Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength Adaptations to Systematically Varying Resistance Exercises

We compared the effects of varied and constant resistance exercises on muscular adaptations in young women. Seventy young women (21.8 ± 3.4 yrs, 62.0 ± 12.3 kg, 162.3 ± 5.7 cm) were randomly divided into two groups: constant resistance exercises (CON-RE, n = 38) or varied resistance exercises (VAR-RE, n = 32). The resistance training (RT) was performed thrice a week over 10 weeks. CON-RE performed a 45º leg press and stiff-leg deadlift in every training session, while VAR-RE performed 45º leg press and stiff-leg deadlift in the first training session of the week, hack squat and prone leg curl in the second, and Smith machine squat and seated-leg curl in the third. Both groups performed two sets of 10-15 repetitions maximum per resistance exercise. We measured the muscle thickness of the thigh's anterior, lateral, and posterior aspects by ultrasonography at different muscle sites (proximo-distal). Muscular strength was analyzed from the one-repetition maximum (1RM) tests in the 45° leg press and leg extension (non-trained exercise). The muscle thickness increased similarly in both groups for all muscles and sites (CON-RE: +7.8-17.7% vs. VAR-RE: +7.5-19.3%, p > .05). The 1RM increased similarly in both groups (CON-RE: +24.4-32.1% vs. VAR-RE: +29.0-30.1%, p > .05). Both RT routines resulted in virtually similar muscular strength gains and hypertrophy. Therefore, both strategies should be considered for the improvement of strength and muscle growth.

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.

Application of a New Monitoring Variable: Effects of Power Loss During Squat Training on Strength Gains and Sports Performance

ABSTRACT

Zhang, M, Chen, L, Dai, J, Yang, Q, Huang, Z, He, J, Ji, H, Sun, J, and Li, D. Application of a new monitoring variable: Effects of power loss during squat training on strength gains and sports performance. J Strength Cond Res 38(4): 656-670, 2024-This study aimed to compare the effects of power loss (PL) autoregulated volume (PL10 and PL20) with standardized fixed-load (FL) prescription on strength, sports performance, and lean body mass (LBM). Thirty-five female basketball players from a sports college were randomly assigned to 3 experimental groups (PL10, n = 12; PL20, n = 12; and FL, n = 11, respectively) that performed a resistance training (RT) program with wave-like periodization for 10 weeks using the back squat exercise. Assessments performed before (Pre) and after (Post) intervention included assessed 1 repetition maximum (1RM), body composition, 20-m sprint (T20M), change of direction (COD), and jump performance, including countermovement jump with arm swing, maximum vertical jump, and reactive strength index. Three groups showed significant improvements in strength (effect size [ES]: PL10 = 2.98, PL20 = 3.14, and FL = 1.90; p < 0.001) and jump performance (ES: PL10 = 0.74, PL20 = 1.50, and FL = 0.50; p <0.05-0.001). However, PL10 and PL20 demonstrated different advantages in sports performance compared with FL (group × time interaction, p <0.05). Specifically, PL10 significantly improved COD performance (ES = -0.79 ∼ -0.53, p <0.01), whereas PL20 showed greater improvements in sprint (ES = -0.57, p <0.05) and jump performance (ES = 0.67-1.64, p <0.01-0.001). Moreover, PL10 resulted in similar gains to PL20 and beneficial improvements compared with FL in LBM, despite performing the least repetitions. Overall, the study indicates that power loss-based autoregulation induces greater gains in LBM and sports performance, as well as eliciting a higher efficiency dose response than standardized FL prescriptions, particularly for PL10. Therefore, incorporating PL monitoring in training programs is recommended, and further studies on power-based RT would be worthwhile.

Are Trainees Lifting Heavy Enough? Self-Selected Loads in Resistance Exercise: A Scoping Review and Exploratory Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, the loads in resistance training are prescribed as a percentage of the heaviest load that can be successfully lifted once (i.e., 1 Repetition Maximum [1RM]). An alternative approach is to allow trainees to self-select the training loads. The latter approach has benefits, such as allowing trainees to exercise according to their preferences and negating the need for periodic 1RM tests. However, in order to better understand the utility of the self-selected load prescription approach, there is a need to examine what loads trainees select when given the option to do so.

OBJECTIVE

Examine what loads trainees self-select in resistance training sessions as a percentage of their 1RM.

