Strength

Reading time:

Strength is the ability to express force through the production of joint moments. Research comparing the effects of training programs over time can help identify the fastest ways to get stronger.   

To reduce the risk of error, analysis of the optimal methods for strength gains should be based around a review of well-controlled long-term trials comparing individual resistance training variables.

For untrained individuals, heavier loads seem to be superior to both light and moderate loads. For trained individuals, evidence is very limited but heavy loads may be superior to moderate loads. A higher relative load might be more effective than a low relative load for gaining strength because of increases in inter-muscular co-ordination that are relevant to maximal strength tests.

For untrained individuals, multiple sets leading to greater total volume likely leads to greater strength gains. For trained individuals, multiple sets leading to greater total volume likely leads to greater strength gains. A higher volume might be effective than a lower volume for increasing strength because of its effects on hypertrophy, and because of the effects of practice on inter-muscular co-ordination.

For untrained individuals, training closer to muscular failure may lead to greater strength gains. For trained individuals, training closer to muscular failure may also lead to greater strength gains. It seems likely that training closer to muscular failure is probably more effective than training further from muscular failure for strength gains because of superior hypertrophy.

For untrained individuals, greater training frequency leading to more volume could lead to greater strength gains. However, splitting the same weekly volume out over more sessions is unlikely to be beneficial. For trained individuals, splitting the same weekly volume out over more sessions might be beneficial, but evidence is very limited. Training with a higher frequency might be more effective for increasing strength because of improved inter-muscular co-ordination by virtue of a greater number of practice occasions.

For untrained individuals, longer inter-set rest period durations are probably better for strength gains. For trained individuals, longer inter-set rest period durations are also probably better for strength gains. Longer rest period durations might bring about greater increases in strength by facilitating increases in inter-muscular co-ordination.

For untrained individuals, larger ROM may be superior to smaller ROM for strength gains. For trained individuals, there is currently no evidence available. Greater ROMs are likely to cause greater increases in strength because of increased hypertrophy. However, task-specificity might also be observed because of changes in inter-muscular co-ordination.

For untrained individuals, a faster bar speed may lead to greater strength gains when using constant-load external resistance, whether matched for repetition ranges to muscular failure or for absolute load. For trained individuals, there is currently no evidence. Faster bar speeds might be more effective than slower bar speeds for increasing strength because they cause shifts in muscle fiber type, improvements in inter-muscular co-ordination and/or increases in motor unit firing rate.

For untrained subjects, eccentric muscle actions may be superior for increasing eccentric strength, when using variable external resistance. For trained subjects, there is no difference between eccentric and concentric muscle actions for increasing isometric, concentric or eccentric strength. Eccentric muscle actions might cause greater increases in strength because of slightly increased hypertrophy. However, task-specificity might also be observed because of changes in inter-muscular co-ordination.

For untrained and trained subjects, periodization is probably superior to no periodization for strength gains. For untrained and trained subjects, non-linear and linear periodization probably lead to similar strength gains. The mechanism by which periodization might affect strength gains is unclear. Transient increases in inter-muscular co-ordination might lead to superior strength gains prior to the post-intervention test.


CONTENTS

Full table of contents

  1. Background
  2. Relative load (percentage of 1RM)
  3. Volume
  4. Muscular failure
  5. Frequency (whole body or split)
  6. Rest period duration
  7. Range of motion
  8. Bar speed (isokinetic)
  9. Bar speed (not isokinetic)
  10. Muscle action (isokinetic)
  11. Muscle action (not isokinetic)
  12. Resistance type (variable vs. constant load)
  13. Periodization type
  14. References
  15. Contributors
  16. Provide feedback

BACKGROUND

PURPOSE

This section provides the background to strength, including the various different measurement methods. 

ESSENTIAL INFORMATION

Introduction

Strength is broadly defined as the ability to produce force, through the generation of net joint moments. Strength is determined by a large range of different factors (called “determinants”), including both peripheral factors (those inside the muscle itself) and central factors (those inside the central nervous system).

Peripheral factors

There are many different peripheral factors or “determinants” that can affect strength. Any of these factors can be altered as a result of different types of strength training, and can increase strength in different ways. Sometimes the increases in strength as a result of each factor can depend on the nature of the strength test, which is what leads to specificity. The main peripheral factors determining strength are:

  • muscle size
  • moment arm length
  • length of the fascicles
  • prevailing pennation angle of the fibers
  • muscle fiber type, and
  • single fiber contractile properties

Central factors

There are also several central factors or “determinants” that can affect strength. Any of these factors can be altered as a result of different types of strength training, and can increase strength in different ways. Sometimes the increases in strength as a result of each factor can depend on the nature of the strength test, which is what leads to specificity. The main central factors determining strength are:

  • coordination for the movement or exercise,
  • size of the neural drive to the prime mover muscle,
  • size of the neural drive to the the stabilizer muscles, and
  • size of the antagonist coactivation levels.

Relationship between strength and its determinants

There are two main ways of identifying the relationship between strength and its underlying determinants, both of which look for correlations between strength and the key factors. Firstly, cross-sectional studies can be used. These can tell us what factors influence the variability in strength between two or more individuals. For example, Trezise et al. (2016) recently assessed the relationship between isometric knee extension torque and its determinants. They found that muscle size was a key predictor, but there were many other factors that were also relevant.

Muscle force can be affected by many properties of a muscle (not just its size), including muscle size, moment arm length, the length of the fascicles, the prevailing pennation angle of the fibers, the muscle fiber type, and even the single fiber contractile properties (which can differ even when muscle fiber types are similar). Muscle force can also be affected by the coordination that we have for the movement or exercise, the size of the neural drive to the prime mover muscle, to the stabilizer muscles, and by the size of the antagonist coactivation levels. To identify the relationship between these factors and muscular strength, researchers often use controlled studies, in which they measure single-joint isometric and slow speed, isokinetic concentric force production. They do this to reduce the impact of the factors that make strength specific, which have a huge influence during not perfectly stable, multi-joint, high-velocity, or eccentric exercises. Such studies fall into two categories: (1) those that compare individuals cross-sectionally between each other, and (2) those that compare the changes as a result of strength training. The first category tells us what makes some people stronger than others. The second category tells us what makes one person stronger after training. The factors are not always the same! In this study, the researchers measured knee extension torque in a cross-sectional study, and assessed factors that might influence strength in that movement. Using correlations, they identified which of the factors might be most closely related to strength. In this very comprehensive and careful assessment, muscle size was still found to be a large predictor of strength, but there were also a great many other moderate predictors, including those inside the muscle (pennation angle, fascicle length, and moment arm length) and in the central nervous system (as indicated by voluntary activation and EMG). This shows that muscle size is not the only determinant of strength (although it is the largest).

A photo posted by Chris Beardsley (@chrisabeardsley) on

Secondly, long-term training studies can be used. These can tell us what factors are important for actually increasing strength. Importantly, these can differ, as some factors that make one person stronger than another are very hard to change with training. A small number of important studies have been carried out in this area, and have reported that although muscle size and agonist muscle activation are moderate predictors, the best predictor of long-term strength gains is the change in specific tension, which is a measurement of single fiber contractile function (Erskine et al. 2010a).

Muscle force can be affected by many factors. We generally divide the factors into two types: (1) peripheral (those inside the muscle) and (2) central (those in the central nervous system). Peripheral factors include muscle size, moment arm length, the length of the fascicles, the prevailing pennation angle of the fibers, the muscle fiber type, and even the single fiber contractile properties. Central factors include the level of coordination that we have for the exercise, the size of the neural drive to the prime mover muscle, to the stabilizer muscles, and by the size of the antagonist coactivation levels. To assess the impact of each of these factors, researchers can use either comparisons between individuals, or comparisons from before to after a training program. Obviously, assessing the importance of the factors as a result of a training program is more insightful. In this study, the researchers assessed the importance of many factors over a long-term training program. Hypertrophy was only moderately associated with increases in strength. In contrast, changes in specific tension were strongly associated. Specific tension is a measurement of the force per unit cross-sectional area, corrected for pennation angle. The force is taken from the involuntary force during electrically-stimulated contractions, and therefore does not include possible alterations in neural drive. The main factors believed to influence specific tension are alterations in the muscle fiber type, increases in myofibrillar packing density, or changes in the structure of the individual muscle fiber and its ultrastructure, which could increase lateral force transmission.

A photo posted by Chris Beardsley (@chrisabeardsley) on

Specific nature of strength tests

Strength differs markedly depending on the test.

Some people are stronger in some types of strength test compared to others. And some types of strength training produce greater strength in some types of strength test compared to others. This is called specificity, or the Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demand (SAID) principle. The ways in which strength produces these specific gains in strength are poorly understood, but are probably related to differences in the extent to which each of the key factors changes with different types of training.

Specificity of strength gains

Strength gains are highly specific. However, strength gains are generally much greater when tested under the same conditions as in training. In particular, strength gains are specific to the following key training variables:

Genetic factors

When performing the same resistance training programs, individuals typically display a wide range of responses. Some enjoy very large increases in strength, while others display almost none. In one of the largest investigations into the inter-individual variability in strength gains yet performed, the variance between subjects in 1RM strength gains ranged from 0% to +250%, while changes in maximum isometric strength ranged from -32% to +149% (Hubal et al. 2005). Twin studies have identified that genetic factors are critical for determining both the starting point for muscular strength and the strength gains that result from training (Thomis et al. 1998; Thomis et al. 2000; Tiainen et al. 2004; Mars et al. 2007).

Definitions of strength

INTRODUCTION

Defining the term “strength” is very difficult, because it is so specific to the type of test and the type of training. Indeed, since the term is used in so many different circumstances by so many different groups, a comprehensive definition is actually very difficult to provide without resulting in a vague and meaningless concept (Enoka, 1988). Although strength is specific in a variety of ways, the key complicating factors are the force-velocity relationship (Hill, 1938) and the length-tension relationship.

