Training to Fatigue: The Answer for Standardization When Assessing Muscle Hypertrophy?

Shorter But More Frequent Rest Periods: No Effect on Velocity and Power Compared to Traditional Sets Not Performed to Failure

Performing traditional sets to failure is fatiguing, but redistributing total rest time to create short frequent sets lessens the fatigue. Since performing traditional sets to failure is not always warranted, we compared the effects of not-to-failure traditional sets and rest redistribution during free-weight back squats in twenty-six strength-trained men (28 ± 5.44 y; 84.6 ± 10.5 kg, 1RM-to-body-mass ratio of 1.82 ± 0.33). They performed three sets of ten repetitions with 4 min inter-set rest (TS) and five sets of six repetitions with 2 min inter-set rest (RR6) at 70% of one repetition maximum. Mean velocity (p > 0.05; d = 0.10 (-0.35, 0.56)) and mean power (p > 0.05; d = 0.19 (-0.27, 0.64)) were not different between protocols, but the rating of perceived exertion (RPE) was less during RR6 (p < 0.05; d = 0.93 (0.44, 1.40)). Also, mean velocity and power output decreased (RR6: 14.10% and 10.95%; TS: 17.10% and 15.85%, respectively) from the first repetition to the last, but the percentage decrease was similar (velocity: p > 0.05; d = 0.16 (0.30, 0.62); power: p > 0.05; d = 0.22 (-0.24, 0.68)). These data suggest that traditional sets and rest redistribution maintain velocity and power output to a similar degree when traditional sets are not performed to failure. However, rest redistribution might be advantageous as RR6 displayed a lower RPE.

The Effect of In-Season Traditional and Explosive Resistance Training Programs on Strength, Jump Height, and Speed in Recreational Soccer Players

PURPOSE

Resistance training is often performed in a traditional training style using deliberate relatively longer repetition durations or in an explosive training style using maximal intended velocities and relatively shorter repetition durations. Both improve strength, "power" (impulsivity), and speed. This study compared explosive and traditional training over a 6-week intervention in 30 healthy young adult male recreational soccer players.

METHOD

Full body supervised resistance training was performed 2 times a week using 3 sets of each exercise at 80% of one repetition maximum to momentary failure. Outcomes were Smith machine squat 1 repetition maximum, 10 meter sprint time, and countermovement jump.

RESULTS

Both groups significantly improved all outcomes based on 95% confidence intervals not crossing zero. There were no between-group differences for squat 1 RM (TRAD = 6.3[5.1 to 7.6] kg, EXP = 5.2[3.9 to 6.4] kg) or 10 meter sprint (TRAD = -0.05[-0.07 to -0.04] s, EXP = -0.05[-0.06 to -0.03] s). Explosive group had a significantly greater increase in countermovement jump compared to the traditional group (TRAD = 0.7[0.3 to 1.1] cm, EXP = 1.3[0.9 to 1.7] cm).

CONCLUSION

Both the traditional training and explosive training performed to momentary failure produced significant improvements in strength, speed, and jump performance. Strength gains are similar independent of intended movement speed. However, speed and jump performance changes are marginal with resistance training.

Acute skeletal muscle responses to very low-load resistance exercise with and without the application of blood flow restriction in the upper body

The purpose was to examine the acute skeletal muscle response to high load exercise and low-load exercise with and without different levels of applied pressure (BFR). A total of 22 participants completed the following four conditions: elbow flexion exercise to failure using a traditional high load [70% 1RM, (7000)], low load [15% 1RM,(1500)], low load with moderate BFR [15%1RM+40%BFR(1540)] or low load with greater BFR [15% 1RM+80%BFR(1580)]. Torque and muscle thickness were measured prior to, immediately post, and 15 min postexercise. Muscle electromyography (EMG) amplitude was measured throughout. Immediately following exercise, the 7000 condition had lower muscle thickness [4·2(1·0)cm] compared to the 1500 [4·4 (1·1)cm], 1540 [4·4(1·1)cm] and 1580 [4·5(1·0)cm] conditions. This continued 15 min post. Immediately following exercise, torque was lower in the 1500 [31·8 (20) Nm], 1540 [28·3(16·9) Nm, P<0·001] and 1580 [29·5 (17) Nm] conditions compared to the 7000 condition [40 (19) Nm]. Fifteen minutes post, 1500 and 1540 conditions demonstrated lower torque compared to the 7000 condition. For the last three repetitions percentage EMG was greater in the 7000 compared to the 1580 condition. Very low-load exercise (with or without BFR) appears to result in greater acute muscle swelling and greater muscular fatigue compared to high load exercise.

