Long-Term Time-Course of Strength Adaptation to Minimal Dose Resistance Training Through Retrospective Longitudinal Growth Modeling

Public health guidelines for resistance training emphasize a minimal effective dose intending for individuals to engage in these behaviors long term. However, few studies have adequately examined the longitudinal time-course of strength adaptations to resistance training. Purpose: The aim of this study was to examine the time-course of strength development from minimal-dose resistance training in a large sample through retrospective training records from a private international exercise company. Methods: Data were available for analysis from 14,690 participants (60% female; aged 48 ± 11 years) having undergone minimal-dose resistance training (1x/week, single sets to momentary failure of six exercises) up to 352 weeks (~6.8 years) in length. Linear-log growth models examined strength development over time allowing random intercepts and slopes by participant. Results: All models demonstrated a robust linear-log relationship with the first derivatives (i.e., changes in strength with time) trending asymptotically such that by ~1-2 years strength had practically reached a "plateau." Sex, bodyweight, and age had minimal interaction effects. However, substantial strength gains were apparent; approximately ~30-50% gains over the first year reaching ~50-60% of baseline 6 years later. Conclusion: It is unclear if the "plateau" can be overcome through alternative approaches, or whether over the long-term strength gains differ. Considering this, our results support public health recommendations for minimal-dose resistance training for strength adaptations in adults.

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.

Effects of Periodization on Strength and Muscle Hypertrophy in Volume-Equated Resistance Training Programs: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In resistance training, periodization is often used in an attempt to promote development of strength and muscle hypertrophy. However, it remains unclear how resistance training variables are most effectively periodized to maximize gains in strength and muscle hypertrophy.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to examine the current body of literature to determine whether there is an effect of periodization of training volume and intensity on maximal strength and muscle hypertrophy, and, if so, to determine how these variables are more effectively periodized to promote increases in strength and muscle hypertrophy, when volume is equated between conditions from pre to post intervention.

METHODS

Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus and SPORTDiscus databases. Data from the individual studies were extracted and coded. Meta-analyses using the inverse-variance random effects model were performed to compare 1-repetition maximum (1RM) and muscle hypertrophy outcomes in (a) non-periodized (NP) versus periodized training and (b) in linear periodization (LP) versus undulating periodization (UP). Subgroup analyses examining whether results were affected by training status were performed. Meta-analyses of other periodization model comparisons were not performed, due to a low number of studies.

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Results of the meta-analyses comparing NP and periodized training demonstrated an overall effect on 1RM strength favoring periodized training (ES 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.04, 0.57]; Z = 2.28, P = 0.02). In contrast, muscle hypertrophy did not differ between NP and periodized training (ES 0.13, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.36]; Z = 1.10, P = 0.27). Results of the meta-analyses comparing LP and UP indicated an overall effect on 1RM favoring UP (ES 0.31, 95% CI [0.02, 0.61]; Z = 2.06, P = 0.04). Subgroup analyses indicated an effect on 1RM favoring UP in trained participants (ES 0.61, 95% CI [0.00, 1.22]; Z = 1.97 (P = 0.05)), whereas changes in 1RM did not differ between LP and UP in untrained participants (ES 0.06, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.31]; Z = 0.43 (P = 0.67)). The meta-analyses showed that muscle hypertrophy did not differ between LP and UP (ES 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.29]; Z = 0.36 (P = 0.72)).

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that when volume is equated between conditions, periodized resistance training has a greater effect on 1RM strength compared to NP resistance training. Also, UP resulted in greater increases in 1RM compared to LP. However, subgroup analyses revealed that this was only the case for trained and not previously untrained individuals, indicating that trained individuals benefit from daily or weekly undulations in volume and intensity, when the aim is maximal strength. Periodization of volume and intensity does not seem to affect muscle hypertrophy in volume-equated pre-post designs. Based on this, we propose that the effects of periodization on maximal strength may instead be related to the neurophysiological adaptations accompanying resistance training.

Lighter-Load Exercise Produces Greater Acute- and Prolonged-Fatigue in Exercised and Non-Exercised Limbs

Purpose: The present study compared the fatigue and perceptual responses to volume-load matched heavier- and lighter- load resistance exercise to momentary failure in both a local/exercised, and non-local/non-exercised limb. Methods: Eleven resistance-trained men undertook unilateral maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) testing for knee extension prior to and immediately, 24 hr- and 48 hr- post heavier (80% MVC) and lighter  (40% MVC) load dynamic unilateral knee extension exercise. Only the dominant leg of each participant was exercised to momentary failure using heavier and lighter loads, and perceptions of discomfort were measured immediately upon exercise cessation. Results: Point estimates and confidence intervals suggested that immediately post-exercise there was greater fatigue in both the exercised and non-exercised legs for the lighter- load condition. At 24 hr the exercised leg under the heavier-load condition had recovered to pre-exercise strength; however, the exercised leg under lighter- load condition had still not fully recovered by 48 hr. For the non-exercised leg, only the lighter-load condition induced fatigue; however, recovery had occurred by 48 hr. Median discomfort ratings were statistically significantly different (Z = -2.232, p = .026) between lighter and heavier loads (10 [IQR = 0] and 8 [IQR = 3], respectively). Conclusions: This study suggests that lighter-load resistance exercise induces greater fatigue in both the exercised- and non-exercised limbs, compared to heavier-load resistance exercise. These findings may have implications for exercise frequency as it may be possible to engage in heavier-load resistance exercise more frequently than a volume-load matched protocol using lighter loads.Abbreviations CI: Confidence intervals: ES: Effect size: MVC: Maximum voluntary contraction; Nm:Newton meters; RM: Repetition maximum; SD: Standard deviation; SI: Strength index.

Periodization and Programming in Sports

Periodization is a generally accepted approach to manage athletic performance by the sub-division of training programs into sequential, specifically focused training periods [...].

Periodization: Variation in the Definition and Discrepancies in Study Design

Over the past several decades, periodization has been widely accepted as the gold standard of training theory. Within the literature, there are numerous definitions for periodization, which makes it difficult to study. When examining the proposed definitions and related studies on periodization, problems arise in the following domains: (1) periodization has been proposed to serve as the macro-management of the training process concerning the annual plan, yet research on long-term effects is scarce; (2) periodization and programming are being used interchangeably in research; and (3) training is not periodized alongside other stressors such as sport (i.e., only resistance training is being performed without the inclusion of sport). Overall, the state of the literature suggests that the inability to define periodization makes the statement of its superiority difficult to experimentally test. This paper discusses the proposed definitions of periodization and the study designs which have been employed to examine the concept.

The Basics of Training for Muscle Size and Strength: A Brief Review on the Theory

The periodization of resistance exercise is often touted as the most effective strategy for optimizing muscle size and strength adaptations. This narrative persists despite a lack of experimental evidence to demonstrate its superiority. In addition, the general adaptation syndrome, which provides the theoretical framework underlying periodization, does not appear to provide a strong physiological rationale that periodization is necessary. Hans Selye conducted a series of rodent studies which used toxic stressors to facilitate the development of the general adaptation syndrome. To our knowledge, normal exercise in humans has never been shown to produce a general adaptation syndrome. We question whether there is any physiological rationale that a periodized training approach would facilitate greater adaptations compared with nonperiodized approaches employing progressive overload. The purpose of this article is to briefly review currently debated topics within strength and conditioning and provide some practical insight regarding the implications these reevaluations of the literature may have for resistance exercise and periodization. In addition, we provide some suggestions for the continued advancement within the field of strength and conditioning.