and static exercise show the amazing ability of the human body to alter physiological processes in order to meet metabolic demands. A remarkable partnership that allows individuals to maximize their abilities and obtain goals exists between the cardiovascular and pulmonary systems. The adaptations of the cardiopulmonary system depend heavily on the intensity, duration, frequency, and type of exercise being performed. Although most of this article examined dynamic and static exercise separately, the majority of individuals train using a combination of these two modes. The overall adaptations will vary with the chosen degree of each exercise mode. An appropriate exercise program allows for improvements in the cardiopulmonary system that help develop and maintain fitness levels.

Berger in retrospect: effect of varied weight training programmes on strength

The evidence that multiple sets of exercise are superior to a single set for maximal strength gains, as suggested by Berger in 1962, is reviewed. The validity and practical significance of Berger's strength training study are questioned. Well controlled, methodologically sound studies that minimise confounding variables are required to support the hypothesis that multiple sets of exercise elicit superior gains in strength.

American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults

In order to stimulate further adaptation toward a specific training goal(s), progression in the type of resistance training protocol used is necessary. The optimal characteristics of strength-specific programs include the use of both concentric and eccentric muscle actions and the performance of both single- and multiple-joint exercises. It is also recommended that the strength program sequence exercises to optimize the quality of the exercise intensity (large before small muscle group exercises, multiple-joint exercises before single-joint exercises, and higher intensity before lower intensity exercises). For initial resistances, it is recommended that loads corresponding to 8-12 repetition maximum (RM) be used in novice training. For intermediate to advanced training, it is recommended that individuals use a wider loading range, from 1-12 RM in a periodized fashion, with eventual emphasis on heavy loading (1-6 RM) using at least 3-min rest periods between sets performed at a moderate contraction velocity (1-2 s concentric, 1-2 s eccentric). When training at a specific RM load, it is recommended that 2-10% increase in load be applied when the individual can perform the current workload for one to two repetitions over the desired number. The recommendation for training frequency is 2-3 d x wk(-1) for novice and intermediate training and 4-5 d x wk(-1) for advanced training. Similar program designs are recommended for hypertrophy training with respect to exercise selection and frequency. For loading, it is recommended that loads corresponding to 1-12 RM be used in periodized fashion, with emphasis on the 6-12 RM zone using 1- to 2-min rest periods between sets at a moderate velocity. Higher volume, multiple-set programs are recommended for maximizing hypertrophy. Progression in power training entails two general loading strategies: 1) strength training, and 2) use of light loads (30-60% of 1 RM) performed at a fast contraction velocity with 2-3 min of rest between sets for multiple sets per exercise. It is also recommended that emphasis be placed on multiple-joint exercises, especially those involving the total body. For local muscular endurance training, it is recommended that light to moderate loads (40-60% of 1 RM) be performed for high repetitions (> 15) using short rest periods (< 90 s). In the interpretation of this position stand, as with prior ones, the recommendations should be viewed in context of the individual's target goals, physical capacity, and training status.

Influence of resistance training volume and periodization on physiological and performance adaptations in collegiate women tennis players

Few data exist on the long-term adaptations to heavy resistance training in women. The purpose of this investigation was to examine the effect of volume of resistance exercise on the development of physical performance abilities in competitive, collegiate women tennis players. Twenty-four tennis players were matched for tennis ability and randomly placed into one of three groups: a no resistance exercise control group, a periodized multiple-set resistance training group, or a single-set circuit resistance training group. No significant changes in body mass were observed in any of the groups throughout the entire training period. However, significant increases in fat-free mass and decreases in percent body fat were observed in the periodized training group after 4, 6, and 9 months of training. A significant increase in power output was observed after 9 months of training in the periodized training group only. One-repetition maximum strength for the bench press, free-weight shoulder press, and leg press increased significantly after 4, 6, and 9 months of training in the periodized training group, whereas the single-set circuit group increased only after 4 months of training. Significant increases in serve velocity were observed after 4 and 9 months of training in the periodized training group, whereas no significant changes were observed in the single-set circuit group. These data demonstrate that sport-specific resistance training using a periodized multiple-set training method is superior to low-volume single-set resistance exercise protocols in the development of physical abilities in competitive, collegiate women tennis players.

Effects of throwing overweight and underweight baseballs on throwing velocity and accuracy

The purpose of this review is to determine how throwing overweight and underweight baseballs affects baseball throwing velocity and accuracy. Two studies examined how a warm-up with overweight baseballs affected throwing velocity and accuracy of 5 oz regulation baseballs. One of these studies showed significant increases in throwing velocity and accuracy, while the other study found no significant differences. Three training studies (6 to 12 weeks in duration) using overweight baseballs were conducted to determine how they affected ball accuracy while throwing regulation baseballs. No significant differences were found in any study. From these data it is concluded that warming up or training with overweight baseballs does not improve ball accuracy. Seven overweight and 4 underweight training studies (6 to 12 weeks in duration) were conducted to determine how throwing velocity of regulation baseballs was affected due to training with these overweight and underweight baseballs. The overweight baseballs ranged in weight from 5.25 to 17 oz, while the underweight baseballs were between 4 and 4.75 oz. Data from these training studies strongly support the practice of training with overweight and underweight baseballs to increase throwing velocity of regulation baseballs. Since no injuries were reported throughout the training studies, throwing overweight and underweight baseballs may not be more stressful to the throwing arm compared to throwing regulation baseballs. However, since currently there are no injury data related to throwing overweight and underweight baseballs, this should be the focus of subsequent studies. In addition, research should be initiated to determine whether throwing kinematics and kinetics are different between throwing regulation baseballs and throwing overweight and underweight baseballs.

Strength training. Single versus multiple sets

Perhaps the most controversial element of any strength training programme is the number of sets required to increase muscular strength and hypertrophy. There is a prevalent belief that at least 3 sets of each exercise are required to elicit optimal increases in strength and hypertrophy. However, most of the studies that reported the results of training with single versus multiple sets do not substantiate this tenet. In fact, the preponderance of evidence suggests that for training durations of 4 to 25 weeks there is no significant difference in the increase in strength or hypertrophy as a result of training with single versus multiple sets. Because of the design limitations of these studies, conclusions concerning the efficacy of multiple sets should be tentative. However, there is little scientific evidence, and no theoretical physiological basis, to suggest that a greater volume of exercise elicits greater increases in strength or hypertrophy. This information may represent an important practical application of time-efficient, low-volume exercise.

The power athlete

A number of normal daily and athletic activities require isometric or static exercise. Sports such as weight lifting and other high-resistance activities are used by power athletes to gain strength and skeletal muscle bulk. Static exercise, the predominant activity used in power training, significantly increases blood pressure, heart rate, myocardial contractility, and cardiac output. These changes occur in response to central neural irradiation, called central command, as well as a reflex originating from statically contracting muscle. Studies have demonstrated that blood pressure appears to be the regulated variable, presumably because the increased pressure provides blood flow into muscles whose arterial inflow is reduced as a result of increases in intramuscular pressure created by contraction. Thus, static exercise is characterized by a pressure load on the heart and can be differentiated from the hemodynamic response to dynamic (isotonic) exercise, which involves a volume load to the heart. Physical training with static exercise (i.e., power training) leads to concentric cardiac (particularly left ventricular) hypertrophy, whereas training with dynamic exercise leads to eccentric hypertrophy. The magnitude of cardiac hypertrophy is much less in athletes training with static than dynamic exercise. Neither systolic nor diastolic function is altered by the hypertrophic process associated with static exercise training. Many of the energy requirements for static exercise, particularly during more severe levels of exercise, are met by anaerobic glycolysis because the contracting muscle becomes comes deprived of blood flow. Power athletes, training with repetitive static exercise, derive little benefit from an increase in oxygen transport capacity, so that maximal oxygen consumption is increased only minimally or not at all. Peripheral cardiovascular adaptations also can occur in response to training with static exercise. Although the studies are controversial, these adaptations include modest decreases in resting blood pressure, reduced increases in blood pressure and sympathetic nerve activity during a given workload, enhanced baroreflex function, increases in muscle capillary-to-fiber ratio, possible improvements in lipid and lipoprotein profiles, and increases in glucose and insulin responsiveness. Some of these adaptations can occur in cardiac or hypertensive patients with no concomitant cardiovascular complications. In both healthy individuals and those with cardiovascular disease, the manner in which resistance training is performed may dictate the extent to which these adjustments take place. Specifically, training that involves frequent repetitions of moderate weight (and hence contains dynamic components) seems to produce the most beneficial results.