Heavier- and lighter-load isolated lumbar extension resistance training produce similar strength increases, but different perceptual responses, in healthy males and females

OBJECTIVES

Muscles dominant in type I muscle fibres, such as the lumbar extensors, are often trained using lighter loads and higher repetition ranges. However, literature suggests that similar strength adaptations can be attained by the use of both heavier- (HL) and lighter-load (LL) resistance training across a number of appendicular muscle groups. Furthermore, LL resistance exercise to momentary failure might result in greater discomfort.

DESIGN

The aims of the present study were to compare strength adaptations, as well as perceptual responses of effort (RPE-E) and discomfort (RPE-D), to isolated lumbar extension (ILEX) exercise using HL (80% of maximum voluntary contraction; MVC) and LL (50% MVC) in healthy males and females.

METHODS

Twenty-six participants (n = 14 males, n = 12 females) were divided in to sex counter-balanced HL (23 ± 5 years; 172.3 ± 9.8 cm; 71.0 ± 13.1 kg) and LL (22 ± 2 years; 175.3 ± 6.3 cm; 72.8 ± 9.5 kg) resistance training groups. All participants performed a single set of dynamic ILEX exercise 1 day/week for 6 weeks using either 80% (HL) or 50% (LL) of their MVC to momentary failure.

RESULTS

Analyses revealed significant pre- to post-intervention increases in isometric strength for both HL and LL, with no significant between-group differences (p > 0.05). Changes in strength index (area under torque curves) were 2,891 Nm degrees 95% CIs [1,612-4,169] and 2,865 Nm degrees 95% CIs [1,587-4,144] for HL and LL respectively. Changes in MVC were 51.7 Nm 95% CIs [24.4-79.1] and 46.0 Nm 95% CIs [18.6-73.3] for HL and LL respectively. Mean repetitions per set, total training time and discomfort were all significantly higher for LL compared to HL (26 ± 8 vs. 8 ± 3 repetitions, 158.5 ± 47 vs. 50.5 ± 15 s, and 7.8 ± 1.8 vs. 4.8 ± 2.5, respectively; all p < 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study supports that that low-volume, low-frequency ILEX resistance exercise can produce similar strength increases in the lumbar extensors using either HL or LL. As such personal trainers, trainees and strength coaches can consider other factors which might impact acute performance (e.g. effort and discomfort during the exercise). This data might prove beneficial in helping asymptomatic persons reduce the risk of low-back pain, and further research, might consider the use of HL exercise for chronic low-back pain symptomatic persons.

Effects of load on the acute response of muscles proximal and distal to blood flow restriction

To determine the effects of load and blood flow restriction (BFR) on muscular responses, we asked 12 participants to perform chest presses under four different conditions [30/0, 30/40, 50/0, and 50/40, presented as percentage one-repetition maximum (1RM)/percentage arterial occlusion pressure (AOP)]. Muscle thickness increased pre- to post-exercise [chest: mean 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21, 0.37 cm; triceps: mean 0.44, 95% CI 0.34, 0.54 cm], remaining elevated for 15 min post-exercise. Electromyography amplitude was greater with 50% 1RM and increased over time for the first three repetitions of each set of chest presses. The last three repetitions differed across time only. AOP increased from pre- to post-exercise, augmented by BFR [30/0: mean 31, 95% CI 18, 44 mmHg; 30/40: mean 39, 95% CI 28, 50 mmHg; 50/0: mean 32, 95% CI 23, 41 mmHg; 50/40: mean 46, 95% CI 32, 59 mmHg). Tranquility decreased and physical exhaustion increased from the pre- to post-condition, with both parameters returning to the baseline 15 min post-exercise level. In conclusion, load and BFR do not elicit meaningful differences in the acute response of chest press exercise taken to failure.