THE FORCE-VELOCITY RELATIONSHIP

[Read more: the force-velocity relationship]

The force-velocity relationship is the observation that muscle force and contraction velocity are inversely related. So where contraction velocity is high, muscle force must be low and vice versa. In practice, this means that testing strength when muscles are changing length must necessarily involve a reduction in maximum force generating capacity. Importantly, the size of this reduction may differ between muscles, individuals and exercises. In order to remove the variability caused by the force-velocity relationship, many researchers have chosen to define strength as the peak level of isometric force production, preferably at a single joint (Enoka, 1988). While this is beneficial as it means that the factors that drive increases in strength can be isolated, it is severely disadvantageous in that there is a discrepancy between the measures of strength that are used in research and those that are directly relevant to strength and conditioning.

THE LENGTH-TENSION RELATIONSHIP

[Read more: the length-tension relationship]

The length tension relationship is the observation that the isometric force exerted by a muscle is dependent upon its length when tested. It can likely be explained by interactions between two underlying mechanisms: the active and passive length-tension relationships. The active length tension relationship is thought to occur as a result of the degree of overlap between the actin and myosin filaments within an individual sarcomere. Too much or too little overlap leads to sub-optimal tension being developed but where the overlap is “just right” the maximal tension is developed. The passive length tension relationship is thought to occur much more simply as a result of the elastic elements within a sarcomere, within a muscle fiber and within the muscle itself. Thus, the passive length tension relationship is largely unnoticed at small muscle fiber lengths but becomes very important very quickly once the muscle is stretched beyond a certain length. The combination of the active and passive length tension relationships explains the overall length-tension relationship. Overall, where the active length tension relation predominates (i.e. at short lengths), the curve rises, plateaus and then falls back down. The rising part of this section is known as the “ascending limb” and the falling part is known as the “descending limb”. As a result of the length-tension relationship, muscular strength can differ greatly when measured at different muscle lengths, which correspond roughly (but not entirely) to different joint angles. In order to remove the variability caused by the length-tension relationship, many researchers have chosen to define strength as the peak level of isometric force production, at whichever point in the joint angle it is maximized (Trezise et al. 2016). While this is beneficial for isolating variables, it is severely disadvantageous as it only measures isometric strength, and it is dynamic strength that is more directly relevant to strength and conditioning.

Current guidance for strength

Formal guidance

There is no shortage of current guidance for individuals wishing to gain strength. Such guidance ranges from advice from expert strength coaches based on their personal observations (level 4 evidence) through to research-based position stands (levels 1 – 3 evidence) produced by leading institutions, including the American College of Sports Medicine (Kraemer et al. 2002; ACSM, 2009). These formal position stands have been criticized on the basis that they draw too much on short-term trials and the currently accepted underlying models of how strength gains occur and cannot substantiate their recommendations using long-term trials (Carpinelli, 2004). Unsurprisingly therefore, more recent attempts have been made to provide better guidance, focusing solely on long-term trials (Fisher et al. 2011). Such reviews provide a different perspective, but the extent to which they are also able to provide a balanced viewpoint is unclear. Either way, to reduce the risk of error, analysis of the optimal methods for strength gains should therefore be based around a review of long-term trials comparing individual resistance training variables.

Expert opinion

Although much of the information that is dispensed is ultimately expert opinion, this source of guidance is far more limited than is generally recognised. Readers familiar with research methodology will readily appreciate the large difference in the level of evidence provided by controlled trials and that provided by expert opinion. However, for those less familiar, there are two very important differences (aside from the inherent fallible nature of human observation described in psychology by the presence of cognitive biases). Firstly, experts base their opinions on the observation of training programs that they have either used themselves or with their athletes. They therefore make observations about programs (or elements of programs) that worked or that did not work. Rarely (if ever) are they able to compare two programs at the same time in similar groups of athletes. This is the realm in which research stands apart. Therefore, while an expert can be fairly confident establishing whether their program is effective, it is hard (if not impossible) for them to find out whether their program really is better than another program, especially where the differences between programs are marginal. Secondly, the athletes or trainees that experts work with are training without control groups to compare them with and in an uncontrolled environment. This makes it very difficult for an expert to know whether it is their training program that is producing the rapid gains in strength or something that the athlete or trainee is doing elsewhere. For example, when training youth athletes, it might be easy to assume that very fast strength gains were arising because the athletes were engaged in a superior program, whereas in fact it is simply because they are growing. Similarly, when training athletes for whom there are strong incentives to achieve, it might be easy to assume that very fast strength gains were arising because the athletes were engaged in a superior program, whereas in fact it is simply because they are highly motivated, performing extra training, or even using performance enhancing drugs (PEDs).

SECTION CONCLUSIONS

To reduce the risk of error, analysis of the optimal methods for strength gains should be based around a review of well-controlled long-term trials comparing individual resistance training variables.

Top · Contents · References


RELATIVE LOAD (PERCENTAGE OF 1RM)

PURPOSE

This section explores whether training with heavier loads is more effective for strength gains. This is achieved by looking at long-term studies that compare different programs of training with heavy, moderate and light relative loads for increasing strength.

BACKGROUND

Definitions

Relative load (percentage of 1RM)

Resistance training can be performed with range of loads. The weight lifted may vary from a load that can be lifted only once to loads that can be lifted a great many times. Since the absolute load (in kg or lbs) that an individual can lift varies greatly from one person to the next, it is conventional in resistance training programs to use percentages of one repetition maximum (1RM) when specifying the loads used. Percentage of 1RM during resistance training is sometimes referred to as “intensity”. However, this term is ambiguous as it could be taken to imply a reference to effort that is not intended (see reviews and commentary by Fisher and Smith, 2012; Steele, 2013; Fisher and Steele, 2014; and Schoenfeld, 2014). Effort may not be the same as percentage of 1RM, particularly where inter-individual differences exist in respect of the number of repetitions that can be performed at a given load. For the sake of clarity, alternative suggestions have been made regarding terminology, including “intensity of load” and “relative load”.

Heavy, moderate and light relative loads

Definitions of heavy, moderate and light relative loads vary between researchers. Schoenfeld (2010) proposed defining the ranges as 1 – 5 repetitions being low, 6 – 12 repetitions being moderate, and >15 repetitions being high. These repetition ranges likely correspond to percentage of 1RM as follows: 85 – 100% of 1RM being low, 60 – 85% of 1RM being moderate, and <60% of 1RM being high. The exact relative load that corresponds with a repetition range becomes more difficult to specify with precision as the number of repetitions increases, because of inter-individual differences in fatigue resistance. Some authorities have proposed that the threshold of 15 repetitions corresponds to 60% of 1RM, while others have suggested that 65% is more appropriate (Schoenfeld, 2010; Baechle and Earle, 2008). Thus, when discussing high repetitions, the threshold is sometimes referred to as 60% (ACSM, 2009; Schoenfeld, 2013) and sometimes as 65% (Schoenfeld, 2010).

Popular usage

Powerlifting

Powerlifting is a sport that is heavily dependent upon the ability to produce force with both the upper and lower body. Consequently, the resistance training programs used by powerlifters are specifically intended to produce the greatest possible strength gains. There are many popular powerlifting programs, including Starting Strength, StrongLifts, Madcow’s 5 x 5, The Texas Method, 5/3/1, Sheiko, Smolov, Westside Barbell Method, and more. These programs make use of a range of different relative loads, from 60 – 70% of 1RM in Sheiko, to 70 – 85% of 1RM in Smolov, to around 80 – 85% of 1RM in Starting Strength, and to 100% of 1RM in Westside Barbell. Nevertheless, while there are many supporters of all of these programs, there is is no clear front runner among them, with individuals achieving marked increases in strength as a result of all programs.

Literature usage

Research interest into the effects of relative load on strength gains has been performed mainly subsequent to interest into the effects of relative load on hypertrophy. This is primarily because of the large body of research showing significantly greater increases in strength with heavy loads than with light loads, as well as some research showing significantly greater increases in strength with moderate loads than with light loads.

META-ANALYSES

Meta-analyses indicate that a higher relative load could be superior to a lighter relative load for increasing strength but there is uncertainty on account of a lack of statistical significance. Schoenfeld et al. (2014b) carried out a meta-analysis in trained and untrained subjects to compare the effects of high (>65% of 1RM) and low (<60% of 1RM) relative loads during resistance training programs on strength gains. It was found that there was a non-significant trend for the pooled effect size for strength gains to be greater with high than with low relative loads loads (effect sizes: 2.30 ± 0.43 vs. 1.23 ± 0.43).

PROBLEMS CONTROLLING VARIABLES

Where maximal bar speeds are used, the force-velocity relationship is a confounding factor when comparing groups training with different relative loads. This is because the group training with the heavier relative load must use a slower bar speed and consequently perform each repetition with a longer repetition duration and (depending on whether volume is measured as sets x repetitions or sets x repetitions x relative load) potentially also a longer total time under tension for the workout. However, when comparing two groups training with different relative loads in which sub-maximal bar speeds are used, the force-velocity relationship does not cause a problem. This is because the same bar speed can be used in both cases (or a different bar speed in order to maintain total time under tension across the workout by manipulating repetition duration). Volume can be a confounding factor where individuals perform very different numbers of repetitions with the same percentage of 1RM. Thus, where different training groups are being compared who are performing programs using different relative loads, some individuals might perform a greater volume of work than others. While it is noted that several investigations have reported some variation in respect of the number of repetitions that can be performed with a given percentage of 1RM (Hoeger, 1987; Hoeger, 1990; Shimano, 2006; and Moraes, 2014), there does appear to be some degree of reliability in the extent to which prediction equations can be used (Desgorces, 2010). Moreover, the effect of exercise selection seems to be far more important for predicting the number of repetitions that can be performed with a given percentage of 1RM than the exact nature of the population (Hoeger, 1987; Hoeger, 1990; Shimano, 2006; Moraes, 2014; and Desgorces, 2010).

