Modified Daily Undulating Periodization Model Produces Greater Performance Than a Traditional Configuration in Powerlifters

Anabolic myokine responses and muscular performance following 8 weeks of autoregulated compared to linear resistance exercise in recreationally active males

BACKGROUND

To date, no studies, to our knowledge, have compared the efficacy of autoregulated periodized and linear resistance exercises on anabolic myokines and muscular performance among recreationally active individuals. This study aimed to compare the effects of an 8-week autoregulated periodized resistance exercise (APRE) program with a linear resistance exercise (LRE) program on insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), follistatin (FST), myostatin (MST), body composition, muscular strength, and power in recreationally active males.

METHODS

Thirty males were randomly assigned to either the APRE group (n = 15) or the LRE group (n = 15). Participants completed training three times a week for 8 weeks. The outcome measures included serum IGF-1, FST, MST, muscular strength (isometric knee extension and handgrip), power (vertical jump), lean body mass, and fat mass.

RESULTS

IGF-1 circulating levels increased over time following APRE (34%) and with no significant change following LRE (~-1%). There were no significant differences over time or between groups for FST or MST. Muscular strength (knee extension [21.5 vs. ~16%] and handgrip [right: 31 vs. 25%; left: 31.7 vs. 28.8%]) and power (~ 33 vs. ~26%) significantly increased to a greater extent following APRE compared to LRE. Interestingly, the results revealed that lean body mass increased over time only after APRE (~ 3%), but not LRE.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that APRE may be more effective than LRE in increasing muscular strength, power, and lean body mass, as well as circulating IGF-1 levels, in recreationally active males. The observed differences may be attributed to the increased training volume associated with APRE. However, further research is needed to directly assess muscle protein synthesis.

The Effect of Time-Equated Concurrent Training Programs in Resistance-Trained Men

The purpose of this investigation was to compare the effects of three different concurrent training (CT) programs and a resistance training (RT) program. Twenty-three resistance trained men (age: 24 ± 3 years) were randomized into four groups: concurrent RT and high intensity interval cycling (CTH, n = 6), concurrent RT and moderate intensity continuous cycling (CTM, n = 5), RT and barbell circuit training (RTC, n = 6), or RT only (RT, n = 6). Back squat and bench press strength, quadriceps, and pectoralis muscle thickness, VO2peak, and maximum workload (Wmax, Watts) were assessed. Squat strength gains were meaningful in all groups and comparable among CTH (16.88 kg [95% CrI: 11.15, 22.63]), CTM (25.54 kg [95% CrI: 19.24, 31.96]), RTC (17.5 kg [95% CrI: 11.66, 23.39]), and RT (20.36 kg [95% CrI: 15.29, 25.33]) groups. Bench press strength gains were meaningful in all groups and comparable among CTH (11.86 kg [95% CrI: 8.28, 15.47]), CTM (10.3 kg [95% CrI: 6.49, 14.13]), RTC (4.84 kg [95% CrI: 1.31, 8.47]), and RT (10.16 kg [95% CrI: 7.02, 13.22]) groups. Quadriceps hypertrophy was meaningful in all groups and comparable among CTH (2.29 mm [95% CrI: 0.84, 3.76]), CTM (3.41 mm [95% CrI: 1.88, 4.91]), RTC (2.6 mm [95% CrI: 1.17, 4.05]), and RT (2.83 mm [95% CrI: 1.55, 4.12]) groups. Pectoralis hypertrophy was meaningful in CTH (2.29 mm [95% CrI: -0.52, 5.1]), CTM (5.14 mm [95% CrI: 2.1, 8.15]), and RTC (7.19 mm [95% CrI: 4.26, 10.02]) groups, but not in the RT group (1 mm [95% CrI: -1.59, 3.59]); further, between-group contrasts indicated less pectoralis growth in the RT compared to the RTC group. Regarding cardiovascular outcomes, only the RTH and RTM groups experienced meaningful improvements in either measure (VO2peak or Wmax). These data suggest that the interference effect on maximal strength and hypertrophy can be avoided when the aerobic training is moderate intensity cycling, high intensity cycling, or a novel barbell circuit for ~one hour per week and on non-RT days. However, the barbell circuit failed to elicit meaningful cardiovascular adaptations.

Effects of 4 Different Velocity-Based Resistance-Training Programming Models on Physical Performance

PURPOSE

To examine the effects of 4 programming models (linear [LP], undulating [UP], reverse [RP], and constant [CP]) on physical performance.

METHODS

Forty-eight moderately strength-trained men were randomly assigned to LP, UP, RP, and CP groups according to their 1-repetition maximum (1RM) in the full-squat exercise (SQ) and followed an 8-week training intervention using the SQ and monitoring movement velocity for every repetition. All groups trained with similar mean relative intensity (65% 1RM), number of repetitions (240), sets (3), and interset recovery (4 min) throughout the training program. Pretraining and posttraining measurements included, in the SQ, 1RM load, the average velocity attained for all absolute loads common to pretests and posttests (AV), and the average velocity for loads that were moved faster (AV > 1) and slower (AV < 1) than 1 m·s-1 at pretraining tests. Moreover, countermovement jump height and 20-m running sprint time were measured.

RESULTS

A significant time effect was found for all variables analyzed (P < .05), except for 20-m running sprint time. Significant group × time interactions were observed for 1RM, AV > 1, and AV (P < .05). After training, all groups attained significant strength gains on 1RM, AV, AV > 1, and AV < 1 (P < .001-.01). LP and RP groups improved their countermovement jump height (P < .01), but no significant changes were observed for UP and CP. No significant improvements were achieved in 20-m running sprint time for any groups.

CONCLUSIONS

These different programming models are all suitable for improving physical performance. LP and RP induce similar or greater gains in physical performance than UP and CP.