Effort Index as a Novel Variable for Monitoring the Level of Effort During Resistance Exercises

Rodríguez-Rosell, D, Yáñez-García, JM, Torres-Torrelo, J, Mora-Custodio, R, Marques, MC, and González-Badillo, JJ. Effort index as a novel variable for monitoring the level of effort during resistance exercises. J Strength Cond Res 32(8): 2139-2153, 2018-This study aimed to analyze the acute mechanical and metabolic response to resistance exercise protocols (REPs) defined by 2 variables: the first repetition's mean velocity and the percentage of velocity loss (%VL) over the set. The product of these 2 variables was termed the effort index (EI) and was used as an indicator of the degree of fatigue induced during each REP. Twenty-one resistance-trained men (11 in full squat [SQ] and 10 in bench press [BP]) performed 16 REPs separated by 72 hours. Relative loads used (50, 60, 70, and 80% 1-repetition maximum) were determined from the load-velocity relationship for the SQ and BP, whereas volume was objectively determined using the %VL attained over the set (10, 20, 30, and 45% for SQ, and 15, 25, 40, and 55% for BP). Lactate concentration and velocity against the load that elicited a ∼1.00 m·s (V1 m·s load) were measured before and after each REP. Post-exercise velocity with the V1 m·s load and lactate concentration were significantly different (P < 0.01-0.001) from pre-exercise after all REPs. A very close relationship was found between the proposed EI and %VL with the V1 m·s load (r = 0.92-0.98) and post-exercise lactate concentration (r = 0.91-0.95) in both exercises. The correlations between this new index and fatigue indicators such as VL allow us to gain further insight into the actual degree of effort incurred during resistance exercise. In addition to being a valuable addition for training monitoring, the proposed EI could also be used as an independent variable in training studies by equalizing the effort between different interventions.

Muscle Adaptations to High-Load Training and Very Low-Load Training With and Without Blood Flow Restriction

An inability to lift loads great enough to disrupt muscular blood flow may impair the ability to fatigue muscles, compromising the hypertrophic response. It is unknown what level of blood flow restriction (BFR) pressure, if any, is necessary to reach failure at very low-loads [i.e., 15% one-repetition maximum (1RM)]. The purpose of this study was to investigate muscular adaptations following resistance training with a very low-load alone (15/0), with moderate BFR (15/40), or with high BFR (15/80), and compare them to traditional high-load (70/0) resistance training. Using a within/between subject design, healthy young participants (n = 40) performed four sets of unilateral knee extension to failure (up to 90 repetitions/set), twice per week for 8 weeks. Data presented as mean change (95% CI). There was a condition by time interaction for 1RM (p < 0.001), which increased for 70/0 [3.15 (2.04,4.25) kg] only. A condition by time interaction (p = 0.028) revealed greater changes in endurance for 15/80 [6 (4,8) repetitions] compared to 15/0 [4 (2,6) repetitions] and 70/0 [4 (2,5) repetitions]. There was a main effect of time for isometric MVC [change = 10.51 (3.87,17.16) Nm, p = 0.002] and isokinetic MVC at 180^°/s [change = 8.61 (5.54,11.68) Nm, p < 0.001], however there was no change in isokinetic MVC at 60^°/s [2.45 (−1.84,6.74) Nm, p = 0.261]. Anterior and lateral muscle thickness was assessed at 30, 40, 50, and 60% of the upper leg. There was no condition by time interaction for muscle thickness sites (all p ≥ 0.313). There was a main effect of time for all sites, with increases over time (all p < 0.001). With the exception of the 30% lateral site (p = 0.059) there was also a main effect of condition (all p < 0.001). Generally, 70/0 was greater. Average weekly volume increased for all conditions across the 8 weeks, and was greatest for 70/0 followed by 15/0, 15/40, then 15/80. With the exception of 1RM, changes in strength and muscle size were similar regardless of load or restriction. The workload required to elicit these changes lowered with increased BFR pressure. These findings may be pertinent to rehabilitative settings, future research, and program design.

Muscle fatigue in response to low-load blood flow-restricted elbow-flexion exercise: are there any sex differences?