EFFECT OF RELATIVE LOAD ON STRENGTH (UNTRAINED): HEAVY VS. LIGHT LOADS

Study selection

Population – untrained subjects

Intervention – resistance-training, where >2 groups trained with different relative loads and at >1 group used light loads (as defined as <50% of 1RM) and at >1 group used heavy loads (defined as >50% of 1RM)

Comparator – baseline performance or a non-training control group

Outcome – at least one reliable measure of muscular strength, including maximum voluntary isometric contraction strength or 1RM

Results

The following studies were identified: Schmidtbleicher (1981), Anderson (1982), Stone (1994), Pruitt (1995), Aagaard (1996), Hisaeda (1996), Moss (1997), Weiss (1999), Bemben (2000), Campos (2002), Seynnes (2004), Beneka (2005), Tanimoto (2006), Popov (2006), Leger (2006), Fatouros (2006), Holm (2008), Rana (2008), Tanimoto (2008), Scheunke (2012), Mitchell (2012), Ogasawara (2013), Van Roie (2013), Reid (2014).

Findings

Of these 24 studies, 16 reported significant benefits of heavy loads over light loads while the remainder reported no differences. Heavy loads therefore seem to be beneficial for optimising strength gains in this population.

EFFECT OF RELATIVE LOAD ON STRENGTH (UNTRAINED): HEAVY VS. MODERATE LOADS

Selection criteria

Population – untrained subjects

Intervention – resistance-training, where >2 groups trained with different relative loads and at >1 group used moderate loads (as defined as >60% of 1RM or >15RM) and at >1 group used heavier loads (defined as heavier than the moderate group)

Comparator – baseline performance or a non-training control group

Outcome – at least one reliable measure of muscular strength, including maximum voluntary isometric contraction strength or 1RM

Results

The following studies were identified: Berger (1962), O’Shea (1966), Chestnut (1999), Weiss (1999), Campos (2002), Harris (2004), Kalapotharakos (2004), Beneka (2005), Kalapotharakos (2005), Fatouros (2006), Leger (2006).

Findings

Of these 11 studies, 6 reported significant benefits of heavy loads over moderate loads while the remainder reported no differences. Heavy loads therefore seem to be beneficial for optimising strength gains in this population.

EFFECT OF RELATIVE LOAD ON STRENGTH (TRAINED)

Selection criteria

Population – trained subjects

Intervention – resistance-training, where >2 groups trained with different relative loads and at >1 group used moderate loads (as defined as >60% of 1RM or >15RM) and at >1 group used heavier loads (defined as heavier than the moderate group

Comparator – baseline performance or a non-training control group

Outcome – at least one reliable measure of muscular strength, including maximum voluntary isometric contraction strength or 1RM

Results

The following study was identified: Schoenfeld (2014a).

Findings

This study reported superior gains for heavy loads compared to moderate loads for one outcome measure and no differences between heavy and moderate loads for another outcome measure. Heavy loads may therefore be beneficial for optimising strength gains in this population.

SECTION CONCLUSIONS

For untrained individuals, heavier loads seem to be superior to both light and moderate loads. For trained individuals, evidence is very limited but heavy loads may be superior to moderate loads. A higher relative load might be more effective than a low relative load for gaining strength because of increases in inter-muscular co-ordination that are relevant to maximal strength tests.

Top · Contents · References


VOLUME

PURPOSE

This section explores whether training with a higher volume is more effective than training with a lower volume for increasing strength. This is achieved by looking at long-term studies that compare different volumes of training for increasing strength.

BACKGROUND

Definitions

For the purposes of analyzing volume as a training variable in its own right, volume can be very simply defined as the number of sets of an exercise. Thus, in the vast majority of studies investigating the effect of training volume on strength multiple sets of an exercise are compared with single sets. In a small minority, a larger number of sets of a fixed number of repetitions are compared with a smaller number of sets of the same number of repetitions. For controlling volume when analyzing the effects of other training variables (such as relative load, proximity to muscular failure, range of motion, rest period duration, bar speed, muscle action, or periodization type), at least three methods of equating volume between conditions are possible. Firstly and most easily, volume can be defined as the number of sets x the number of repetitions. However, this is problematic when comparing the effects of training variables that involve different absolute or relative loads, as either the total amount of weight lifted differs or the proximity to muscular failure differs or both. Consequently, other methods of equating volume have been developed. One method involves equating the mechanical work performed by reference to the load lifted (number of sets x the number of repetitions x the total load). However, where different muscle actions, sub-maximal bar speeds, or relative loads are compared this will likely lead to differences in proximity to muscular failure between conditions.

Popular usage

Powerlifting

Powerlifting is a sport that is heavily dependent upon the ability to produce force with both the upper and lower body. Consequently, the resistance training programs used by powerlifters are specifically intended to produce the greatest possible strength gains. There are many popular powerlifting programs, including Starting Strength, StrongLifts, Madcow’s 5 x 5, The Texas Method, 5/3/1, Sheiko, Smolov, Westside Barbell Method, and more. Some of these programs make use of what are generally regarded as high volumes (e.g. Sheiko and Smolov) while others make use of smaller volumes (Starting Strength, StrongLifts, Madcow’s 5 x 5, The Texas Method, 5/3/1). Nevertheless, while there are many supporters of all of these programs, there has is no clear front runner among them, with individuals achieving marked increases in strength as a result of all programs.

Literature usage

Researchers have studied the effect of volume on strength gains more than any other single training variable. This relatively extensive body of literature (in comparison with other training variables) has led to the production of many reviews and one or two meta-analyses.

META-ANALYSES

Meta-analyses by Rhea et al. (2003), Wolf et al. (2004), Peterson et al. (2004), Krieger (2009) and Fröhlich et al. (2010) indicate that a higher volume of resistance training is probably superior to a smaller volume, when comparing multiple sets with single sets. Each of these meta-analyses have been challenged by several researchers (Carpinelli et al. 2004; Winett, 2004; Otto and Carpinelli, 2006; Fisher et al. 2011; Fisher, 2012) on the basis of several points of methodological validity. In turn, the researchers involved in preparing the analyses have provided a defence (Peterson et al. 2005).

PROBLEMS CONTROLLING OTHER VARIABLES

When studying the effect of any individual training variable on strength gains, a major problem is the extent to which other training variables can be fixed between the two groups being compared. The most important training variables to fix are those that have been found to have the biggest effect on strength. In the case of volume, there are few other training variables that have been found to have as large an effect. However, since volume can be increased by simply adding extra sets onto a workout, it is relatively easy to control for other potential confounding factors, such as proximity to muscular failure, frequency, and relative load.

EFFECT OF VOLUME ON STRENGTH (TRAINED)

Selection criteria

Population – trained subjects

Intervention – resistance-training, where >2 groups trained with different volumes (usually by virtue of altering the number of sets)

Comparator – baseline performance or a non-training control group

Outcome – at least one reliable measure of muscular strength, including maximum voluntary isometric contraction strength or 1RM

Results

The following studies were identified: Ostrowski (1997), Hass (2000), Rhea (2002), Kemmler (2004), Marshall (2011), Baker (2013).

Findings

Of these studies, 3 reported significant benefits of higher volumes over lower volumes while the remainder reported no differences. Higher volumes may therefore be beneficial for optimising strength gains in this population.

EFFECT OF VOLUME ON STRENGTH (UNTRAINED)

Selection criteria

Population – untrained subjects

Intervention – resistance-training, where >2 groups trained with different volumes (usually by virtue of altering the number of sets)

Comparator – baseline performance or a non-training control group

Outcome – at least one reliable measure of muscular strength, including maximum voluntary isometric contraction strength or 1RM

Results

The following studies were identified: Starkey (1996), Borst (2001), Schlumberger (2001), McBride (2003), Paulsen (2003), Galvão (2005), Munn (2005), Esquivel (2007), Rønnestad (2007), Humberg (2007), Marzolini (2008), Cannon (2010), Bottaro (2011), Andersen (2011), Sooneste (2013), Hanssen (2013), Radaelli (2013), Naclerio (2013), Correa (2014), Radaelli (2014), Radaelli (2014a), Radaelli (2014b).

Findings

Of these studies, 13 reported significant benefits of higher volumes over lower volumes while the remainder reported no differences. Higher volumes may therefore be beneficial for optimising strength gains in this population.

SECTION CONCLUSIONS

For untrained individuals, multiple sets leading to greater total volume likely leads to greater strength gains. For trained individuals, multiple sets leading to greater total volume likely leads to greater strength gains. A higher volume might be effective than a lower volume for increasing strength because of its effects on hypertrophy, and because of the effects of practice on inter-muscular co-ordination.

Top · Contents · References


MUSCULAR FAILURE

PURPOSE

This section explores whether training closer to muscular failure, or closer proximity to fatigue, is more effective for strength gains. This is achieved by looking at long-term studies that compare whether a program where subjects train to muscular failure is better than a program where subjects do not train to muscular failure for increasing strength.