The Importance of Recovery in Resistance Training Microcycle Construction

Systemic resistance training aims to enhance performance by balancing stress, fatigue and recovery. While fatigue is expected, insufficient recovery may temporarily impair performance. The aim of this review was to examine evidence regarding manipulation of resistance training variables on subsequent effects on recovery and performance. PubMed, Medline, SPORTDiscus, Scopus and CINAHL were searched. Only studies that investigated recovery between resistance training sessions were selected, with a total of 24 articles included for review. Training to failure may lengthen recovery times, potentially impairing performance; however, it may be suitable if implemented strategically ensuring adequate recovery between sessions of similar exercises or muscle groups. Higher volumes may increase recovery demands, especially when paired with training to failure, however, with wide variation in individual responses, it is suggested to start with lower volume, monitor recovery, and gradually increase training volume if appropriate. Exercises emphasising the lower body, multi-joint movements, greater muscle recruitment, eccentric contractions, and/or the lengthened position may require longer recovery times. Adjusting volume and frequency of these exercises can affect recovery demands depending on the goals and training logistics. Daily undulating programming may maximise performance on priority sessions while maintaining purposeful and productive easy days. For example, active recovery in the form of training opposing muscle groups, light aerobic cardio, or low-volume power-type training may improve recovery and potentially elicit a post activation potentiation priming effect compared to passive recovery. However, it is possible that training cessation may be adequate for allowing sufficient recovery prior to sessions of importance.

The Effect of Three Different Resistance Training Programming Approaches on Strength Gains and Jumping Performance

Background: A main goal of programming is to structure the optimal variations in training factors to optimize athletes' adaptations. Nevertheless, it remains unknown the optimal programming model leading to greater neuromuscular adaptations. Purpose: The aim of the present study was to assess the influence of three different magnitudes of variability within resistance training programs on performance adaptations. Methods: Forty participants were assigned to three different groups differing in the frequency of change in training contents: a weekly model (WM; n = 12), a daily model (DM; n= 14), and a session model (SM; n = 14). The training intervention lasted for six weeks, performing two sessions per week of back-squat exercise. Total training load (volume and intensity) of the six-week intervention was equated for all groups. Maximum dynamic strength (1RM) in the back-squat, countermovement (CMJ) and squat jump (SJ) were measured pre- and post-training intervention. Results: All groups showed significant increases (p< .05) in 1RM, with the SM showing greater increases than the WM (20.5 vs 13.6%; p= .022). Although not reaching statistical significance, the magnitude of the increases in CMJ tended to be greater for DM and SM group (9.5% and 8.1%, respectively,) than in the WM (4.4%). All groups showed similar increases in the SJ (7.7-9.9%). Conclusions: The results of the present study suggest that the use of more frequent stimuli variations within resistance training programming is a key factor to achieve concomitant increases in strength and jumping performance.

Blood-Flow-Restriction-Training-Induced Hormonal Response is not Associated with Gains in Muscle Size and Strength

The aim of this study was to determine whether increases in post-exercise endocrine response to low-load resistance exercise with blood flow restriction and high-load resistance exercise would have association with increases in muscle size and strength after an 8-week training period. Twenty-nine untrained men were randomly allocated into three groups: low-load resistance exercise with (LL-BFR) or without blood flow restriction (LL), and high-load resistance exercise (HL). Participants from LL-BFR and LL groups performed leg extension exercise at 20% of one repetition maximum (1RM), four sets of 15 repetitions and the HL group performed four sets of eight repetitions at 80% 1RM. Before the first training session, growth hormone (GH), insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), testosterone, cortisol, and lactate concentration were measured at rest and 15 min after the exercise. Quadriceps CSA and 1RM knee extension were assessed at baseline and after an 8-week training period. GH increased 15 min after exercise in the LL-BFR (p = 0.032) and HL (p < 0.001) groups, with GH concentration in the HL group being higher than in the LL group (p = 0.010). There was a time effect for a decrease in testosterone (p = 0.042) and an increase in cortisol (p = 0.005), while IGF-1 remained unchanged (p = 0.346). Both muscle size and strength were increased after training in LL-BFR and HL groups, however, these changes were not associated with the acute post-exercise hormone levels (p > 0.05). Our data suggest that other mechanisms than the acute post-exercise increase in systemic hormones induced by LL-BFR and HL produce changes in muscle size and strength.

“I Want to Create So Much Stimulus That Adaptation Goes Through the Roof”: High-Performance Strength Coaches' Perceptions of Planned Overreaching

Functional overreaching (FOR) occurs when athletes experience improved athletic capabilities in the days and weeks following short-term periods of increased training demand. However, prolonged high training demand with insufficient recovery may also lead to non-functional overreaching (NFOR) or the overtraining syndrome (OTS). The aim of this research was to explore strength coaches' perceptions and experiences of planned overreaching (POR); short-term periods of increased training demand designed to improve athletic performance. Fourteen high-performance strength coaches (weightlifting; n = 5, powerlifting; n = 4, sprinting; n = 2, throws; n = 2, jumps; n = 1) participated in semistructured interviews. Reflexive thematic analysis identified 3 themes: creating enough challenge, training prescription, and questioning the risk to reward. POR was implemented for a 7 to 14 day training cycle and facilitated through increased daily/weekly training volume and/or training intensity. Participants implemented POR in the weeks (~5–8 weeks) preceding competition to allow sufficient time for performance restoration and improvement to occur. Short-term decreased performance capacity, both during and in the days to weeks following training, was an anticipated by-product of POR, and at times used as a benchmark to confirm that training demand was sufficiently challenging. Some participants chose not to implement POR due to a lack of knowledge, confidence, and/or perceived increased risk of athlete training maladaptation. Additionally, this research highlights the potential dichotomy between POR protocols used by strength coaches to enhance athletic performance and those used for the purpose of inducing training maladaptation for diagnostic identification.

Effects of Periodization on Strength and Muscle Hypertrophy in Volume-Equated Resistance Training Programs: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In resistance training, periodization is often used in an attempt to promote development of strength and muscle hypertrophy. However, it remains unclear how resistance training variables are most effectively periodized to maximize gains in strength and muscle hypertrophy.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to examine the current body of literature to determine whether there is an effect of periodization of training volume and intensity on maximal strength and muscle hypertrophy, and, if so, to determine how these variables are more effectively periodized to promote increases in strength and muscle hypertrophy, when volume is equated between conditions from pre to post intervention.