PURPOSE

This study aimed to determine whether men and women display a different magnitude of muscle fatigue in response to high-load (HL) and low-load blood flow-restricted (LLBFR) elbow-flexion exercise. We also explored to which extent both exercise protocols induce similar levels of muscle fatigue (i.e., torque decrement).

METHODS

Sixty-two young participants (31 men and 31 women) performed dynamic elbow flexions at 20 and 75% of one-repetition maximum for LLBFR and HL exercise, respectively. Maximum voluntary isometric contractions were performed before and after exercise to quantify muscle fatigue.

RESULTS

Men and women exhibited similar magnitude of relative torque decrement after both exercise protocols (p > 0.05). HL was more fatiguing (∆ torque output: 11.9 and 23 N.m in women and men, respectively) than LLBFR resistance exercise (∆ torque output: 8.3 and 15.4 N.m in women and men, respectively) in both sexes, but this was largely attenuated after controlling for the differences in volume load between protocols (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

These data show that torque decrement in response to LLBFR and HL dynamic elbow-flexion exercise does not follow a sexually dimorphic pattern. Our data also indicate that, if performed in a multiple-set fashion and prescribed for a given volume load, elbow-flexion LLBFR exercise induces similar levels of fatigue as HL acute training. Importantly, this occurs similarly in both sexes.

Perceptual and arterial occlusion responses to very low load blood flow restricted exercise performed to volitional failure

PURPOSE

Studies examining perceptual and arterial occlusion responses between blood flow restricted exercise and high load exercise often prescribe an arbitrary number of repetitions, making it difficult for direct comparisons. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare these protocols when performed to volitional failure.

METHODS

Individuals completed four exercise conditions varying in load and pressure: (i) 15% 1RM; no restrictive pressure, (ii) 15% 1RM; 40% arterial occlusion pressure, (iii) 15% 1RM; 80% arterial occlusion pressure, and (iv) 70% 1RM; no pressure. Four sets of knee extension exercises were performed until volitional failure (or until 90 repetitions per set) was completed.

RESULTS

A total of 23 individuals completed the study. While all conditions increased arterial occlusion pressure, the greatest increases (~30%) were observed in the blood flow restriction conditions. All lower load conditions resulted in greater RPE and discomfort than that of the high load condition, but only discomfort was increased further when adding blood flow restriction.

CONCLUSION

High load exercise will likely be perceived more favourably than lower load exercise to volitional failure; however, those who are incapable or unwilling to lift heavier loads may use blood flow restriction to help reduce the volume needed to reach volitional failure, although this will likely increase discomfort.

Using velocity loss for monitoring resistance training effort in a real-world setting

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the changes in movement velocity during resistance training with different loads while the trainees attempted to move the load at a predetermined repetition duration. Twenty-one resistance-trained men (age: 25.7 ± 5 years; height: 177.0 ± 7.2 cm; mass: 85.4 ± 13.56 kg) volunteered to participate in the study. Participants performed 2 test sessions. The first to determine 1-repetition maximum (1RM) load, and the second to evaluate velocity loss during a set to failure performed at 75% and 50% of 1RM using a 2-s concentric and 2-s eccentric repetition duration, controlled by a mobile app metronome. When using 75% 1RM there was a significant loss of movement velocity between the antepenultimate and the penultimate repetition (5.33%, p < 0.05), as well as during the penultimate and the last (22.11%, p < 0.05). At 50% of 1RM the participants performed the set until momentary failure without significant velocity loss. Monitoring velocity loss during high-load resistance training through simple methods can be an important tool for standardize the intensity of effort employed during submaximal training. This can be useful in clinical conditions where maximum exertions are contraindicated or when specific logistics are lacking.