DESIGN

Scoping review and exploratory meta-analysis.

SEARCH AND INCLUSION

We conducted a systematic literature search with PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar in September 2021. We included studies that (1) were published in English in a peer-reviewed journal or as a MSc or Ph.D. thesis; (2) had healthy trainees complete at least one resistance-training session, composed of at least one set of one exercise in which they selected the loads; (3) trainees completed a 1RM test for the exercises that they selected the loads for. Eighteen studies were included in our main meta-analysis model with 368 participants.

RESULTS

Our main model indicated that on average participants select loads equal to 53% of their 1RM (95% credible interval [CI] 49-58%). There was little moderating effect of training experience, age, sex, timing of the 1RM test (before or after the selected load RT session), number of sets, number of repetitions, and lower versus upper body exercises. Participants did tend to select heavier loads when prescribed lower repetitions, and vice versa (logit(yi) =  - 0.09 [95% CI - 0.16 to - 0.03]). Note that in most of the analyzed studies, participants received vague instructions regarding how to select the loads, and only completed a single session with the self-selected loads.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants selected loads equal to an average of 53% of 1RM across exercises. Lifting such a load coupled with a low-medium number of repetitions (e.g., 5-15) can sufficiently stimulate hypertrophy and increase maximal strength for novices but may not apply for more advanced trainees. Lifting such a load coupled with a higher number of repetitions and approaching or reaching task failure can be sufficient for muscle hypertrophy, but less so for maximal strength development, regardless of trainees' experience. The self-selected load prescription approach may bypass certain limitations of the traditional approach, but requires thought and further research regarding how, for what purposes, and with which populations it should be implemented.

Does Varying Resistance Exercises Promote Superior Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength Gains? A Systematic Review

ABSTRACT

Kassiano, W, Nunes, JP, Costa, B, Ribeiro, AS, Schoenfeld, BJ, and Cyrino, ES. Does varying resistance exercises promote superior muscle hypertrophy and strength gains? A systematic review. J Strength Cond Res 36(6): 1753-1762, 2022-Fitness professionals routinely employ a variety of resistance training exercises in program design as a strategy to enhance muscular adaptations. However, it remains uncertain whether such an approach offers advantages over a fixed-exercise selection. The objective of this review was to review the effects of exercise variation on muscle hypertrophy and strength. A search of the literature was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Eight studies were identified as meeting inclusion criteria. The combined total sample of the studies was N = 241, comprising all young men. The methodological quality of included studies was considered "good" and "excellent" based on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database Scale. The available studies indicate that varying exercise selection can influence muscle hypertrophy and strength gains. Some degree of systematic variation seems to enhance regional hypertrophic adaptations and maximize dynamic strength, whereas excessive, random variation may compromise muscular gains. We conclude that exercise variation should be approached systematically with a focus on applied anatomical and biomechanical constructs; on the contrary, employing different exercises that provide a redundant stimulus, as well as excessive rotation of different exercises (i.e., high frequency of change), may actually hinder muscular adaptations.

Does Varying Resistance Exercises for the Same Muscle Group Promote Greater Strength Gains?

ABSTRACT

Costa, BDV, Kassiano, W, Nunes, JP, Kunevaliki, G, Castro-E-Souza, P, Sugihara-Junior, P, Fernandes, RR, Cyrino, ES, and de Fortes, LS. Does varying resistance exercises for the same muscle group promote greater strength gains? J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2021-Two of the foremost principles of progression are progressive overload and variation. A way to vary within a resistance training (RT) program is to perform different exercises for the same muscle group; however, this strategy is still overlooked. The purpose of the present study was to compare strength adaptations between an RT routine that maintained the exercises fixed (N-VAR) and another that varied the exercises for the same muscle group during the weekly sessions (VAR). Twenty-three young men (23.3 ± 4.1 years) were randomly allocated to N-VAR (n = 11) and VAR (n = 12) conditions. The RT was performed 3 times a week for 9 weeks and consisted of a whole-body routine (3 sets of 8-12 repetitions). Maximum dynamic strength was assessed using the 1-repetition maximum test (1RM), and the isometric strength was assessed using an isokinetic dynamometer, before and after training. Following the training period, both groups increased the 1RM values in all exercises (p ≤ 0.002), without significant differences between them (p ≥ 0.20). In contrast, a greater increase (p = 0.02) in isometric knee extension strength was showed to N-VAR (+12%) compared with VAR (+7%). There was no significant increase in both groups for isometric knee flexion strength (N-VAR, p = 0.10; VAR, p = 0.18). Our findings indicate that maintaining or varying the exercises for the same muscle group promotes similar adaptations in the maximum dynamic strength. In contrast, for the isometric strength in knee extension, maintaining the fixed exercises seems to be more interesting.