Longitudinal study of the effect of high intensity weight training on aerobic capacity

To investigate the effect of a long-term weight lifting programme characterized by high intensity, low repetition and long rest period between sets on maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) and to determine the advantage of this programme combined with jogging, 26 male untrained students were involved in weight training for a period of 3 years. The VO2max and body composition of the subjects were examined at beginning, 1 year, 2 years (T2), and 3 years after (T3) training. Of the group, 19 subjects performed the weight lifting programme 5 days each week for 3 years (W-group), 4 subjects performed the same weight lifting programme for 3 years with an additional running programme consisting of 2 miles of jogging once a week during the 3rd year (R1-group), and 3 subjects performed the weight lifting programme during the 1st year and the same combined jogging and weight lifting programme as the R1-group during the 2nd and 3rd years (R2-group). The average VO2max relative to their body mass of the W-group decreased significantly during the 1st year, followed by an insignificant decrease in the 2nd year and a levelling off in the 3rd year. The average VO2max of the W-group at T2 and T3 was 44.2 and 44.1 ml.kg-1.min-1, respectively. The tendency of VO2max changes in the R1- and R2-groups was similar to the W-group until they started the jogging programme, after which they recovered significantly to the initial level within a year of including that programme, and they then levelled off during the next year. Lean body mass estimated from skinfold thicknesses had increased by about 8% after 3 years of weight lifting. The maximal muscle strength, defined by total olympic lifts (snatch, and clean and jerk), of these three groups increased significantly and there was no significant difference among the amounts of the increase in the three groups.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

The effect of resistance training on blood pressure in normotensive women

The purpose of the present study was to determine whether conventional resistance training alters 24-h ambulatory and manually determined casual blood pressure of normotensive women. Seven individuals (23 +/- 2 years old) trained 2 days week-1 for 20 weeks emphasizing the hip and knee extensor muscle groups. Three sets to exhaustion of the knee extension, squat, knee flexion and leg press exercises were performed. The load for each exercise represented approximately 80-85% of the one-repetition maximum. Average values for 24-h ambulatory blood pressure were not different (P greater than 0.05) pre- and post-training (systolic, 107 +/- 4 vs. 109 +/- 1 mmHg; diastolic, 73 +/- 2 vs. 71 +/- 2 mmHg). Ambulatory values over 8-h segments of the 24 h (day, evening, night) and casual resting determinations of blood pressure were also not affected. The lack of change in blood pressure cannot be explained by an insufficient training response. Knee extensor strength during dynamic or isokinetic actions increased (approximately 43%, P less than 0.05). In addition, biopsies from the vastus lateralis muscle showed an increase (P less than 0.05) in average muscle fibre cross-sectional area of 32%. This hypertrophic response was further substantiated by an increase (P less than 0.05) in lean body mass (41.2 +/- 1.3 kg to 43.4 +/- 1.5 kg). These results indicate that resistance training, which increases muscular strength, muscle fibre area and lean body mass, does not alter ambulatory or casual blood pressure. Thus, the concern that conventional resistance training may chronically elevate blood pressure does not appear warranted, at least in normotensive women.