Comment on: “A Review of the Acute Effects and Long-Term Adaptations of Single- and Multi-Joint Exercises During Resistance Training”

Equalization of Training Protocols by Time Under Tension Determines the Magnitude of Changes in Strength and Muscular Hypertrophy

Martins-Costa, HC, Lacerda, LT, Diniz, RCR, Lima, FV, Andrade, AGP, Peixoto, GH, Gomes, MC, Lanza, MB, Bemben, MG, and Chagas, MH. Equalization of training protocols by time under tension determines the magnitude of changes in strength and muscular hypertrophy. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2021-The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of 2 training protocols equalized by tension (TUT) on maximal strength (1 repetition maximum [RM]), regional cross-sectional areas (proximal, middle, and distal), and total cross-sectional areas (sum of the regional cross-sectional areas) of the pectoralis major and triceps brachii muscles. Thirty-eight men untrained in resistance training participated in the study and were allocated under 3 conditions: Protocol 3s (n = 11; 12 repetitions; 3s repetition duration), Protocol 6s (n = 11; 6 repetitions; 6s repetition duration), and Control (n = 11; no training). Training protocols (10 weeks; bench press exercise) were equated for TUT (36 seconds per set), number of sets (3-4), intensity (50-55% of 1RM), and rest between sets (3 minutes). Analysis of variance was used to examine a percentage change in variables of interest across the 3 groups with an alpha level of 0.05 used to establish statistical significance. Protocols 3s and 6s showed no differences in the increase of total and regional muscle cross-sectional areas. There were no differences in regional hypertrophy of the pectoralis major muscle. In the triceps brachii muscle, the increase in distal cross-sectional area was greater when compared with the middle and proximal regions. Both experimental groups had similar increases in the 1RM test. In conclusion, training protocols with the same TUT promote similar strength gains and muscle hypertrophy. Moreover, considering that the protocols used different numbers of repetitions, the results indicate that training volumes cannot be considered separately from TUT when evaluating neuromuscular adaptations.

Resistance training exercise selection: efficiency, safety and comfort analysis method

Abstract Manipulation of resistance training variables has been shown to have a substantial effect on muscular adaptations. A major variable in this process is exercise selection. In addition to the effectiveness of a given exercise to recruit the target muscle groups, safety considerations and individual comfort during execution of a lift should be considered. The correct biomechanics of the chosen exercise will assist in promoting desired muscle adaptations, while proper safety procedures will reduce risk of injury. Lifting comfort will facilitate enjoyment and foster adherence to the program. Therefore, the purpose of this paper was to offer guidelines for selection of resistance training exercises based on the Efficiency, Safety, and Comfort Analysis Method (ESCAM).

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.

Calculating Set-Volume for the Limb Muscles with the Performance of Multi-Joint Exercises: Implications for Resistance Training Prescription

Resistance training volume, determined by the number of sets performed (set-volume) is considered one of the key variables in promoting muscle hypertrophy. To better guide resistance exercise prescription for weekly per-muscle training volume, the purpose of this paper is to provide evidence-based considerations for set-volume ratios between multi-joint (MJ) and single-joint (SJ) exercises so that practitioners can better manage prescription of training volume in program design. We analyzed this topic from three primary areas of focus: (1) biomechanical and physiological factors; (2) acute research; and (3) longitudinal research. From a biomechanical and physiological standpoint, when considering force production of different muscle groups, the moment arm of a given muscle, “motor abundance”, the link between biomechanics and exercise-induced fatigue, as well as the amount of time in voluntary muscle activation, a logical rationale can be made for SJ exercises producing greater hypertrophy of the limb muscles than MJ exercises (at least from specific exercises and under certain conditions). This would mean that sets for a MJ exercise should be counted fractionally for select muscles compared to an SJ exercise (i.e., less than a 1:1 ratio) when prescribing set-volumes for given muscles. When considering results from acute studies that measured muscle activation during the performance of SJ and MJ exercises, it seems that MJ exercises are not sufficient to maximize muscle activation of specific muscles. For example, during performance of the leg press and squat, muscle activation of the hamstrings is markedly lower than that of the quadriceps. These results suggest that a 1:1 ratio cannot be assumed. Current longitudinal research comparing the effects of training with MJ vs. SJ or MJ + SJ exercises is limited to the elbow flexors and the evidence is somewhat conflicting. Until more research is conducted to derive stronger conclusions on the topic, we propose the best advice would be to view set-volume prescription on a 1:1 basis, and then use logical rationale and personal expertise to make determinations on program design. Future research should focus on investigating longitudinal hypertrophic changes between MJ and SJ in a variety of populations, particularly resistance-trained individuals, while using site-specific measures of muscle growth to more systematically and precisely compute effective individualized set-volumes.