METHODS

Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus and SPORTDiscus databases. Data from the individual studies were extracted and coded. Meta-analyses using the inverse-variance random effects model were performed to compare 1-repetition maximum (1RM) and muscle hypertrophy outcomes in (a) non-periodized (NP) versus periodized training and (b) in linear periodization (LP) versus undulating periodization (UP). Subgroup analyses examining whether results were affected by training status were performed. Meta-analyses of other periodization model comparisons were not performed, due to a low number of studies.

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Results of the meta-analyses comparing NP and periodized training demonstrated an overall effect on 1RM strength favoring periodized training (ES 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.04, 0.57]; Z = 2.28, P = 0.02). In contrast, muscle hypertrophy did not differ between NP and periodized training (ES 0.13, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.36]; Z = 1.10, P = 0.27). Results of the meta-analyses comparing LP and UP indicated an overall effect on 1RM favoring UP (ES 0.31, 95% CI [0.02, 0.61]; Z = 2.06, P = 0.04). Subgroup analyses indicated an effect on 1RM favoring UP in trained participants (ES 0.61, 95% CI [0.00, 1.22]; Z = 1.97 (P = 0.05)), whereas changes in 1RM did not differ between LP and UP in untrained participants (ES 0.06, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.31]; Z = 0.43 (P = 0.67)). The meta-analyses showed that muscle hypertrophy did not differ between LP and UP (ES 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.29]; Z = 0.36 (P = 0.72)).

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that when volume is equated between conditions, periodized resistance training has a greater effect on 1RM strength compared to NP resistance training. Also, UP resulted in greater increases in 1RM compared to LP. However, subgroup analyses revealed that this was only the case for trained and not previously untrained individuals, indicating that trained individuals benefit from daily or weekly undulations in volume and intensity, when the aim is maximal strength. Periodization of volume and intensity does not seem to affect muscle hypertrophy in volume-equated pre-post designs. Based on this, we propose that the effects of periodization on maximal strength may instead be related to the neurophysiological adaptations accompanying resistance training.

Bilateral back squat strength is increased during a 3-week undulating resistance training program with and without variable resistance in DIII collegiate football players

Background

Optimizing training adaptations is of the utmost importance for the strength and conditioning professional. The pre-season of any sport is particularly important to ensure preparedness of the athletes. In DIII Collegiate Football pre-season consists of approximately 3 weeks. The abbreviated time of the pre-season increases the importance of optimizing training using safe methods, including alternative loading strategies. The purpose of the current study was to determine if a 3-week variable resistance training VRT during an undulating (UL) resistance training program elicited a greater increase in back squat strength compared to traditional loading methods.

Methods and Materials

Forty DIII Football players (age range: 18-25 years) participated in a 3-week UL bilateral back squat (BBS) program. Both groups performed the BBS 3 times per week with a minimum of 24 hours between exercise sessions. The control group (C) (n = 20) (height = 182.3 + 5.1 cm, body mass: pre = 102.8 ± 17.7 kg, post = 104.1 ± 17.8 kg) used traditional loading methods (i.e., Olympic weights only) and the experimental group (E) (n = 20) (height = 180.7 ± 8.0 cm, body mass: pre = 100.3 ± 27.1 kg, post = 101.0 ± 27.7 kg) used traditional loading methods and variable resistance (i.e., resistance bands). The variable resistance accounted for approximately 20% of the total resistance while 80% of the resistance was supplied by traditional loading methods.

Results

When all data was pooled, subjects had a significant increase (p < 0.05) in 1-RM BBS from pre (154.2 + 26.1 kg) to post (166.8 + 26.2 kg), with a percent increase of 8.13% at the completion of the 3-week training program. There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) between the C and E groups for muscular strength, muscular power, or vertical jump. Volume-loads were not significantly (p > 0.05) different between groups for any of the weeks (C: Week 1 = 858.1 + 101.3, Week 2 = 588.6 + 69.2, Week 3 = 332.5 + 38.9, Total = 1179.2 + 209.4 vs. E: Week 1 = 835.2 + 179.7, Week 2 = 572.2 + 123.4, Week 3 = 323.5 + 68.8, Total = 1730.9 + 371.8) or for the pre-season as a whole.

Conclusion

A traditional UL resistance training program and training program with variable resistance are both effective methods at increasing back squat strength during 3 weeks of training. Resistance band variable resistance (VR) does not enhance training effects within a 3-week mesocycle greater than traditional resistance.

The Minimum Effective Training Dose Required for 1RM Strength in Powerlifters

The aim of this multi-experiment paper was to explore the concept of the minimum effective training dose (METD) required to increase 1-repetition-maximum (1RM) strength in powerlifting (PL) athletes. The METD refers to the least amount of training required to elicit meaningful increases in 1RM strength. A series of five studies utilising mixed methods, were conducted using PL athletes & coaches of all levels in an attempt to better understand the METD for 1RM strength. The studies of this multi-experiment paper are: an interview study with elite PL athletes and highly experienced PL coaches (n = 28), an interview and survey study with PL coaches and PL athletes of all levels (n = 137), two training intervention studies with intermediate-advanced PL athletes (n = 25) and a survey study with competitive PL athletes of different levels (n = 57). PL athletes looking to train with a METD approach can do so by performing ~3-6 working sets of 1-5 repetitions each week, with these sets spread across 1-3 sessions per week per powerlift, using loads above 80% 1RM at a Rate of Perceived Exertion (RPE) of 7.5-9.5 for 6-12 weeks and expect to gain strength. PL athletes who wish to further minimize their time spent training can perform autoregulated single repetition sets at an RPE of 9-9.5 though they should expect that strength gains will be less likely to be meaningful. However, the addition of 2-3 back-off sets at ~80% of the single repetitions load, may produce greater gains over 6 weeks while following a 2-3-1 squat-bench press-deadlift weekly training frequency. When utilizing accessory exercises in the context of METD, PL athletes typically utilize 1-3 accessory exercises per powerlift, at an RPE in the range of 7-9 and utilize a repetition range of ~6-10 repetitions.