BACKGROUND

Definitions

Muscular failure is a term frequently used in research studies investigating resistance training programs but precise definitions of this term are infrequently discussed. Willardson (2007) defined muscular failure as “the point during a resistance exercise set when the muscles can no longer produce sufficient force to control a given load”. Schoenfeld (2010) tightened this definition by stating that muscular failure involved “the point during a set when muscles can no longer produce necessary force to concentrically lift a given load.” This definition therefore necessitates the use of concentric muscle actions. In their review, Fisher et al. (2011) tightened the definition even further by defining muscular failure as “the inability to perform any more concentric contractions, without significant change to posture or repetition duration, against a given resistance.” Whether such additions are necessary to the original definition provided by Willardson (2007) is probably a moot point. The important factor of the definition is that muscular failure can only be defined in relation to a given load. This should be immediately apparent when bodybuilders are observed performing repetitions to failure and then immediately dropping the weight and using a lighter weight to continue performing several more repetitions. Thus, muscular failure does not mean that a muscle is incapable of performing further muscle actions and therefore we cannot say that muscular failure is equivalent to being maximally fatigued (Willardson, 2007). Muscular failure means that a muscle is incapable of expressing force at the same level as it was able to previously, such that it is no longer able to move an arbitrary weight that was set for the task in hand.

Popular usage

Muscular failure is often used by individuals in the general population who perform resistance training for reasons relating to health or physical appearance. Additionally, many strength athletes also regularly train to failure, such as bodybuilders. However, some powerlifting groups have also reported training to muscular failure, especially in low repetition ranges. However, not training to muscular failure is also very common.

Literature usage

In the research literature, it is extremely common for all sets of an exercise to be prescribed to muscular failure. In fact, it is quite rare that a study into strength is performed where muscular failure is not reached on all sets of each exercise. This seems to be because it is considered beneficial to ensure that all sets of an exercise are matched between individuals in terms of their fatigue levels at that time. Thus, it is important to note that there is a slight discrepancy between the research literature and general practice. The study of whether muscular failure is important for strength is therefore critical.

PROBLEMS

Controlling other variables

When studying the effect of any individual training variable on strength gains, a major problem is the extent to which other training variables can be fixed between the two groups being compared. The most important training variables to fix are those that have been found to have the biggest effect on strength (i.e. volume). In the case of muscular failure, it is relatively easy to control for the effect of volume while varying whether individuals train to muscular failure by simply inserting an intra-set rest period.

Ecological validity

In the research literature exploring the effect of muscular failure on strength, it is most common for the effect of muscular failure to be assessed by comparing two groups, one that uses an intra-set rest period and that does not. However, in practice, this is not how individuals who do not train to muscular failure actually perform resistance-training. Such individuals generally stop slightly short of muscular failure, leaving a repetition or two in the tank. Given the observations made above, this could be important. There is therefore a discrepancy between the research literature and general practice, indicating a lack of ecological validity.

EFFECT OF MUSCULAR FAILURE ON STRENGTH (TRAINED)

Selection criteria

Population – trained subjects

Intervention – resistance-training, where >2 groups trained with a different proximity to muscular failure (either by performing an identical number of repetitions but with an intra-set rest period or by stopping short of muscular failure in one group)

Comparator – baseline performance or a non-training control group

Outcome – at least one reliable measure of muscular strength, including maximum voluntary isometric contraction strength or 1RM

Results

The following studies were identified: Lawton (2004), Drinkwater (2006), Izquierdo (2006), Oliver (2013), Giessing (2014).

Findings

Of these studies, 3 reported significant benefits of closer proximity to muscular failure while the remainder reported no differences. Training closer to muscular failure may therefore be beneficial for optimising strength gains in this population.

EFFECT OF MUSCULAR FAILURE ON STRENGTH (UNTRAINED)

Selection criteria

Population – trained subjects

Intervention – resistance-training, where >2 groups trained with a different proximity to muscular failure (either by performing an identical number of repetitions but with an intra-set rest period or by stopping short of muscular failure in one group)

Comparator – baseline performance or a non-training control group

Outcome – at least one reliable measure of muscular strength, including maximum voluntary isometric contraction strength or 1RM

Results

The following studies were identified: Rooney (1994), Schott (1995), Folland (2002), Goto (2005).

Findings

Of these studies, 3 reported significant benefits of closer proximity to muscular failure while the remainder reported no differences. Training closer to muscular failure may therefore be beneficial for optimising strength gains in this population.

SECTION CONCLUSIONS

For untrained individuals, training closer to muscular failure may lead to greater strength gains. For trained individuals, training closer to muscular failure may also lead to greater strength gains. It seems likely that training closer to muscular failure is probably more effective than training further from muscular failure for strength gains because of superior hypertrophy.

Top · Contents · References


FREQUENCY

PURPOSE

This section explores whether training with a higher volume-matched or unmatched frequency (i.e. number of training sessions per week) is more effective for increasing strength than training with a lower frequency. This is achieved by looking at long-term studies that compare whether a program where subjects train with different training frequencies and assessing their relative ability for increasing strength.

BACKGROUND

Definitions

Training frequency is most commonly defined as the number of times per week that resistance training is performed, whether in relation to the whole body or a single muscle.

Popular usage

Training frequency is often a topic of discussion in the bodybuilding community who want to know how many times per week they should train a particular muscle. In general, such questions generally assume that the total training volume over the week is fixed because of the need for recovery. Thus, the question becomes how the training volume is best distributed over the course of the week. More widely, people embarking upon a program of resistance training often wish to know whether they should follow a whole-body or a split routine. Whole-body routines involve training both the upper and lower body in the same workout and workouts are typically performed 3 times per week, with the other days being devoted to rest. Simple split routines for beginners are formed by training the upper and lower body on separate days, most commonly by training 4 times per week, with the other days being devoted to rest. More complex split routines are performed by more advanced trainees and these can involve 5 or 6 days per week of training.

META-ANALYSES

Meta-analyses by Rhea et al. (2003) and Silva et al. (2014) indicate that a higher frequency of resistance training may be beneficial for improving strength gains within certain parameters. However, these meta-analyses are only relevant to the discussion of frequency where volume is not controlled. In each case, the measures of frequency used were not volume-matched but used increased frequency in order to increase volume over the training week.

PROBLEMS CONTROLLING OTHER VARIABLES

Controlling other variables when studying volume-matched training frequency is in theory relatively straightforward. A certain volume of training is identified and then allocated across two workout plans. The workout plan for one group involves a greater workload in a single workout than the other but performs fewer workouts over the course of the week. In practice, when working with trained subjects, it is slightly more complicated, as the only practical way to increase volume-matched training frequency is to train multiple times on the same day, which introduces a time-of-day effect. Training at different times of day has been found by some (Chtourou and Souissi, 2012) but not all (Sedliak et al. 2009) to affect strength gains and may therefore be a confounding factor.

EFFECT OF FREQUENCY ON STRENGTH (TRAINED): VOLUME MATCHED

Selection criteria

Population – trained subjects

Intervention – resistance-training, where >2 groups trained with a different volume-matched frequency from one another

Comparator – baseline performance or a non-training control group

Outcome – at least one reliable measure of muscular strength, including maximum voluntary isometric contraction strength or 1RM

Results

The following studies were identified : Häkkinen and Kallinen (1994), McLester (2000), Hartman (2007).

Findings

Of these 3 studies, 1 reported significant benefits of a higher volume-matched frequency while the remainder reported no differences. Training with a higher volume-matched frequency could therefore be beneficial for optimising strength gains in this population.

EFFECT OF FREQUENCY ON STRENGTH (UNTRAINED): VOLUME MATCHED

Selection criteria

Population – untrained subjects

Intervention – resistance-training, where >2 groups trained with a different volume-matched frequency from one another

Comparator – baseline performance or a non-training control group

Outcome – at least one reliable measure of muscular strength, including maximum voluntary isometric contraction strength or 1RM

Results

The following studies were identified: Hunter (1985), Calder (1994), Candow (2007), Benton (2011), Arazi and Asadi (2011), Andersen (2012).

Findings

Of these studies, only 1 reported significant benefits of a lower volume-matched frequency while the remainder reported no differences. Altering volume-matched frequency probably has little effect on strength gains in this population.

EFFECT OF FREQUENCY ON STRENGTH (UNTRAINED): VOLUME UNMATCHED

Selection criteria

Population – untrained subjects

Intervention – resistance-training, where >2 groups trained with a different frequency from one another, where frequency was modulated in order to alter total training volume

Comparator – baseline performance or a non-training control group

Outcome – at least one reliable measure of muscular strength, including maximum voluntary isometric contraction strength or 1RM

Results

The following studies were identified: Berger (1965), Rozier (1981), McKenzie Gillam (1981), Graves (1988), Braith (1989), Taaffe (1989), Graves (1990), Carpenter (1991), Pollock (1993), DeMichele (1997), Carroll (1998), DiFrancisco-Donoghue (2007), Kim (2010), Farinatti (2013).

Findings

Of these studies, 6 reported significant benefits of a higher volume-unmatched frequency, 1 reported a benefit of a lower volume-unmatched frequency while the remainder reported no differences. Increasing volume-matched frequency may therefore have a beneficial effect on strength gains in this population.

SECTION CONCLUSIONS

For untrained individuals, greater training frequency leading to more volume could lead to greater strength gains. However, splitting the same weekly volume out over more sessions is unlikely to be beneficial. For trained individuals, splitting the same weekly volume out over more sessions might be beneficial, but evidence is very limited. Training with a higher frequency might be more effective for increasing strength because of improved inter-muscular co-ordination by virtue of a greater number of practice occasions.

Top · Contents · References


REST PERIODS

PURPOSE

This section explores whether training with shorter inter-set rest periods is superior to training with longer inter-set rest periods for increasing strength. This is achieved by looking at long-term studies that compare whether a program where subjects train with short inter-set rest periods (or reducing rest periods) is better than a program where subjects train with longer inter-set rest periods (or with non-reducing rest periods) for increasing strength.

BACKGROUND

Definitions

Resistance training exercises are generally described as being performed in sets of repetitions, where a set is a number of repetitions performed in sequence. Where multiple sets of repetitions are performed, there is a rest between sets, called the inter-set rest period. The length of this inter-set rest period can be referred to as the inter-set rest period duration.

