Muscle Failure Promotes Greater Muscle Hypertrophy in Low-Load but Not in High-Load Resistance Training.

ABSTRACT: Lasevicius, T, Schoenfeld, BJ, Silva-Batista, C, Barros, TdS, Aihara, AY, Brendon, H, Longo, AR, Tricoli, V, Peres, BdA, and Teixeira, EL. Muscle failure promotes greater muscle hypertrophy in low-load but not in high-load resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 36(2): 346-351, 2022-The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of an 8-week resistance training program at low and high loads performed with and without achieving muscle failure on muscle strength and hypertrophy. Twenty-five untrained men participated in the 8-week study. Each lower limb was allocated to 1 of 4 unilateral knee extension protocols: repetitions to failure with low load (LL-RF; ∼34.4 repetitions); repetitions to failure with high load (HL-RF; ∼12.4 repetitions); repetitions not to failure with low load (LL-RNF; ∼19.6 repetitions); and repetitions not to failure with high load (HL-RNF; ∼6.7 repetitions). All conditions performed 3 sets with total training volume equated between conditions. The HL-RF and HL-RNF protocols used a load corresponding to 80% 1 repetition maximum (RM), while LL-RF and LL-RNF trained at 30% 1RM. Muscle strength (1RM) and quadriceps cross-sectional area (CSA) were assessed before and after intervention. Results showed that 1RM changes were significantly higher for HL-RF (33.8%, effect size [ES]: 1.24) and HL-RNF (33.4%, ES: 1.25) in the post-test when compared with the LL-RF and LL-RNF protocols (17.7%, ES: 0.82 and 15.8%, ES: 0.89, respectively). Quadriceps CSA increased significantly for HL-RF (8.1%, ES: 0.57), HL-RNF (7.7%, ES: 0.60), and LL-RF (7.8%, ES: 0.45), whereas no significant changes were observed in the LL-RNF (2.8%, ES: 0.15). We conclude that when training with low loads, training with a high level of effort seems to have greater importance than total training volume in the accretion of muscle mass, whereas for high load training, muscle failure does not promote any additional benefits. Consistent with previous research, muscle strength gains are superior when using heavier loads.

Varying the Order of Combinations of Single- and Multi-Joint Exercises Differentially Affects Resistance Training Adaptations.

Brandão, L, de Salles Painelli, V, Lasevicius, T, Silva-Batista, C, Brendon, H, Schoenfeld, BJ, Aihara, AY, Cardoso, FN, de Almeida Peres, B, and Teixeira, EL. Varying the order of combinations of single- and multi-joint exercises differentially affects resistance training adaptations. J Strength Cond Res 34(5): 1254-1263, 2020-Our study aimed to compare the effects of multi-joint (MJ) and single-joint (SJ) exercises, either isolated or in combination, and in different orders, on cross-sectional area (CSA) of the pectoralis major (PM) and different heads of the triceps brachii (TB), as well as on the one-repetition maximum (1-RM) in the bench press and lying barbell triceps press. Forty-three young men were randomly assigned to one of 4 possible RT protocols: barbell bench press plus lying barbell triceps press (MJ + SJ, n = 12); lying barbell triceps press plus barbell bench press (SJ + MJ, n = 10); barbell bench press (MJ, n = 10); or lying barbell triceps press (SJ, n = 11). Results showed significant within-group increases in 1-RM bench press for MJ, MJ + SJ, and SJ + MJ but not for SJ. Conversely, significantly greater within-group increases in elbow extension 1-RM were noted for SJ, MJ + SJ, and SJ + MJ but not for MJ. Significantly greater increases in PM CSA were observed for MJ, MJ + SJ, and SJ + MJ compared with SJ. Significant increases in TB CSA were noted for SJ, MJ + SJ, and SJ + MJ, but not for MJ, without observed between-group differences. Individual analysis of TB heads showed significantly greater CSA increases in the lateral head for MJ, MJ + SJ, and SJ + MJ compared with SJ. Alternatively, significantly greater increases in the long head were observed for SJ, MJ + SJ, and SJ + MJ compared with MJ. CSA increases for the medial head were statistically similar between conditions. Our findings indicate that muscular adaptations are differentially affected by performance of MJ and SJ exercises.