Autoregulation in Resistance Training for Lower Limb Tendinopathy: A Potential Method for Addressing Individual Factors, Intervention Issues, and Inadequate Outcomes

Musculoskeletal disorders, such as tendinopathy, are placing an increasing burden on society and health systems. Tendinopathy accounts for up to 30% of musculoskeletal disorders, with a high incidence in athletes and the general population. Although resistance training has shown short-term effectiveness in the treatment of lower limb tendinopathy, more comprehensive exercise protocols and progression methods are required due to poor long-term outcomes. The most common resistance training protocols are predetermined and standardized, which presents significant limitations. Current standardized protocols do not adhere to scientific resistance training principles, consider individual factors, or take the importance of individualized training into account. Resistance training programs in case of tendinopathy are currently not achieving the required intensity and dosage, leading to high recurrence rates. Therefore, better methods for individualizing and progressing resistance training are required to improve outcomes. One potential method is autoregulation, which allows individuals to progress training at their own rate, taking individual factors into account. Despite the finding of their effectiveness in increasing the strength of healthy athletes, autoregulation methods have not been investigated in case of tendinopathy. The purpose of this narrative review was 3-fold: firstly, to give an overview and a critical analysis of the individual factors involved in tendinopathy and current resistance training protocols and their limitations. Secondly, to give an overview of the history, methods, and application of autoregulation strategies both in sports performance and physiotherapy. Finally, a theoretical adaptation of a current tendinopathy resistance training protocol using autoregulation methods is presented, providing an example of how the method could be implemented in clinical practice or future research.

Auto-regulatory progressive training compared to linear programming on muscular strength, endurance, and body composition in recreationally active males

We compared eight weeks of auto-regulatory progressive resistance exercise (APRE) to linear programming resistance exercise (LPRE) on changes in muscular strength and endurance, anaerobic power, and body composition in recreationally active males. Twenty-four recreationally active males (age: 24 ± 3 y; body mass: 78.3 ± 10.3 kg) were randomly assigned to one of two groups: APRE (n = 12) and LPRE (n = 12). Both groups performed supervised training 3x/week for eight weeks Upper and lower body muscular strength and endurance, anaerobic power, and body composition were assessed at baseline, week 4, and 48 h after the final training session. Repeated measures ANOVA and hedge's g effect sizes (ES) were used to interpret the data. After training, there was a significant increase in absolute leg press (APRE: ES = 2.23; LPRE: ES = 1.35) and chest press strength (APRE: ES = 2.19; LPRE: ES = 0.98), upper (APRE: ES = 2.50; LPRE: ES = 1.074), and lower body peak power (APRE: ES = 0.78; LPRE: ES = 0.39), and upper (APRE: ES = 2.50; LPRE: ES = 1.60) and lower mean power (APRE: ES = 0.99; LPRE: ES = 0.54) over time in both groups compared to baseline. Following APRE, absolute leg press strength was significantly greater compared to LPRE (p = 0.04; ES = 2.41, ES = 1.36), while absolute chest press strength gains were similar between groups (p = 0.08; ES = 2.21, ES =  0.98). Skeletal muscle mass significantly increased similarly in both groups over time (APRE: ES = 0.46; LPRE: ES = 0.21), while there was no change over time or between groups for body fat %. APRE and LPRE were both effective at improving anaerobic power and skeletal muscle mass; however, APRE was more effective at improving lower body muscular strength in recreationally active males.

"Is It Overtraining or Just Work Ethic?": Coaches' Perceptions of Overtraining in High-Performance Strength Sports

Optimal physical performance is achieved through the careful manipulation of training and recovery. Short-term increases in training demand can induce functional overreaching (FOR) that can lead to improved physical capabilities, whereas nonfunctional overreaching (NFOR) or the overtraining syndrome (OTS) occur when high training-demand is applied for extensive periods with limited recovery. To date, little is known about the OTS in strength sports, particularly from the perspective of the strength sport coach. Fourteen high-performance strength sport coaches from a range of strength sports (weightlifting; n = 5, powerlifting; n = 4, sprinting; n = 2, throws; n = 2, jumps; n = 1) participated in semistructured interviews (mean duration 57; SD = 10 min) to discuss their experiences of the OTS. Reflexive thematic analysis resulted in the identification of four higher order themes: definitions, symptoms, recovery and experiences and observations. Additional subthemes were created to facilitate organisation and presentation of data, and to aid both cohesiveness of reporting and publicising of results. Participants provided varied and sometimes dichotomous perceptions of the OTS and proposed a multifactorial profile of diagnostic symptoms. Prevalence of OTS within strength sports was considered low, with the majority of participants not observing or experiencing long-term reductions in performance with their athletes.

Autoregulated heavy slow resistance training combined with radial shockwave therapy for plantar heel pain: Protocol for a mixed-methods pilot randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Plantar heel pain (PHP) is considered a tendinopathy and it affects up to 10% of the population. Both heavy slow resistance training (HSRT) and extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) have shown effectiveness for treating PHP in isolation. However, more comprehensive exercise protocols and progression methods are needed due to poor long-term outcomes, and better standardisation of ESWT protocols are required. Autoregulation of resistance training involves self-selecting exercise dosage based on individual factors. Although autoregulation has proven effective for strength gains in athletes, it has not been investigated in tendinopathy. Recent studies recommend that PHP should not be treated by one treatment intervention in isolation. However, there is a dearth of research investigating the feasibility and effectiveness of combined treatment interventions for PHP. Currently, no studies have investigated autoregulated HSRT combined with ESWT, despite their individual efficacy. The optimal treatment protocol for PHP is unknown, and there is a need to ascertain whether the addition of ESWT to autoregulated HSRT leads to better outcomes compared to either alone.

METHODS

A three-arm randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing these groups would be the ideal way to investigate this question, with a pilot RCT testing trial procedures and process evaluation required prior to a definitive RCT. Patients expectations, feasibility and acceptability of combined ESWT and exercise for PHP also remain unknown. Therefore, the addition of qualitative interviews in a mixed-methods pilot RCT would help ascertain acceptability and help explain the intervention outcomes.

Effects of subjective and objective autoregulation methods for intensity and volume on enhancing maximal strength during resistance-training interventions: a systematic review

Background

Maximal strength is a critical determinant of performance in numerous sports. Autoregulation is a resistance training prescription approach to adjust training variables based on the individuals’ daily fluctuations in performance, which are a result of training-induced fitness and fatigue, together with readiness from daily non-training stressors.

Objective

This review aimed to summarise the effects of different subjective and objective autoregulation methods for intensity and volume on enhancing maximal strength.

Materials and Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted through SPORTDiscus, PubMed and Google Scholar. Studies had to meet the following criteria to be included in the review: (1) estimation of 1-RM or a 1-RM test for both pre-test and post-test to measure progression in strength assessment during the training intervention, (2) a training comparison group, (3) participants were healthy, (4) the article had a detailed description of training intensity, training volume, and training frequency during the training intervention, (5) the training intervention lasted for more than four weeks, (6) studies with objective autoregulation methods utilised a validated measuring tool to monitor velocity, (7) English-language studies.

Results

Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 30 training groups and 356 participants. Effect size and percentage differences were calculated for 13 out of 14 studies to compare the effects of different training interventions. All autoregulation training protocols resulted in an increase in 1-RM, from small ES to large ES.

Conclusion

Overall, our findings suggest that using both subjective autoregulation methods for intensity, such as repetitions in reserve rating of perceived exertion and flexible daily undulation periodisation, together with objective autoregulation methods for autoregulation intensity and volume, such as velocity targets and velocity loss, could be effective methods for enhancing maximal strength. It is speculated that this is because the implementation of autoregulation into a periodised plan may take into account the athletes’ daily fluctuations, such as fluctuations in fitness, fatigue, and readiness to train. When training with a validated measuring tool to monitor velocity, this may provide objective augmented intra- and interset feedback during the resistance exercise who could be beneficial for increasing maximal strength. Coaches, practitioners, and athletes are encouraged to implement such autoregulation methods into a periodised plan when the goal is to enhance maximal strength.

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.

Weight Selection Attempts of Elite Classic Powerlifters

This study provides the first comparison of weight selection attempt strategies used by powerlifters competing at the international level. We observed attempts selected by elite male and female classic powerlifters and compared weight selection attempts between sexes. Male (n = 66) and female (n = 43) powerlifters who completed all lifts successfully at an International Powerlifting Federation Classic World Championship between 2012-2019 were included in the analysis. We calculated the percentage weight increase from first attempts (A1) to second attempts (A2) and from A2 to third attempts (A3). For purposes of comparison, A1 values were expressed as a percentage of A3 values. We calculated non-parametric statistics with effect sizes for between and within-group comparisons. Relative to A3, males selected greater A1s compared to females for bench press (η² = 0.16; p = 0.004) and deadlift (η² = 0.06; p = 0.036) for each lift. Alternatively, females selected greater A1 to A2 and A2 to A3 progressions for bench press (η² = 0.06; p = 0.026; η² = 0.21; p = 0.005, respectively), and A2 to A3 for deadlift (η² = 0.04; p = 0.035) compared to males. Within-group comparisons showed that males selected greater A1s on bench press compared to deadlift (η² = 0.06; p = 0.046), whereas females selected greater A1s on squat compared to deadlift (η² = 0.13; p = 0.038) relative to A3. Males also selected greater A2 to A3 progressions on deadlift compared to bench press (η² = 0.10; p = 0.044), whereas females selected greater A2 to A3 progressions for bench press (η² = 0.15; p = 0.039) and deadlift compared to squat (η² = 0.10; p = 0.041). In conclusion, selecting an opener of ∼91% of the expected A3 weight, followed by ∼5% increase from A1 to A2, and ∼3% increase from A2 to A3 represent the typical weight selection attempts used across lifts by elite classic powerlifters competing in the World Championships. The results of this study provide novel insight into the weight selection attempts of elite classic powerlifters.

The Basics of Training for Muscle Size and Strength: A Brief Review on the Theory

The periodization of resistance exercise is often touted as the most effective strategy for optimizing muscle size and strength adaptations. This narrative persists despite a lack of experimental evidence to demonstrate its superiority. In addition, the general adaptation syndrome, which provides the theoretical framework underlying periodization, does not appear to provide a strong physiological rationale that periodization is necessary. Hans Selye conducted a series of rodent studies which used toxic stressors to facilitate the development of the general adaptation syndrome. To our knowledge, normal exercise in humans has never been shown to produce a general adaptation syndrome. We question whether there is any physiological rationale that a periodized training approach would facilitate greater adaptations compared with nonperiodized approaches employing progressive overload. The purpose of this article is to briefly review currently debated topics within strength and conditioning and provide some practical insight regarding the implications these reevaluations of the literature may have for resistance exercise and periodization. In addition, we provide some suggestions for the continued advancement within the field of strength and conditioning.

Tapering and Peaking Maximal Strength for Powerlifting Performance: A Review

Prior to major competitions, athletes often use a peaking protocol such as tapering or training cessation to improve performance. The majority of the current literature has focused on endurance-based sports such as swimming, cycling, and running to better understand how and when to taper or use training cessation to achieve the desired performance outcome. However, evidence regarding peaking protocols for strength and power athletes is lacking. Current limitations for peaking maximal strength is that many studies do not provide sufficient details for practitioners to use. Thus, when working with athletes such as powerlifters, weightlifters, throwers, and strongman competitors, practitioners must use trial and error to determine the best means for peaking rather than using an evidence-based protocol. More specifically, determining how to peak maximal strength using data derived from strength and power athletes has not been established. While powerlifting training (i.e., back squat, bench press, deadlift) is used by strength and power athletes up until the final days prior to a competition, understanding how to peak maximal strength relative to powerlifting performance is still unclear. Thus, the purpose of this study was to review the literature on tapering and training cessation practices relative to peaking powerlifting performance.

Methods for Regulating and Monitoring Resistance Training

Individualisation can improve resistance training prescription. This is accomplished via monitoring or autoregulating training. Autoregulation adjusts variables at an individualised pace per performance, readiness, or recovery. Many autoregulation and monitoring methods exist; therefore, this review’s objective was to examine approaches intended to optimise adaptation. Up to July 2019, PubMed, Medline, SPORTDiscus, Scopus and CINAHL were searched. Only studies on methods of athlete monitoring useful for resistance-training regulation, or autoregulated training methods were included. Eleven monitoring and regulation themes emerged across 90 studies. Some physiological, performance, and perceptual measures correlated strongly (r ≥ 0.68) with resistance training performance. Testosterone, cortisol, catecholamines, cell-free DNA, jump height, throwing distance, barbell velocity, isometric and dynamic peak force, maximal voluntary isometric contractions, and sessional, repetitions in reserve-(RIR) based, and post-set Borg-scale ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were strongly associated with training performance, respectively. Despite strong correlations, many physiological and performance methods are logistically restrictive or limited to lab-settings, such as blood markers, electromyography or kinetic measurements. Some practical performance tests such as jump height or throw distance may be useful, low-risk stand-ins for maximal strength tests. Performance-based individualisation of load progression, flexible training configurations, and intensity and volume modifications based on velocity and RIR-based RPE scores are practical, reliable and show preliminary utility for enhancing performance.

Impact of resistance training program configuration on the circulating brain-derived neurotrophic factor response

This study examined the acute and resting changes of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and inteleukin-6 (IL-6) and if changes in these biomarkers were correlated during resistance training (RT). Fifteen men with ≥2 years of RT experience (age: 23 ± 3 years, body mass: 84.4 ± 12.3 kg) participated. Subjects performed RT 3×/week for 6 weeks in either a high-repetition (HR; n = 8) or low-repetition (LR; n = 7) group. Protocols during week 1 were HR – Monday: 4 (sets) × 12 (repetitions) at 60% of 1-repetition maximum, Wednesday: 4 × 10 at 65%, Friday: 5 × 8 at 70%; LR – Monday: 8 × 6 at 75%, Wednesday 9 × 4 at 80%, Friday: 10 × 2 at 85%. Total volume was equated for the 6 weeks but not for individual sessions. Greater volume and intensity were performed in LR versus HR (p < 0.01) on Mondays. Plasma was collected immediately before and after exercise of the Monday session. There were no significant interactions or main effects for BDNF (p > 0.05). There was a moderate between-group effect size (0.57) in favor of LR in week 6, suggesting a potentially greater acute increase in BDNF in LR versus HR. For IL-6, a statistically significant main effect was observed for training (p < 0.0001), showing an acute increase in IL-6 in both weeks (p < 0.01); however, no other 3-way or 2-way interactions existed (p > 0.05). A minimum volume threshold of RT may be needed to induce acute elevations in BDNF.

Novelty A minimum RT volume threshold may be needed to elicit BDNF. A close proximity to failure may be needed to elicit BDNF. BDNF and IL-6 did not correlate.

The Effects of Increasing Training Load on Affect and Perceived Exertion

Cavarretta, DJ, Hall, EE, and Bixby, WR. The effects of increasing training load on affect and perceived exertion. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2019-This study was designed to investigate how affect and ratings of perceived exertion based on repetitions in reserve (RPE/RIR) change as a function of increasing load during a 10 repetition maximum (RM) test. Twenty-nine novice lifters completed a 10RM test for 2 different conditions presented in a randomized, counterbalanced fashion. RPE/RIR and affect were assessed immediately after each successful 10RM attempt. RPE/RIR was significantly different at all loads from 50 to 100% 10RM (p < 0.001) with no differences between exercise and exercise load (p = 0.059). RPE/RIR was higher for all lower body exercises compared with upper-body exercises (p < 0.001) but was not different between machine and free-weight exercises (p > 0.344). Affect became less positive only at 100% 10RM compared with all other loads (p < 0.05). Finally, affect was more positive for upper-body exercises compared to lower-body exercises (p = 0.025) and more positive for machines compared to free-weights (p = 0.015). The results of this study suggest that among novice lifters, RPE/RIR increases as load increases during a 10RM and affective valence remains relatively constant but becomes less positive when exercising at maximal intensities (100% 10RM). Further research is needed to replicate these findings and elucidate the effects of different muscles used (e.g., upper vs. lower body) and modality of exercise (e.g., machine vs. free-weight) on RPE/RIR and affect among both novice and experienced lifters.

Salivary stress hormone response and performance in full competition after linear or undulating periodization training in elite powerlifters

BACKGROUND

The purposes of this study were to determine differences in training loads and stress hormones among national level powerlifting competitors and the effect on performance.

METHODS

Thirteen experienced male powerlifters provided detailed training logs during the 8 weeks prior to a national competition. Participants were divided into linear (LP, N.=6) and undulating periodization (UP, N.=7) training groups. Following weigh-ins and after successfully completing the competition, participants provided saliva samples.

RESULTS

LP resulted in lower levels of salivary cortisol (sC) (LP 4.27±0.71 nmols/L; UP 5.53±0.78 nmols/L) and higher testosterone-to-cortisol ratio (T:C) (LP 8.03±0.84 nmols/L; UP 5.23±1.41 nmols/L) compared to UP prior to competition. Following competition, both LP and UP groups had significant increases in salivary testosterone (sT) (LP 383.70±34.96 nmols/L; UP 376.62±38.17 nmols/L) and sC (LP 17.67±1.39 nmols/L; UP 18.17±1.46 nmols/L) and significant reductions in T:C (LP 8.03±0.80 to 6.67±0.83; UP 5.23±1.41 to 4.95±1.00). Finally, the UP group had a significantly higher Wilks coefficient following the competition compared to the LP group (LP 440.7±31.83 vs. UP 480.29±24.13).

CONCLUSIONS

It appears that the higher volume loads undertaken by UP have a larger perturbation on resting stress hormones; however, this does not seem to negatively influence powerlifting performance.

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation reduces hypothalamic grey matter volume loss in individuals with preclinical Huntington's disease: A nine-month pilot study

BACKGROUND

Hypothalamic pathology is a well-documented feature of Huntington's disease (HD) and is believed to contribute to circadian rhythm and habitual sleep disturbances. Currently, no therapies exist to combat hypothalamic changes, nor circadian rhythm and habitual sleep disturbances in HD.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of multidisciplinary rehabilitation on hypothalamic volume, brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), circadian rhythm and habitual sleep in individuals with preclinical HD.