Ability to predict repetitions to momentary failure is not perfectly accurate, though improves with resistance training experience

‘Repetitions in Reserve’ (RIR) scales in resistance training (RT) are used to control effort but assume people accurately predict performance a priori (i.e. the number of possible repetitions to momentary failure (MF)). This study examined the ability of trainees with different experience levels to predict number of repetitions to MF. One hundred and forty-one participants underwent a full body RT session involving single sets to MF and were asked to predict the number of repetitions they could complete before reaching MF on each exercise. Participants underpredicted the number of repetitions they could perform to MF (Standard error of measurements [95% confidence intervals] for combined sample ranged between 2.64 [2.36–2.99] and 3.38 [3.02–3.83]). There was a tendency towards improved accuracy with greater experience. Ability to predict repetitions to MF is not perfectly accurate among most trainees though may improve with experience. Thus, RIR should be used cautiously in prescription of RT. Trainers and trainees should be aware of this as it may have implications for the attainment of training goals, particularly muscular hypertrophy.

Blood flow in humans following low-load exercise with and without blood flow restriction

Blood flow restriction (BFR) in combination with exercise has been used to increase muscle size and strength using relatively low loads (20%–30% 1-repetition maximum (1RM)). In research, the range of applied pressures based on a percentage of arterial occlusion pressure (AOP), is wide. The purpose of the study is to measure the blood flow response before exercise, following each set of exercise, and postexercise to low-load elbow flexion combined with no restriction (NOBFR), 40% of AOP (40BFR), and 80% of AOP (80BFR). One hundred and fifty-two participants volunteered; 140 completed the protocol (women = 75, men = 65). Participants were counter-balanced into 1 of 3 conditions. Following AOP and 1RM measurement, ultrasound was used to measure standing blood flow at rest in the right brachial artery. Participants performed 4 sets of elbow flexion at 30% 1RM. Blood flow was measured between sets and at 1 and 5 min postexercise. Blood flow decreased following inflation, with no difference between conditions (p < 0.001). Men had greater blood flow than women in all conditions at all time points (p < 0.001). Resting hyperemia decreased with pressure (NOBFR > 40BFR > 80BFR, p < 0.001). Blood flow increased from rest to after set 1 regardless of condition. Following cuff deflation, blood flow increased in both the 80BFR and 40BFR conditions. The reduction in hyperemia during BFR is pressure-dependent. Contrary to previous investigations, blood flow was increased above baseline following exercise.

Are higher blood flow restriction pressures more beneficial when lower loads are used?

The application of blood flow restriction during low-load resistance exercise has been shown to induce muscle growth with high or low restriction pressures, however, loads lower than 20% one-repetition maximum (1RM) remain unexplored. Fourteen trained individuals completed six elbow flexion protocols involving three different loads (10%, 15%, and 20% 1RM) each of which was performed with either a low (40% arterial occlusion) or high (80% arterial occlusion) pressure. Pre- and post-measurements of surface electromyography (sEMG), isometric torque, and muscle thickness were analyzed. An interaction was present for torque (p < 0.001) and muscle thickness (p < 0.001) illustrating that all increases in pressure and/or load resulted in a greater fatigue and muscle thickness. There was no interaction for sEMG (p = 0.832); however, there were main effects of condition (p = 0.002) and time (p = 0.019) illustrating greater sEMG in the 20% 1RM conditions. Higher blood flow restriction pressures may be more beneficial for muscle growth when very low loads are used.

Effects of linear and daily undulating periodized resistance training programs on measures of muscle hypertrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Periodization is an important component of resistance training programs. It is meant to improve adherence to the training regimen, allow for constant progression, help in avoiding plateaus, and reduce occurrence and severity of injuries. Previous findings regarding the effects of different periodization models on measures of muscle hypertrophy are equivocal. To provide a more in-depth look at the topic, we undertook a systematic review of the literature and a meta-analysis of intervention trials comparing the effects of linear periodization (LP) and daily undulating periodization (DUP) resistance training programs on muscle hypertrophy.

Materials and Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted through PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD) and Open Access Theses and Dissertations (OATD).

Results

The pooled standardized mean difference (Cohen’s d) from 13 eligible studies for the difference between the periodization models on muscle hypertrophy was −0.02 (95% confidence interval [−0.25, 0.21], p = 0.848).

Conclusions

The meta-analysis comparing LP and DUP indicated that the effects of the two periodization models on muscle hypertrophy are likely to be similar. However, more research is needed in this area, particularly among trained individuals and clinical populations. Future studies may benefit from using instruments that are more sensitive for detecting changes in muscle mass, such as ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging.