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

ABSTRACT: 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 36(3): 600-607, 2022-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.

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

ABSTRACT: 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 36(8): 2162-2168, 2022-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.

Auto-Regulated Exercise Selection Training Regimen Produces Small Increases in Lean Body Mass and Maximal Strength Adaptations in Strength-trained Individuals.

Rauch, JT, Ugrinowitsch, C, Barakat, CI, Alvarez, MR, Brummert, DL, Aube, DW, Barsuhn, AS, Hayes, D, Tricoli, V, and De Souza, EO. Auto-regulated exercise selection training regimen produces small increases in lean body mass and maximal strength adaptations in highly trained individuals. J Strength Cond Res 34(4): 1133-1140, 2020-The purpose of this investigation was to compare the effects of auto-regulatory exercise selection (AES) vs. fixed exercise selection (FES) on muscular adaptations in strength-trained individuals. Seventeen men (mean ± SD; age = 24 ± 5.45 years; height = 180.3 ± 7.54 cm, lean body mass [LBM] = 66.44 ± 6.59 kg; squat and bench press 1 repetition maximum (1RM): body mass ratio 1.87, 1.38, respectively) were randomly assigned into either AES or FES. Both groups trained 3 times a week for 9 weeks. Auto-regulatory exercise selection self-selected the exercises for each session, whereas FES was required to perform exercises in a fixed order. Lean body mass was assessed via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and maximum strength via 1RM testing, pre-, and post-training intervention. Total volume load was significantly higher for AES than for FES (AES: 573,288 ± 67,505 kg; FES: 464,600 ± 95,595 kg, p = 0.0240). For LBM, there was a significant main time effect (p = 0.009). However, confidence interval analysis (95% CIdiff) suggested that only AES significantly increased LBM (AES: 2.47%, effect size [ES]: 0.35, 95% CIdiff [0.030-3.197 kg]; FES: 1.37%, ES: 0.21, 95% CIdiff [-0.500 to 2.475 kg]). There was a significant main time effect for maximum strength (p ≤ 0.0001). However, 95% CIdiff suggested that only AES significantly improved bench press 1RM (AES: 6.48%, ES: 0.50, 95% CIdiff [0.312-11.42 kg]; FES: 5.14%, ES: 0.43, 95% CIdiff [-0.311 to 11.42 kg]). However for back squat 1RM, similar responses were observed between groups (AES: 9.55%, ES: 0.76, 95% CIdiff [0.04-28.37 kg]; FES: 11.54%, ES: 0.80, 95% CIdiff [1.8-28.5 kg]). Our findings suggest that AES may provide a small advantage in LBM and upper body maximal strength in strength-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.