METHODS

Eighteen individuals with HD (ten premanifest and eight prodromal) undertook a nine-month multidisciplinary rehabilitation intervention (intervention group), which included exercise, cognitive and dual task training and social events, and were compared to a community sample of eleven individuals with premanifest HD receiving no intervention (control group). Hypothalamic volume, serum BDNF, salivary cortisol and melatonin concentrations, subjective sleep quality, daytime somnolence, habitual sleep-wake patterns, stress and anxiety and depression symptomatology were evaluated.

RESULTS

Hypothalamus grey matter volume loss was significantly attenuated in the intervention group compared to the control group after controlling for age, gender, Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale-Total Motor Score and number of cytosine-adenine-guanine repeats. Serum BDNF levels were maintained in the intervention group, but decreased in the control group following the study period. Both groups exhibited decreases in cortisol and melatonin concentrations. No changes were observed in sleep or mood outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This exploratory study provides evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation can reduce hypothalamic volume loss and maintain peripheral BDNF levels in individuals with preclinical HD but may not impact on circadian rhythm. Larger, randomised controlled trials are required to confirm these findings.

Classic Powerlifting Performance: A Systematic Review

Ferland, PM and Comtois, AS. Classic powerlifting performance: A systematic review. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2019-The purpose of this study was to review all scientific publications related to able-body drug-tested classic powerlifting performance since January 1, 2012, and to regroup them into a brief narrative review. Three electronic databases were systematically searched in August 2018 using the wildcard: powerlift*. A manual search was performed from the reference list of all retained articles. The search and selection strategy permitted to gather a total of 16 scientific articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Results show that practitioners should prioritize a low-bar squat and a wide grip bench press because they generally contribute to moving greater loads, bring more attention to preventing injuries, since a fair amount of powerlifters seem to train injured and prioritize a hypertrophy-power-strength model when prescribing 3 times a week daily undulating periodization on nonconsecutive days for squat and bench. Practitioners could also introduce respiratory muscle training, use daily 1 repetition maximum training combined with down sets on experienced athletes and use a rate of perceived exertion scale based on repetitions in reserve combined with an individual velocity profile when prescribing intensity. Before competition, powerlifters seem to taper in this order: the deadlift, the squat, and lastly the bench press. The Slingshot does help to move more weight because it helps to generate more inertia, but it also deactivates the triceps. Finally, the present work was limited by the present literature but could serve as a reference in the field of powerlifting. Further research should include more details about the circumstances under which they were conducted.

Comparison of Periodized and Non-Periodized Resistance Training on Maximal Strength: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Periodization is a logical method of organizing training into sequential phases and cyclical time periods in order to increase the potential for achieving specific performance goals while minimizing the potential for overtraining. Periodized resistance training plans are proposed to be superior to non-periodized training plans for enhancing maximal strength.

OBJECTIVE

The primary aim of this study was to examine the previous literature comparing periodized resistance training plans to non-periodized resistance training plans and determine a quantitative estimate of effect on maximal strength.

METHODS

All studies included in the meta-analysis met the following inclusion criteria: (1) peer-reviewed publication; (2) published in English; (3) comparison of a periodized resistance training group to a non-periodized resistance training group; (4) maximal strength measured by 1-repetition maximum (1RM) squat, bench press, or leg press. Data were extracted and independently coded by two authors. Random-effects models were used to aggregate a mean effect size (ES), 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and potential moderators.

RESULTS

The cumulative results of 81 effects gathered from 18 studies published between 1988 and 2015 indicated that the magnitude of improvement in 1RM following periodized resistance training was greater than non-periodized resistance training (ES = 0.43, 95% CI 0.27-0.58; P < 0.001). Periodization model (β = 0.51; P = 0.0010), training status (β = -0.59; P = 0.0305), study length (β = 0.03; P = 0.0067), and training frequency (β = 0.46; P = 0.0123) were associated with a change in 1RM. These results indicate that undulating programs were more favorable for strength gains. Improvements in 1RM were greater among untrained participants. Additionally, higher training frequency and longer study length were associated with larger improvements in 1RM.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that periodized resistance training plans have a moderate effect on 1RM compared to non-periodized training plans. Variation in training stimuli appears to be vital for increasing maximal strength, and longer periods of higher training frequency may be preferred.

Rating of Perceived Exertion as a Method of Volume Autoregulation Within a Periodized Program

Helms, ER, Cross, MR, Brown, SR, Storey, A, Cronin, J, and Zourdos, MC. Rating of perceived exertion as a method of volume autoregulation within a periodized program. J Strength Cond Res 32(6): 1627-1636, 2018-The purpose of this investigation was to observe how a rating of perceived exertion (RPE)-based autoregulation strategy impacted volume performed by powerlifters. Twelve (26 ± 7 years, n = 9 men, n = 3 women) nationally qualified powerlifters performed the back squat, bench press, and deadlift 3x per week on nonconsecutive days in a session order of hypertrophy, power, and then strength; for 3 weeks. Each session subjects performed an initial top set for a prescribed number of repetitions at a target RPE. A second top set was performed if the RPE score was too low, then subsequent back-off sets at a reduced load were performed for the same number of repetitions. When the prescribed RPE was reached or exceeded, sets stopped; known as an "RPE stop." The percentage load reduction for back-off sets changed weekly: there were 2, 4, or 6% RPE stop reductions from the top set. The order in which RPE stop weeks were performed was counterbalanced among subjects. Weekly combined relative volume load (squat + bench press + deadlift), expressed as sets x repetitions x percentage 1-repetition maximum was different between weeks (p < 0.001): 2% = 74.6 ± 22.3; 4% = 88.4 ± 23.8; 6% = 114.4 ± 33.4. Combined weekly bench press volume (hypertrophy + power + strength) was significantly higher in accordance with load reduction magnitude (2% > 4% > 6%; p ≤ 0.05), combined squat volume was greater in 6 vs. 2% (p ≤ 0.05), and combined deadlift volume was greater in 6 vs. 2% and 4% (p ≤ 0.05). Therefore, it does seem that volume can be effectively autoregulated using RPE stops as a method to dictate number of sets performed.