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.

The implementation of resistance training principles in exercise interventions for lower limb tendinopathy: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The primary purpose of this systematic review is to examine the literature on resistance training interventions for lower limb tendinopathy to evaluate the proportion of interventions that implemented key resistance training principles (specificity, progression, overload, individualisation) and reported relevant prescription components (frequency, intensity, sets, repetitions) and reported intervention adherence.

METHODS

Two reviewers performed a systematic review after screening titles and abstracts based on eligibility criteria. Identified papers were obtained in full text, with data extracted regarding the implementation of resistance training principles. Included articles were evaluated by the Cochrane risk of bias tool, with a scoring tool out of 10 used for implementation and reporting of the 5 key principles. Scientific databases were searched in November 2020 and included Medline, CINAHL, AMED, and Sportsdiscus.

RESULTS

52 randomised controlled trials investigating resistance training in five different lower limb tendinopathies were included. Although most studies considered the principles of progression (92%) and individualisation (88%), only 19 studies (37%) appropriately described how this progression in resistance was achieved, and only 18 studies (35%) reported specific instruction on how individualisation was applied. Adherence was considered in 27 studies (52%), with only 17 studies (33%) reporting the levels of adherence. In the scoring criteria, only 5 studies (10%) achieved a total maximum score of 10, with 17 studies (33%) achieving a maximum score of 8 for implementing and reporting the principles of specificity, overload, progression and individualisation.

CONCLUSION

There is meaningful variability and methodological concerns regarding the application and reporting of resistance training principles, particularly progression and individualisation, along with intervention adherence throughout studies. Collectively, these findings have important implications for the prescription of current resistance training interventions, including the design and implementation of future interventions for populations with lower limb tendinopathies.

Equating Resistance-Training Volume Between Programs Focused on Muscle Hypertrophy

Calculating resistance-training volume in programs focused on muscle hypertrophy is an attempt to quantify the external workload carried out, then to estimate the dose of stimulus imposed on targeted muscles. The volume is usually expressed in some variables that directly affected the total training work, such as the number of sets, repetitions, and volume-load. These variables are used to try to quantify the training work easily, for the subsequent organization and prescription of training programs. One of the main uses of measures of volume quantification is seen in studies in which the purpose is to compare the effects of different training protocols on muscle growth in a volume-equated format. However, it seems that not all measures of volume are always appropriate for equating training protocols. In the current paper, it is discussed what training volume is and the potentials and shortcomings of each one of the most common ways to equate it between groups depending on the independent variable to be compared (e.g., weekly frequency, intensity of load, and advanced techniques).

Autoregulated and individualised resistance training versus predetermined and standardised resistance training in tendinopathy: A systematic review protocol

REVIEW OBJECTIVE

To synthesise the best available evidence on the effectiveness of interventions that have used autoregulated and individualised resistance training versus predetermined and standardised resistance training in treating any tendinopathy.

INTRODUCTION

Recent evidence suggests that individualised exercise may be more effective than standardised exercise for musculoskeletal disorders such as tendinopathy. However, no systematic reviews have been conducted on the topic and optimal treatment protocols and clinical recommendations are lacking.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of autoregulated and individualised resistance training versus predetermined and standardised resistance training for tendinopathy in adults will be included.

METHODS

The authors will search for a wide range of sources to find both published and unpublished studies via EBSCOhost, including, but not limited to, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Allied and Complementary Medicine Database. Studies published in a language other than English will only be considered if a translation is available. The Joanna Briggs Institute systematic review methodology will be followed when conducting the review. Data synthesis will be conducted using meta-analysis or narrative synthesis, where appropriate.

Does Varying Repetition Tempo in a Single-Joint Lower Body Exercise Augment Muscle Size and Strength in Resistance-Trained Men?

Pearson, J, Wadhi, T, Barakat, C, Aube, D, Schoenfeld, BJ, Andersen, JC, Barroso, R, Ugrinowitsch, C, and De Souza, EO. Does varying repetition tempo in a single-joint lower body exercise augment muscle size and strength in resistance-trained men? J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2021-This study compared the effects of FAST and SLOW eccentric repetition tempo in a single exercise volume-matched intervention on muscle thickness (MT) and strength in resistance-trained men. Using a within-subject design, 13 subjects had each leg randomly assigned to SLOW (1-0-3) or FAST (1-0-1) repetition tempo. Subjects underwent an 8-week strength-training (ST) intervention performed twice weekly. Unilateral leg-extension one repetition-maximum (1RM) and anterior thigh MT at the proximal (MTP) and distal (MTD) portions were assessed via ultrasound imaging at baseline and after 8 weeks of RT. Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) assessments of the training sessions (i.e., 16 per leg) were averaged for further analysis. Both legs similarly increased MTP (estimated differences: FAST: 0.24 cm, 3.6%; SLOW: 0.20 cm, 3.1%). However, for MTD, analysis of covariance analysis showed a leg effect (p = 0.02) in which absolute pre-to-post change was greater in FAST compared with SLOW (estimated differences: FAST 0.23 cm, 5.5%; SLOW: 0.13 cm, 2.2%). For 1RM, both legs similarly increased maximum strength (estimated differences: FAST: 9.1 kg, 17.0%; SLOW: 10.4 kg, 22.1%, p <= 0.0001). The SLOW group had a higher RPE than FAST (8.59 vs. 7.98, p = 0.002). Despite differences in RPE, our results indicate that both repetition tempos produced similar muscular adaptations. However, they also suggest that the FAST tempo may provide a small hypertrophic advantage at the distal quadriceps. From a practical standpoint, strength and conditioning professionals may implement a FAST tempo at least in one single-joint exercise during an 8-week training period to enhance regional hypertrophic adaptations in trained individuals.

A comparison between predetermined and self-selected approaches in resistance training: effects on power performance and psychological outcomes among elite youth athletes

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate if choice over resistance training exercise order affects motor performance and psychological outcomes among elite youth hockey players.

METHODS

Seventeen elite hockey players (male, n = 14; female, n = 3, age: 15.1 ± 1.1 years) participated in this study. In the first session, individual optimum power loads were calculated in the back squat, jump squat, bench press and bench throw exercises. Then, in four counterbalanced sessions, participants completed three sets of six repetitions in the same exercises loaded with their optimum power loads. In two sessions, athletes used a self-selected order of exercises, while in other two sessions the order was predetermined. Power outputs were estimated with a linear position transducer. Fatigue and enjoyment were measured during and after the sessions using standardized questionnaires. Repeated measures analyses of variance and a paired-sample t-test were used to compare the effects between conditions.

RESULTS

We observed trivial to small differences between conditions in power outputs (p ≥ 0.07; ES ≤ 0.21), fatigue (p ≥ 0.42; ES ≤ 0.33) and enjoyment (p = 0.72; ES = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Given the comparable effects between approaches, both can be used when coaching youth athletes. Self-selecting the order of exercises based on preferences is a feasible and practical coaching option when working with youth athletes.

Autoregulation in Resistance Training: Addressing the Inconsistencies

Autoregulation is a process that is used to manipulate training based primarily on the measurement of an individual's performance or their perceived capability to perform. Despite being established as a training framework since the 1940s, there has been limited systematic research investigating its broad utility. Instead, researchers have focused on disparate practices that can be considered specific examples of the broader autoregulation training framework. A primary limitation of previous research includes inconsistent use of key terminology (e.g., adaptation, readiness, fatigue, and response) and associated ambiguity of how to implement different autoregulation strategies. Crucially, this ambiguity in terminology and failure to provide a holistic overview of autoregulation limits the synthesis of existing research findings and their dissemination to practitioners working in both performance and health contexts. Therefore, the purpose of the current review was threefold: first, we provide a broad overview of various autoregulation strategies and their development in both research and practice whilst highlighting the inconsistencies in definitions and terminology that currently exist. Second, we present an overarching conceptual framework that can be used to generate operational definitions and contextualise autoregulation within broader training theory. Finally, we show how previous definitions of autoregulation fit within the proposed framework and provide specific examples of how common practices may be viewed, highlighting their individual subtleties.

Effects of resistance training combined with ischemic preconditioning on muscle size and strength in resistance-trained individuals

BACKGROUND

The present study investigated the effects of resistance training combined with ischemic preconditioning (IPC) on muscle size and strength in resistance-trained men.

METHODS

Sixteen resistance-trained men were divided into two groups (Placebo and IPC) and trained twice a week for 6 weeks. Preconditioning protocols consisted of four, 5-min cycling bouts of ischemia/Placebo (250 or 10 mmHg, respectively) interspersed with 5 min of reperfusion (without pressure) alternated in each leg. Thirty minutes after the preconditioning protocol, participants performed 4 sets to concentric failure at 75% of one repetition-maximum (1-RM) in unilateral knee extension exercise. Muscle thickness (ultrasound) and 1RM were assessed at baseline and 72 hours after the last training session. ANCOVA was used to compare muscle thickness and 1RM changes, using muscle thickness and 1-RM baseline values, respectively, as covariates. Significance level was set at P<0.05.

RESULTS

Average of number of repetitions was higher in IPC compared to Placebo (13±4 and 11±2, respectively; P=0.0002). Muscle thickness did not change in either group from pre- to post-6 weeks (P=0.32). IPC improved 1-RM more than Placebo (P=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

IPC may augment greater strength gains in resistance-trained men due to an increase in training volume.

Comparison of Periodization Models of Concurrent Training in Recreationally Active Postmenopausal Women

Medeiros, LHL, Sandbakk, SB, Bertazone, TMA, and Bueno Júnior, CR. Comparison of periodization models of concurrent training in recreationally active postmenopausal women. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2020-Although concurrent training is the most effective way to improve both neuromuscular and cardiorespiratory functions in older populations, there are no studies in the literature comparing different periodization models on cardiorespiratory and muscle strength adaptations. Thus, the main objective of this study was to investigate the effects of different periodization models of concurrent aerobic and strength training using equalized training volume programs on muscle strength and cardiorespiratory fitness in recreationally active postmenopausal women. After 3 weeks of adaptation, 58 women aged 50-75 years were randomly assigned to (a) nonperiodization (NP), (b) daily nonlinear periodization (NLP), or (c) flexible daily NLP (FNLP). At baseline and after 12 weeks, aerobic fitness (peak oxygen uptake [V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak] and the 6-minute walk test) and maximal muscle strength (1 repetition maximum of bench press and leg press) were measured. It was shown that maximal strength increased in the bench press (effect size [ES] 1.18 in NLP and 1.22 in FNLP) and leg press (ES 0.92 in NLP and 0.89 in FNLP) in the periodized groups-in the NP group, these values were 0.49 and 0.46, respectively. In the 6-minute walk test, aerobic fitness statistically improved in all groups-with an ES of 1.02 in the NP, 1.33 in the NLP, and 0.54 in the FNLP. This study showed that only periodization models (NLP and FNLP) induced a moderate ES in maximal strength, and all groups (NP, NLP, and FNLP) demonstrated improved aerobic fitness evaluated by V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak and the 6-minute walk test in recreationally active postmenopausal women.

Progressive Resistance Training Volume: Effects on Muscle Thickness, Mass, and Strength Adaptations in Resistance-Trained Individuals

Aube, D, Wadhi, T, Rauch, J, Anand, A, Barakat, C, Pearson, J, Bradshaw, J, Zazzo, S, Ugrinowitsch, C, and De Souza, EO. Progressive resistance training volume: effects on muscle thickness, mass, and strength adaptations in resistance-trained individuals. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2020-This study investigated the effects of 12-SET, 18-SET, and 24-SET lower-body weekly sets on muscle strength and mass accretion. Thirty-five resistance-trained individuals (one repetition maximum [1RM] squat: body mass ratio [1RM: BM] = 2.09) were randomly divided into 12-SET: n = 13, 18-SET: n = 12, and 24-SET: n = 10. Subjects underwent an 8-week resistance-training (RT) program consisting of 2 weekly sessions. Muscle strength (1RM), repetitions to failure (RTF) at 70% of 1RM, anterior thigh muscle thickness (MT), at the medial MT (MMT) and distal MT (DMT) points, as well as the sum of both sites (ΣMT), along with region of interest for fat-free mass (ROI-FFM) were measured at baseline and post-testing. For the 1RM, there was a main time effect (p ≤ 0.0001). However, there was a strong trend toward significance (p = 0.052) for group-by-time interaction, suggesting that 18-SET increased 1RM back squat to a greater extent compared with 24-SET, (24-SET: 9.5 kg, 5.4%; 18-SET: 25.5 kg, 16.2%; 12-SET: 18.3 kg, 11.3%). For RTF, only a main time-effect (p ≤ 0.0003) was observed (24-set: 5.7 reps, 33.1%; 18-SET: 2.4 reps, 14.5%; 12-SET: 5.0 reps, 34.8%). For the MMT, DMT, ΣMT, and ROI-FFM, there was only main time-effect (p ≤ 0.0001), (MMT: 24-SET: 0.15 cm, 2.7%; 18-SET: 0.32 cm, 5.7%; 12-SET: 0.38 cm, 6.4%-DMT: 24-set: 0.39 cm, 13.1%; 18-SET: 0.28 cm, 8.9%; 12-SET: 0.34 cm, 9.7%-ΣMT: 24-set: 0.54 cm, 6.1%; 18-SET: 0.60 cm, 6.7%; 12-SET: 0.72 cm, 7.7%, and ROI-FFM: 24-set: 0.70 kg, 2.6%; 18-SET: 1.09 kg, 4.2%; 12-SET: 1.20 kg, 4.6%, respectively). Although all of the groups increased maximum strength, our results suggest that the middle dose range may optimize the gains in back squat 1RM. Our findings also support that differences in weekly set number did not impact in MT and ROI-FFM adaptations in subjects who can squat more than twice their body mass.

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.

The Effects of Varying Glenohumeral Joint Angle on Acute Volume Load, Muscle Activation, Swelling, and Echo-Intensity on the Biceps Brachii in Resistance-Trained Individuals

There is a paucity of data on how manipulating joint angles during isolation exercises may impact overall session muscle activation and volume load in resistance-trained individuals. We investigated the acute effects of varying glenohumeral joint angle on the biceps brachii with a crossover repeated measure design with three different biceps curls. One session served as the positive control (CON), which subjects performed 9 sets of bicep curls with their shoulder in a neutral position. The experimental condition (VAR), varied the glenohumeral joint angle by performing 3 sets in shoulder extension (30°), 3 sets neutral (0°), and 3 sets in flexion (90°). Volume load and muscle activation (EMG) were recorded during the training sessions. Muscle swelling and strain were assessed via muscle thickness and echo-intensity responses at pre, post, 24 h, 48 h, and 72 h. There were no significant differences between conditions for most dependent variables. However, the overall session EMG amplitude was significantly higher (p = 0.0001) in VAR compared to CON condition (95%-CI: 8.4% to 23.3%). Our findings suggest that varying joint angles during resistance training (RT) may enhance total muscle activation without negatively affecting volume load within a training session in resistance-trained individuals.

Similar Strength and Power Adaptations between Two Different Velocity-Based Training Regimens in Collegiate Female Volleyball Players

This study investigated the effects of two different velocity-based training (VBT) regimens on muscular adaptations. Fifteen female college volleyball players were randomly assigned into either progressive velocity-based training (PVBT) or optimum training load (OTL). Both groups trained three times a week for seven weeks. PVBT performed a 4-week strength block (e.g., 0.55⁻0.70 m·s-1) followed by a 3-week power block (e.g., 0.85⁻1.0 m·s-1), whereas OTL performed training at ~0.85⁻0.9 m·s-1. 1RM and peak power output (PP) assessments on the back squat (BS), bench press (BP) and deadlift (DL) exercises were assessed pre and post training. There was a main time effect (p ≤ 0.05) for BS and BP 1RM, (PVBT: 19.6%, ES: 1.72; OTL: 18.3%, ES: 1.57) and (PVBT: 8.5%, ES: 0.58; OTL: 10.2%, ES: 0.72), respectively. OTL increased DL 1RM to a greater extent than PVBT (p ≤ 0.05), (OTL: 22.9%, ES: 1.49; PVBT: 10.9%, ES: 0.88). Lastly, there was a main time effect (p ≤ 0.05) for BS, BP and DL PP, (PVBT: 18.3%, ES: 0.86; OTL: 19.8%, ES: 0.79); (PVBT: 14.5%, ES: 0.81; OTL: 27.9%, ES: 1.68); (PVBT: 15.7%, ES: 1.32; OTL: 20.1%, ES: 1.77) respectively. Our data suggest that both VBT regimens are effective for improving muscular performance in college volleyball players during the offseason period.