A Scientific Rationale to Improve Resistance Training Prescription in Exercise Oncology

To date, the prevailing evidence in the field of exercise oncology supports the safety and efficacy of resistance training to attenuate many oncology treatment-related adverse effects, such as risk for cardiovascular disease, increased fatigue, and diminished physical functioning and quality of life. Moreover, findings in the extant literature supporting the benefits of exercise for survivors of and patients with cancer have resulted in the release of exercise guidelines from several international agencies. However, despite research progression and international recognition, current exercise oncology-based exercise prescriptions remain relatively basic and underdeveloped, particularly in regards to resistance training. Recent publications have called for a more precise manipulation of training variables such as volume, intensity, and frequency (i.e., periodization), given the large heterogeneity of a cancer population, to truly optimize clinically relevant patient-reported outcomes. Indeed, increased attention to integrating fundamental principles of exercise physiology into the exercise prescription process could optimize the safety and efficacy of resistance training during cancer care. The purpose of this article is to give an overview of the current state of resistance training prescription and discuss novel methods that can contribute to improving approaches to exercise prescription. We hope this article may facilitate further evaluation of best practice regarding resistance training prescription, monitoring, and modification to ultimately optimize the efficacy of integrating resistance training as a supportive care intervention for survivors or and patients with cancer.

Self-Rated Accuracy of Rating of Perceived Exertion-Based Load Prescription in Powerlifters

This study assessed male (n = 9) and female (n = 3) powerlifters' (18-49 years) ability to select loads using the repetitions in reserve-based rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scale for a single set for squat, bench press, and deadlift. Subjects trained 3× per week. For 3 weeks on nonconsecutive days in the weekly order of hypertrophy (8 repetitions at 8 RPE), power (2 repetitions at 8 RPE), and strength (3 repetitions at 9 RPE), using subject-selected loads intended to match the target RPE. Bench press and squat were performed every session and deadlift during strength and power only. Mean absolute RPE differences (|reported RPE-target RPE|) ranged from 0.22-0.44, with a mean of 0.33 ± 0.28 RPE. There were no significant RPE differences within lifts between sessions for squat or deadlift. However, bench press was closer to the target RPE for strength (0.15 ± 0.42 RPE) vs. power (-0.21 ± 0.35 RPE, p = 0.05). There were no significant differences within session between lifts for power and strength. However, bench press was closer (0.14 ± 0.44 RPE) to the target RPE than squat (-0.19 ± 0.21 RPE) during hypertrophy (p = 0.02). Squat power was closer to the target RPE in week 3 (0.08 ± 0.29 RPE) vs. 1 (-0.46 ± 0.69 RPE, p = 0.03). It seems that powerlifters can accurately select loads to reach a prescribed RPE. However, accuracy for 8-repetition sets at 8 RPE may be better for bench press compared with squat. Rating squat power-type training may take 3 weeks to reach peak accuracy. Finally, bench press RPE accuracy seems better closer rather than further from failure (i.e., 3-repetition 9 RPE sets vs. 2-repetition 8 RPE sets).

Effects of a 6-Week Bench Press Program Using the Freak Bar in a Sample of Collegiate Club Powerlifters

Ghigiarelli, JJ, Pelton, LM, Gonzalez, AM, Fulop, AM, Gee, JY, and Sell, KM. Effects of a 6-week bench press program using the freak bar in a sample of collegiate club powerlifters. J Strength Cond Res 32(4): 938-949, 2018-Powerlifters train using specialty bars for unstable load (UL) training. For the bench press, the acute effects of UL are mixed, with few studies that examine training interventions. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a 6-week bench press training program that uses the Freak Bar (FB) as compared to a traditional barbell (TB) on maximum bench press, peak force, and peak impulse. Seven men and 3 women (21 ± 2.0 years, 172.2 ± 2.9 cm, and 95.3 ± 20.3 kg) were required to bench press 2 days per week as part of a structured program. On the second bench press day, the FB and TB groups performed 3-position pause bench presses at 60-70% one repetition maximum (1RM). One repetition maximum, peak force, and peak impulse were measured before test and after test after the 6-week program. Peak force and peak impulse were tested at 3 bench positions, including the presticking, sticking, and poststicking points, defined by the distance of the barbell from the chest. Posttraining 1RM for the FB group and TB group increased 6.7% (6.78 ± 1.6 kg, p = 0.006) and 4.3% (4.5 ± 2.7 kg, p = 0.23), respectively, with no significant differences between the groups (p = 0.589, ηp = 0.044). There were no significant differences between the groups at each bench position for peak force (p = 0.606) or peak impulse (p = 0.542). Freak Bar can be an alternative for improving maximum strength and peak force but is not significantly better than TB training when performing the 3-position pause bench press.

Volume-equated high- and low-repetition daily undulating programming strategies produce similar hypertrophy and strength adaptations

The overarching aim of this study was to compare volume-equated high-repetition daily undulating periodization (DUPHR) versus a low-repetition daily undulating periodization (DUPLR) program for muscle performance. Sixteen college-aged (23 ± 3 years) resistance-trained males were counterbalanced into 2 groups: (i) DUPHR (n = 8), with a weekly training order of 12 repetitions (Day 1), 10 repetitions (Day 2), and 8 repetitions (Day 3); and (ii) DUPLR (n = 8), with a weekly training order of 6 repetitions (Day 1), 4 repetitions (Day 2), and 2 repetitions (Day 3). Both groups trained 3 times/week for 8 weeks on nonconsecutive days, with pre- and post-training testing during weeks 1 and 8. Participants performed only squat and bench press exercises each session. Changes in one-repetition maximum (1RM) strength, muscle thickness (MT), and muscular endurance (ME) were assessed. Both groups significantly increased 1RM strength for both squat and bench press (p < 0.01), and no group differences existed (p > 0.05). Similarly, both groups experienced significant increases in chest, lateral quadriceps distal, and anterior quadriceps MT (p < 0.05), but no change was present in either group for lateral quadriceps mid MT (p < 0.05). No group differences were discovered for changes in MT (p > 0.05). ME did not significantly change in the squat or bench press for either group (p > 0.05); however, for squat ME, a moderate effect size was observed for DUPHR (0.57) versus a trivial effect size for DUPLR (0.17). Our findings suggest that in previously trained males, training volume is a significant contributor to strength and hypertrophy adaptations, which occur independently of specific repetition ranges.