Popular usage

Traditionally, athletes training for strength sports have used relatively long rest periods between sets in order to allow themselves to recover fully before attempting the next set. This is in contrast to the training programs of bodybuilders, which routinely involve short inter-set rest periods. However, not all strength-focused programs involve long inter-set rest period durations. For example, powerlifters following a Westside or Westside-inspired routine involving dynamic lifting days often take relatively short inter-set rests in these workouts.

Literature usage

Research interest into the effects of inter-set rest period duration on strength gains has been performed mainly as a corollary to the effects of inter-set rest period duration on hypertrophy. It was originally hypothesised that the greater metabolic stress that was associated with short rest periods could lead to superior gains in muscle size. However, the literature has failed to support this view to date, although it should be noted that the currently available studies in this area are few (see review by Henselmans and Schoenfeld, 2014).

PROBLEMS CONTROLLING OTHER VARIABLES

The main problem associated with altering rest period duration is controlling volume. As noted above, when reducing rest period duration, this leads to a reduction in the number of repetitions that can be performed in a single set. Thus, in order to control for volume while altering rest period duration while maintaining all sets to muscular failure, an additional set would be required in the condition with the shorter rest period duration.

EFFECTS OF REST PERIOD DURATION ON STRENGTH (TRAINED)

Selection criteria

Population – trained subjects

Intervention – resistance-training, where >2 groups trained with a different inter-set rest period duration from the other

Comparator – baseline performance or a non-training control group

Outcome – at least one reliable measure of muscular strength, including maximum voluntary isometric contraction strength or 1RM

Results

The following studies were identified: Robinson (1995), Ahtiainen (2005), Willardson (2008), De Salles (2010).

Findings

Of these studies, 2 reported significant benefits of a longer rest period duration while the remainder reported no differences. Increasing rest period duration may therefore have a beneficial effect on strength gains in this population.

EFFECTS OF REDUCING REST PERIOD DURATION ON STRENGTH (TRAINED)

Selection criteria

Population – trained subjects

Intervention – resistance-training, where >1 group trained with a fixed inter-set rest period duration and >1 group trained with a reducing inter-set rest period duration

Comparator – baseline performance or a non-training control group

Outcome – at least one reliable measure of muscular strength, including maximum voluntary isometric contraction strength or 1RM

Results

The following studies were identified: De Souza-Junior (2010), Souza-Junior (2011).

Findings

Of these 2 studies, both reported no differences between conditions. Reducing rest period duration may therefore have little effect on strength gains in this population.

EFFECTS OF REST PERIOD DURATION ON STRENGTH (UNTRAINED)

Selection criteria

Population – untrained subjects

Intervention – resistance-training, where >2 groups trained with a different inter-set rest period duration from the other

Comparator – baseline performance or a non-training control group

Outcome – at least one reliable measure of muscular strength, including maximum voluntary isometric contraction strength or 1RM

Results

The following studies were identified: Pincivero (1997), Pincivero (2004), Hill-Haas (2007), Buresh (2009), Gentil (2010), Villanueva (2014).

Findings

Of these studies, 3 reported significant benefits of a longer rest period duration, 1 reported a benefit of shorter rest period duration, and the remainder reported no differences. Increasing rest period duration may therefore have a beneficial effect on strength gains in this population.

SECTION CONCLUSIONS

For untrained individuals, longer inter-set rest period durations are probably better for strength gains. For trained individuals, longer inter-set rest period durations are also probably better for strength gains. Longer rest period durations might bring about greater increases in strength by facilitating increases in inter-muscular co-ordination.

Top · Contents · References


RANGE OF MOTION

PURPOSE

This section explores whether training through larger ranges of motion (ROMs) leads to greater strength gains than training through smaller ROMs. This is achieved by looking at long-term studies that compare whether a program where subjects train through large ROMs is better than a program where subjects train through small ROMs for increasing strength.

BACKGROUND

Definitions

Resistance training exercises are often described as being performed either through full ROMs or partial ROMs. For single-joint exercises, full ROMs can be defined as those in which the joint moves through its entire movement arc, subject to the constraints of passive tissues. Thus, full joint ROM is broadly equivalent to the muscle fully elongating. On the other hand, for multi-joint exercises, full ROMs are more difficult to define, as not all of the joints will necessarily move through their full movement arcs. For example, in a full ROM squat, the ankle joint does not move through its full ROM. Similarly, in a full ROM deadlift, the knee does not move through its full ROM. In the case of the deadlift, greater ROM than full ROM can be achieved by using a snatch grip or by using a platform to perform a deficit deadlift. Thus, for multi-joint exercises, full ROM may need to be defined conventionally as “greater ROM” rather than full ROM.

Popular usage

Within wider strength and conditioning circles, there have been many discussions around ROM in respect of squats, with some favouring deep squats (and concomitantly lighter loads) and others favouring shallow squats (with much greater loads). Other than for squats, however, ROM has never been a particularly common topic of discussion. This is likely because there is no specific sensory feeling associated with ROM. Unlike using shorter rest periods or training to muscular failure, there is no sensation of great effort and burning fatigue within the muscle, which lead the trainee to believe that they are stimulating growth.

Literature usage

ROM has been investigated in two main respects in the study of resistance training. Firstly, researchers have explored the effects of isometric training at different joint angles on ROM-specific gains in isometric strength. Such studies have generally revealed that performing such training leads to ROM-specific strength gains (Kitai and Sale, 1989; Weir et al. 1994; Weir et al. 1995). Secondly, researchers have explored the effects of resistance training protocols using exercises with different ROMs in order to explore their effects on both strength and muscle size.

PROBLEMS CONTROLLING OTHER VARIABLES

When studying the effect of any individual training variable on strength gains, a major problem is the extent to which other training variables can be fixed between the two groups being compared. The most important training variables to fix are those that have been found to have the biggest effect on strength (i.e. volume). In the case of ROM, it is relatively easy to equalize volume, particularly where volume is defined as the number of repetitions of the same relative load.

In the research literature exploring the effect of ROM on strength, there are two types of study. One type compares the effect of training through an arbitrary, partial ROM in a machine exercise with a full ROM of the same exercise. The other explores the effect of training through a partial ROM in a free-weight exercise with a full ROM of the same exercise. In this latter type of study, the partial ROM variation enables the use of a much greater load than the full ROM equivalent because of the torque-angle curve. For example, in the conventional back squat, the torque-angle curve increases steeply with increasing hip or knee angle (i.e. increasing squat depth). This is because the external moment arms at the hip and knee increase steeply with increasing hip and knee angle (i.e. increasing squat depth), while the load stays the same. Arguably, performing free-weight exercises through a partial ROM is how individuals actually use smaller ROMs in resistance-training. Individuals generally stop slightly short of full squat depth. There is therefore a discrepancy between a portion of the research literature and general practice, indicating a lack of ecological validity.

EFFECT OF ROM ON STRENGTH (UNTRAINED)

Selection criteria

Population – untrained subjects

Intervention – resistance-training, where >2 groups trained with different ROM from one another

Comparator – baseline performance or a non-training control group

Outcome – at least one reliable measure of muscular strength, including maximum voluntary isometric contraction strength or 1RM

Results

The following studies were identified (click to read): Graves (1989), Graves (1992), Weiss (2000), Massey (2004), Massey (2005), Hartmann (2012), Pinto (2012), Bloomquist (2013), McMahon (2013).

Findings

Of these studies, 5 reported significant benefits of a larger ROM and the remainder reported no differences. Increasing ROM may therefore have a beneficial effect on strength gains in this population.

SECTION CONCLUSIONS

For untrained individuals, larger ROM may be superior to smaller ROM for strength gains. For trained individuals, there is currently no evidence available. Greater ROMs are likely to cause greater increases in strength because of increased hypertrophy. However, task-specificity might also be observed because of changes in inter-muscular co-ordination.

Top · Contents · References


BAR SPEED (ISOKINETIC)

PURPOSE

This section explores whether training with faster bar speeds is superior to training with slower bar speeds for increasing strength, when using isokinetic external resistance. This is achieved by looking at long-term studies that compare the effects of slow and fast bar speeds while training on a dynamometer for increasing strength.

BACKGROUND

Definitions

Resistance training exercises can be performed either maximally or sub-maximally. When performed maximally, the force-velocity relationship is relevant. The force-velocity relationship is the observation that when greater absolute moment is generated at a joint, the angular velocity of that joint must be lower. Force-velocity relationships at joints are largely exponential, with force decreasing very quickly with increasing angular velocity past a certain point. When performed sub-maximally, the force-velocity relationship is not relevant. In fact, as Fisher and Smith (2012) have noted, when performed to muscular failure, a greater number of repetitions are possible with faster bar speeds (i.e. shorter repetition durations) than with slower bar speeds (i.e. longer repetition durations). This in turn suggests that effort and fatigue levels are greater with slower bar speeds (i.e. longer repetition durations).

Popular usage

Most strength athletes who are aiming to improve strength or power make use of fast bar speeds. While many bodybuilders who are training primarily if not solely for hypertrophy use slower bar speeds, this is not directly relevant where strength is concerned as strength gains are a function of many different mechanisms and not solely driven by hypertrophy.

Literature usage

The comparison of different sub-maximal speeds (or maximal with sub-maximal speeds) has been a predominant focus of research. However, it is unclear what underlying mechanism is being investigated.

PROBLEMS CONTROLLING OTHER VARIABLES

The force-velocity relationship is a serious confounding factor when comparing groups training with different maximal bar speeds. This is because the group training with the faster bar speed must use a lighter relative load. This means that relative load is different between the two conditions. However, when comparing two groups training with different sub-maximal bar speeds, the force-velocity relationship is normally not a problem. This is because the same relative load (for the bar speed) can be used in both cases. It is expected that in order to use slower sub-maximal bar speeds (longer repetition durations) the effort and fatigue are significantly greater than in faster sub-maximal bar speeds (shorter repetition durations). Therefore, it is anticipated that the absolute loads will be smaller for the same relative load in the slower sub-maximal bar speed conditions.

EFFECT OF ISOKINETIC BAR SPEED ON STRENGTH (TRAINED)

Selection criteria

Population – trained subjects

Intervention – resistance-training, where >2 groups trained with different bar speeds (repetition durations) from each other and where isokinetic external resistance was used in the compared groups

Comparator – baseline performance or a non-training control group

Outcome – at least one reliable measure of muscular strength, including maximum voluntary isometric contraction strength or 1RM

Results

Coming soon!

EFFECT OF ISOKINETIC BAR SPEED ON STRENGTH (UNTRAINED)

Selection criteria

Population – untrained subjects

Intervention – resistance-training, where >2 groups trained with different bar speeds (repetition durations) from each other and where isokinetic external resistance was used in the compared groups

Comparator – baseline performance or a non-training control group

Outcome – at least one reliable measure of muscular strength, including maximum voluntary isometric contraction strength or 1RM

Results

Coming soon!

SECTION CONCLUSIONS

Coming soon!

Top · Contents · References


BAR SPEED (NOT ISOKINETIC)

PURPOSE

This section explores whether training with faster bar speeds is superior to training with slower bar speeds for increasing strength. This is achieved by looking at long-term studies that compare whether a program where subjects train with fast bar speeds is better than a program where subjects train with slower bar speeds for increasing strength.

BACKGROUND

See previous section: Bar speed (isokinetic)

PROBLEMS CONTROLLING OTHER VARIABLES

See previous section: Bar speed (isokinetic)

EFFECT OF BAR SPEED ON STRENGTH (UNTRAINED): MATCHED REPETITION RANGE

Selection criteria

Population – untrained subjects

Intervention – resistance-training, where >2 groups trained with different bar speeds (repetition durations) from each other, where constant load (isoinertial) external resistance was used in the compared groups, and where the number of repetitions performed in each set was similar in the compared groups

Comparator – baseline performance or a non-training control group

Outcome – at least one reliable measure of muscular strength, including maximum voluntary isometric contraction strength or 1RM

Results

The following studies were identified: Young and Bilby (1993), Morrissey (1998), Keeler (2001), Munn (2005), Neils (2005), Tanimoto (2006), Pereira (2007), Tanimoto (2008), Rana (2008), Ingebrigtsen (2009), Scheunke (2012).

Findings

Of these studies, 6 reported significant benefits of a faster bar speed and the remainder reported no differences. Increasing bar speed may therefore have a beneficial effect on strength gains in this population.

EFFECT OF BAR SPEED ON STRENGTH (UNTRAINED): MATCHED ABSOLUTE LOAD

Selection criteria

Population – untrained subjects

Intervention – resistance-training, where >2 groups trained with different bar speeds (repetition durations) from each other, where constant load (isoinertial) external resistance was used in the compared groups, and where the the absolute load used (or percentage of the same 1RM test) was similar in the compared groups

Comparator – baseline performance or a non-training control group

Outcome – at least one reliable measure of muscular strength, including maximum voluntary isometric contraction strength or 1RM

Results

The following studies were identified: Liow and Hopkins (2003), Watanabe (2013), Watanabe (2013a).

Findings

Of these studies, 1 reported significant benefits of a faster bar speed and the remainder reported no differences. Increasing bar speed could therefore have a beneficial effect on strength gains in this population.

SECTION CONCLUSIONS

For untrained individuals, a faster bar speed may lead to greater strength gains when using constant-load external resistance, whether matched for repetition ranges to muscular failure or for absolute load. For trained individuals, there is currently no evidence. Faster bar speeds might be more effective than slower bar speeds for increasing strength because they cause shifts in muscle fiber type, improvements in inter-muscular co-ordination and/or increases in motor unit firing rate.

Top · Contents · References


MUSCLE ACTION (VARIABLE)

PURPOSE

This section explores whether training with eccentric muscle actions is superior to training with concentric muscle actions while using isokinetic (i.e. variable) external resistance for increasing strength. This is achieved by looking at long-term studies that compare isokinetic resistance training programs involving eccentric-only muscle actions are better than isokinetic resistance training programs involving concentric-only muscle actions for increasing strength.

BACKGROUND

Definitions

Muscle actions

Muscles can be either active or passive, depending upon whether neural signals are sent to them. While being either active or passive, they can either lengthen, shorten, or remain the same length. Shortening active muscles are called concentric muscle actions, lengthening active muscles are called eccentric muscle actions, and when active muscles remain the same length, these are called isometric muscle actions.

External resistance

External resistance can initially be categorized into two overall categories: (1) external resistance that remains constant throughout a muscle action, (2) external resistance that varies throughout a muscle action. Within the first overall category of external resistance, the two main types are isoinertial and isometric. Isoinertial resistance is simply an object with mass that can be lifted. The mass remains the same at all times and any variation that occurs in how hard it is to lift throughout the joint range of motion depends entirely on the internal or external moment arms. Isometric external resistance is essentially a subcategory of isoinertial resistance but where the mass is too heavy to lift and it therefore becomes an immovable object.

Variable, isokinetic and accommodating external resistance

Within the second overall category of external resistance, the two main types are variable and isokinetic. Variable resistance is simply where the resistance changes with joint range of motion in an unspecified way. Isokinetic resistance is essentially a subcategory of variable resistance but the way in which the resistance changes is so as to maintain a constant velocity throughout the joint range of motion. Isokinetic resistance thereby corrects for the internal and external moment arms at all points. Accommodating resistance is technically identically to isokinetic resistance in biomechanical definitions. However, in popular usage it means an approximation to isokinetic by accounting somewhat for changes in external moment arms and therefore is more correctly referred to as variable resistance.

Popular usage

There is little popular use made of either eccentric-only or concentric-only muscle actions in combination with variable external loading.

Literature usage

Researchers have made extensive use of isokinetic (a form of variable external loading) in order to investigate the effects of either eccentric-only or concentric-only muscle actions on strength gains and increases in muscle size. However, whether such results can be extrapolated to constant load resistance training is hard to establish.

META-ANALYSES

Meta-analyses indicate that training with eccentric-only muscle actions may be superior to concentric-only muscle actions for strength gains, apparently because of greater increases in muscle size. Roig et al. (2009) performed a series of meta-analyses in trained and untrained subjects to compare the effects of eccentric-only vs. concentric-only muscle actions during resistance training programs on strength gains. They found that when relative load was equated but absolute load was not equated, eccentric muscle actions were superior to concentric muscle actions. When absolute load was equated but relative load was not, there was no difference between groups.

PROBLEMS CONTROLLING OTHER VARIABLES

Owing to the differences in energy cost and absolute force production between eccentric and concentric muscle actions, it is not an easy matter to control all of the other key variables, particularly volume and relative load. The use of isokinetic external resistance makes this issue even more complex, as force production varies constantly throughout a single repetition, across repetitions of the same set, and between conditions while the velocity does not.

EFFECT OF MUSCLE ACTION ON STRENGTH (TRAINED)

Selection criteria

Population – trained subjects

Intervention – resistance-training, where >1 group trained using predominantly or exclusively eccentric muscle actions, and >1 group trained predominantly or exclusively using concentric muscle actions, and where the external resistance used in all compared groups was isokinetic

Comparator – baseline performance or a non-training control group

Outcome – at least one reliable measure of muscular strength, including maximum voluntary isometric contraction strength or 1RM

Results

The following study was identified: Seger (1998).

Findings

This study reported no differences between groups. Training with either eccentric or concentric muscle actions may therefore have little effect on strength gains in this population.

EFFECT OF MUSCLE ACTION ON STRENGTH (UNTRAINED)

Selection criteria

Population – untrained subjects

Intervention – resistance-training, where >1 group trained using predominantly or exclusively eccentric muscle actions, and >1 group trained predominantly or exclusively using concentric muscle actions, and where the external resistance used in all compared groups was isokinetic

Comparator – baseline performance or a non-training control group

Outcome – at least one reliable measure of muscular strength, including maximum voluntary isometric contraction strength or 1RM

Results

The following studies were identified: Komi and Buskirk (1972), Mayhew (1995), Higbie (1996), Hortobagyi (1996), Bast (1998), Hawkins (1999), Hortobagyi (2000), Farthing (2003), Seger (2005), Symons (2005), Miller (2006), Nickols-Richardson (2007), Blazevich (2007), Moore (2012), Cadore (2014), Carvalho (2014), Kim (2014).

Findings

Of these studies, 3 reported a benefit of eccentric muscle actions in a non-eccentric strength test, 5 reported a benefit of eccentric muscle actions in an eccentric strength test, 1 reported a benefit of concentric muscle actions in a non-concentric strength test, and 2 reported a benefit of concentric muscle actions in a concentric strength test. Training with either eccentric or concentric muscle actions may therefore have little effect on strength gains in this population but there may be some muscle action specificity in strength gains.

SECTION CONCLUSIONS

For trained subjects, there is no difference between eccentric and concentric muscle actions for increasing isometric, concentric or eccentric strength when using variable external resistance.  For untrained subjects, eccentric muscle actions may be superior for increasing eccentric strength. Eccentric muscle actions might cause greater increases in strength because of slightly increased hypertrophy. However, task-specificity might also be observed because of changes in inter-muscular co-ordination.

Top · Contents · References


MUSCLE ACTION (CONSTANT LOAD)

PURPOSE

This section explores whether training with eccentric muscle actions is superior to training with concentric muscle actions while using isoinertial external resistance (i.e. constant load) for increasing strength. This is achieved by looking at whether isoinertial resistance training programs involving eccentric-only muscle actions are better than isoinertial resistance training programs involving concentric-only muscle actions for increasing strength.

BACKGROUND

See previous section: Muscle action (isokinetic)

PROBLEMS CONTROLLING OTHER VARIABLES

Owing to the differences in energy cost and absolute force production between eccentric and concentric muscle actions, it is not an easy matter to control all of the other key variables, particularly volume and relative load. When comparing eccentric and concentric muscle actions across two groups, there are two common options for equating the load used in each group. Either the same absolute load can be used in both groups or the same relative load can be used in both groups. Another, less-common option is to use an arbitrary, heavier load in the eccentric group. Where the same absolute load is used in both eccentric and concentric groups, this means that the relative load is lower in the eccentric condition (as muscles are stronger during eccentric muscle actions than during concentric muscle actions). Thus, relative load becomes a confounding factor in the investigation. Where the same relative load is used, this eliminates relative load as a confounding factor. However, if the same set and repetition scheme is then employed between the eccentric and concentric groups, then (depending on how you define volume) this leads to an excess of volume being performed in the eccentric condition than in the concentric condition (because the absolute load is greater).

Testing strength

Strength can be measured in a variety of ways. The most common tests of strength are: (1) isometric force or torque production, (2) isokinetic torque production, (3) dynamic 1RM during an exercise. When comparing groups that perform eccentric or concentric muscle actions, researchers sometimes also test eccentric or concentric strength specifically, either using isokinetic or isoinertial external resistance. There are some indications that training using either eccentric or concentric muscle actions may lead to gains in strength that differ when tested using eccentric, concentric, and isometric methods. Consequently, it is important to note the testing method when assessing the results. Additionally, it is important not to compare strength gains in different tests. Consequently, for the following analyses, studies that did not compare strength gains in the same test in both eccentric and concentric groups (e.g. Mannheimer, 1969) were not included.

EFFECT OF MUSCLE ACTION ON STRENGTH (TRAINED)

Selection criteria

Population – trained subjects

Intervention – resistance-training, where >1 group trained using predominantly or exclusively eccentric muscle actions, and >1 group trained predominantly or exclusively using concentric muscle actions, and where the external resistance used in all compared groups was constant load (isoinertial)

Comparator – baseline performance or a non-training control group

Outcome – at least one reliable measure of muscular strength, including maximum voluntary isometric contraction strength or 1RM

Results

The following studies were identified: Seliger (1968), Vikne (2006).

Findings

Of these studies, neither reported a benefit of either eccentric or concentric muscle actions in an isometric strength test, neither reported a benefit of concentric muscle actions in a concentric strength test, and 1 reported a benefit of eccentric muscle actions in an eccentric strength test. It is therefore difficult to identify whether muscle action has any effect on strength gains in this population.

EFFECT OF MUSCLE ACTION ON STRENGTH (UNTRAINED)

Selection criteria

Population – untrained subjects

Intervention – resistance-training, where >1 group trained using predominantly or exclusively eccentric muscle actions, and >1 group trained predominantly or exclusively using concentric muscle actions, and where the external resistance used in all compared groups was constant load (isoinertial)

Comparator – baseline performance or a non-training control group

Outcome – at least one reliable measure of muscular strength, including maximum voluntary isometric contraction strength or 1RM

Results

The following studies were identified: Johnson (1976), Pavone (1985), Jones (1987), Ben-Sira (1995), Smith (1995), Raue (2005), Reeves (2009), Farup (2013), Franchi (2014), Farup (2014).

Findings

Of these studies, 3 reported a benefit of concentric muscle actions in an isometric strength test, 2 reported a benefit of concentric muscle actions in a concentric strength test, 1 reported a benefit of concentric muscle actions in a non-concentric strength test, and 1 reported a benefit of eccentric muscle actions in an eccentric strength test. Training with concentric muscle actions could possibly be superior for strength gains in this population.

SECTION CONCLUSIONS

For trained subjects, eccentric muscle actions may be superior to concentric muscle actions for increasing eccentric strength, when using constant-load external resistance. For trained subjects, there is no difference between eccentric and concentric muscle actions for increasing concentric strength, when using constant-load external resistance. For trained subjects, it is unclear whether eccentric or concentric muscle actions are best for increasing isometric strength, when using constant-load external resistance.

For untrained subjects, concentric muscle actions may be superior to eccentric muscle actions for increasing concentric and isometric strength, when using constant-load external resistance. For untrained subjects, eccentric muscle actions may be superior to concentric muscle actions for increasing eccentric strength, when using constant-load external resistance.

Top · Contents · References


RESISTANCE TYPE (VARIABLE VS. CONSTANT LOAD)

PURPOSE

This section explores whether training with variable resistance is superior to training with constant load resistance for increasing strength. This is achieved in two parts. Firstly, we investigate long-term studies that compare commonly-used powerlifting techniques involving variable resistance (i.e. bands and chains) with isoinertial loading (i.e. conventional free weights) for increasing strength. Secondly, we investigate long-term studies that compare machine-based variable resistance with isoinertial loading (i.e. conventional free weights) for increasing strength.

BACKGROUND

Introduction

Strength curves

Many exercises have what appears to be a difficult part of the exercise range of motion (ROM) and an easier part of the exercise ROM. If we draw a graph of the strength of the lifter against the exercise ROM, this produces a “strength curve” (see review by McMaster et al. 2009). Strength curves are caused primarily by changes in the external moment arm lengths of the system load at the key joints and exist in both single-joint and multi-joint exercises.

Ascending strength curves

Where exercises are hard to perform at the bottom of the lift and easy to perform at the top of the lift, we say that these exercises have “an ascending strength curve”. This ascending strength curve is very common in multi-joint, lower-body exercises, such as the deadlift and squat, as the exercise is very difficult when the barbell is closest to the ground. In fact, most multi-joint, lower-body exercises are hardest when the barbell is closest to the ground because this is where the primary joints (hip, knee and ankle) are furthest from the vertical barbell path. This means that this is the point where the external moment arm lengths are greatest. Consequently, the external joint moments as a result of the system load are also greatest. As the barbell gains height, the hip, knee and ankle joints move closer to this vertical barbell path, which shortens the external moment arm length and reduces the external joint moments associated with the same system load. For example, during the deadlift, which is a very hip-dominant exercise, the external moment arm length of the system load at the hip joint starts around 21 cm away from the vertical barbell path at the bottom of the lift but is around 4 cm from the vertical barbell path at the top (Escamilla et al. 2000). This means that during the deadlift, the joint moments at the hip must be very large at the bottom of the lift and much smaller at the top, in order to move the same barbell load.

Accommodating and variable resistance

In powerlifting, the practice of adding bands and chains is usually called “accommodating resistance” because the bands or chains accommodate the variable strength of the lifter by changing the load to match. However, in biomechanics, the term “accommodating resistance” can only be used where the load is varied perfectly with the strength of the lifter, such that the bar speed is identical throughout the movement. In practice, this is extremely difficult to achieve without a dynamometer and there is almost always some variation in joint moments at various points in the exercise ROM. Consequently, in biomechanics, the use of bands and chains is more usually described as “variable resistance” (e.g. see review by Frost et al. 2010).

Bands and chains

Bands and chains are added to a barbell during a multi-joint movement in order to make the easy part of the lift harder but leave the hard part of the lift unchanged. This makes the strength curve less steep. For bands, this generally means looping the band over the barbell from the floor (or under the bench in the case of the bench press) so that the bands begin to stretch as the bar goes upwards and are most stretched at lockout. Bands or chains can be added to any exercise, not just exercises with ascending strength curves. For example, the bench press, chin ups, and hip thrusts don’t have dramatic strength curves, but bands and chains can still be utilized to stress the end range-of-motion of those lifts.

PROBLEMS CONTROLLING OTHER VARIABLES

The primary difficulty when comparing groups using different external resistances in long-term resistance training programs is identifying the work done used in both groups. Work done is quite difficult to calculate when using variable resistance. It is therefore often easier to equate groups on the basis of the volume load (number of repetitions performed multiplied by the relative load).

EFFECT OF POWERLIFTING RESISTANCE TYPE ON STRENGTH (TRAINED)

Selection criteria

Population – trained subjects

Intervention – resistance-training, where >1 group trained using commonly-used powerlifting techniques for creating variable resistance (i.e. bands and chains) and >1 group trained using constant loads (i.e. normal free weights)

Comparator – baseline performance or a non-training control group

Outcome – at least one reliable measure of muscular strength, including maximum voluntary isometric contraction strength or 1RM

Results

The following studies were identified: Anderson (2008), McCurdy (2009), Ghigiarelli (2009), Rhea (2009), Joy (2014).

Findings

Of these studies, only 1 reported a benefit of variable external resistance compared to constant loads. The use of variable resistance or constant loads may therefore make little difference to strength gains in this population.

EFFECT OF POWERLIFTING RESISTANCE TYPE ON STRENGTH (UNTRAINED)

Selection criteria

Population – untrained subjects

Intervention – resistance-training, where >1 group trained using commonly-used powerlifting techniques for creating variable resistance (i.e. bands and chains) and >1 group trained using constant loads (i.e. normal free weights)

Comparator – baseline performance or a non-training control group

Outcome – at least one reliable measure of muscular strength, including maximum voluntary isometric contraction strength or 1RM

Results

The following 1 study was identified: Shoepe (2011).

Findings

This study reported no benefit of variable external resistance compared to constant loads. The use of variable resistance or constant loads may therefore make little difference to strength gains in this population.

EFFECT OF MACHINE-BASED RESISTANCE TYPE ON STRENGTH (UNTRAINED)

Selection criteria

Population – untrained subjects

Intervention – resistance-training, where >1 group trained using commonly-used machine-based exercises that involved variable resistance and >1 group trained using constant loads

Comparator – baseline performance or a non-training control group

Outcome – at least one reliable measure of muscular strength, including maximum voluntary isometric contraction strength or 1RM

Results

The following studies were identified: Pipes (1975), Pipes (1978), Boyer (1990), Manning (1990), O’Hagan (1995), Walker (2013), Matta (2014).

Findings

Of these studies, none reported a benefit of constant load external resistance compared to variable resistance in respect of isometric strength, 4 reported a benefit of constant load training for improving constant load strength, and 2 reported a benefit of variable load training for improving variable resistance strength. The use of variable resistance or constant loads may therefore make little difference to strength gains in this population, although some specificity of strength gains in respect of external resistance type might exist.

SECTION CONCLUSIONS

For trained subjects, bands and chains leads to similar strength gains as constant loads. For trained subjects, machine-based variable resistance training leads to similar strength gains as constant loads (although some specificity may exist). For untrained subjects, bands and chains leads to similar strength gains as constant loads. It is unclear whether one type of external resistance might lead to greater increases in strength than another type, although some task-specificity might be observed because of changes in inter-muscular co-ordination.

Top · Contents · References


PERIODIZATION

PURPOSE

This section investigates whether periodization is effective for increasing strength. This is achieved by looking at long-term studies that compare whether a periodized program is better than a non-periodized program for increasing strength. The section also investigates which periodized program is best for increasing strength. This is achieved by looking at long-term studies that compare different types of periodized program and their effects on increasing strength.

BACKGROUND

Definitions

The term “periodization” has historically been notoriously difficult to define with any degree of precision or consensus. However, in this analysis, periodization will be defined as “the structure of a training program, where this training program varies over time, either linearly, non-linearly, or in blocks, in order to maximize the results of the athlete.” In contrast, a non-periodization training program will be defined either as a non-varied program or a program that varies randomly. Any training variable can be periodized (i.e. exercise selection, relative-load, volume, frequency, range-of-motion, proximity to failure, rest periods, etc.). However, in practice the two most commonly-varied training variables are relative load and volume. Typically, volume is reduced while relative load is increased and vice versa.

Periodization types

Introduction

Periodization types fall into three main categories: linear, non-linear, and block. In brief, linear (and reverse linear) periodization involves sequential alteration of key training variables over time. Non-linear periodization involves altering training variables from day-to-day or from week-to-week such that all training variables are used similarly within short periods of time. Block periodization involves training for a specific goal in successive, additive cycles.

Linear periodization

Linear periodization is the traditional and earliest form of periodization. This was originally proposed by Matveyev in the 1950s and involves a steady progression from high-volume, low-relative load training at the start of the program through to low-volume, high-relative load training at the end. A variant of linear periodization is reverse linear periodization in which the opposite sequence is followed. It is worth noting that volume and relative load are the most commonly manipulated training variables but essentially there is no reason why other variables cannot also be periodized, such as frequency, range-of-motion, proximity to failure, rest periods and exercise selection. For example, escalating density training (a method of training put forward by Charles Staley that involves steadily reducing rest periods over a period of time) is essentially a form of linear periodization in which a training variable (rest periods) is altered progressively over time.

Non-linear periodization

Non-linear periodization, which encapsulates methods known as undulating periodization and conjugate periodization, involves a less sequential change in training variables than linear periodization over the course of a training cycle. In non-linear periodization, workouts are arranged with training variables being altered across multiple workouts over short periods. This can occur from day-to-day over the course of a single week of workouts (daily undulating periodization) or from week-to-week over the course of several weeks of workouts (weekly undulating periodization). As noted above, while volume and relative load are most commonly investigated and manipulated over the course of periodized programs, there is no reason why exercise selection cannot be changed in the same way. This can be seen in the Westside method, where different exercises are rotated frequently throughout a training cycle.

Block periodization

Block periodization was proposed by Verkoshansky (1998) and involves cycles of sequential training designed to achieve a specific goal. Each block is intended to be the foundation for the next one. Depending on the terminology used, a typical sequence of cycles would be accumulation, transformation and realization, which are elsewhere called hypertrophy, maximal strength and power. The progression from high-volume, low-relative load to lower-volume and higher-relative loads makes it easy to confuse with linear periodization but the premise behind block periodization is different and involves a focus on the goal of the training cycle rather than just the sets and reps. For a discussion of the differences between block and traditional linear periodization, see Issurin (2008).

META-ANALYSES

Meta-analyses indicate that linear and non-linear (daily undulating) periodization are not significantly different in producing strength gains. Harries et al. (2014) recently performed a meta-analysis in both trained and untrained subjects to compare the effect of linear and non-linear periodization during resistance training programs on strength gains. It was reported that there was no significant difference between linear and non-linear periodization types. Linear periodization was non-significantly superior for the squat, while undulating periodization was non-significantly superior for the bench press and leg press.

PROBLEMS OF ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY

Periodization is very difficult to study in practice, making our ability to draw conclusions from the literature limited. Many researchers and coaches have drawn attention to the limitations of the current literature (e.g. Cissik, 2008), which has not kept pace with research in other areas, such as the effects of certain training variables on strength gains (e.g. relative load, volume, etc.). Primarily, Cissik (2008) observed that it is problematic that the majority of available studies are short-term in nature (approximately the duration of an academic semester), use non-athletic college populations, and primarily involve strength training modalities only. Cissik therefore suggested that this makes it difficult to the current periodization research to athletic populations who structure their training plans over years and performed concurrent training modalities. For the purposes of applying the available research to the achievement of strength gains during recreational resistance-training, however, these are not large concerns.

PROBLEMS OF METHODOLOGICAL VALIDITY

More concerning for the application of the available research to recreational resistance-training was raised in a brilliant paper by Kiely (2012), who pointed out that most experimental designs exploring periodization have actually simply compared varied with non-varied interventions. Thus, such studies simply demonstrate that variation is important, and not that periodization is the best way of providing this variation. This relatively simple but radical criticism has unfortunately not been developed since it was raised in 2012. However, until a high quality study compares a randomized program with a periodized program and with a non-varied program, we will continue to lack an understanding of whether variation or structured periodization are of greater importance.

EFFECTS OF PERIODIZED VS. NON-PERIODIZED PROGRAMS ON STRENGTH (TRAINED)

Selection criteria

Population – trained subjects

Intervention – resistance-training, where >1 group trained using a recognised periodization model and the other group did not use a periodization model

Comparator – baseline performance or a non-training control group

Outcome – at least one reliable measure of muscular strength, including maximum voluntary isometric contraction strength or 1RM

Results

The following studies were identified: Willoughby (1992), Willoughby (1993), Baker (1994), Schiotz (1998), Stone (2000), Buford (2007), Monteiro (2009).

Findings

Of these studies, 4 reported significant benefits of periodization and the remainder reported no differences. Using periodization may therefore have a beneficial effect on strength gains in this population.

EFFECTS OF LINEAR VS. NON-LINEAR PROGRAMS ON STRENGTH (TRAINED)

Selection criteria

Population – trained subjects

Intervention – resistance-training, where >1 group trained using a linear periodization model and >1 group trained using a non-linear periodization model

Comparator – baseline performance or a non-training control group

Outcome – at least one reliable measure of muscular strength, including maximum voluntary isometric contraction strength or 1RM

Results

The following studies were identified: Baker (1994), Buford (2007), Monteiro (2009), Prestes (2009a), Miranda (2011), Franchini (2014), Harries (2015).

Findings

Of these studies, only 1 reported significant benefits of non-linear periodization over linear periodization and the remainder reported no differences. Using non-linear periodization may therefore not be superior to linear periodization for strength gains in this population.

EFFECTS OF LINEAR VS. REVERSE LINEAR PROGRAMS ON STRENGTH (TRAINED)

Selection criteria

Population – trained subjects

Intervention – resistance-training, where >1 group trained using a linear periodization model and >1 group trained using a reverse linear periodization model

Comparator – baseline performance or a non-training control group

Outcome – at least one reliable measure of muscular strength, including maximum voluntary isometric contraction strength or 1RM

Results

The following 1 study was identified: Prestes (2009).

Findings

This study reported significant benefits of linear periodization over reverse linear periodization. Using linear periodization may therefore be superior to reverse linear periodization for strength gains in this population.

EFFECTS OF LINEAR VS. BLOCK PROGRAMS ON STRENGTH (TRAINED)

Selection criteria

Population – trained subjects

Intervention – resistance-training, where >1 group trained using a linear periodization model and >1 group trained using a block linear periodization model

Comparator – baseline performance or a non-training control group

Outcome – at least one reliable measure of muscular strength, including maximum voluntary isometric contraction strength or 1RM

Results

The following study was identified: Bartolomei (2014).

Findings

This study reported significant benefits of block periodization over linear periodization. Using block periodization may therefore superior to linear periodization for strength gains in this population.

EFFECTS OF NON-LINEAR VS. BLOCK PROGRAMS ON STRENGTH (TRAINED)

Selection criteria

Population – trained subjects

Intervention – resistance-training, where >1 group trained using a non-linear periodization model and >1 group trained using a block linear periodization model

Comparator – baseline performance or a non-training control group

Outcome – at least one reliable measure of muscular strength, including maximum voluntary isometric contraction strength or 1RM

Results

The following studies were identified: Painter (2012), Hartmann (2009).

Findings

Both studies reported no significant benefits of block periodization over non-linear periodization. Using block periodization may be similar to non-linear periodization for strength gains in this population.

EFFECTS OF PERIODIZED VS. NON-PERIODIZED PROGRAMS ON STRENGTH (UNTRAINED)

Selection criteria

Population – untrained subjects

Intervention – resistance-training, where >1 group trained using a recognised periodization model and the other group did not use a periodization model

Comparator – baseline performance or a non-training control group

Outcome – at least one reliable measure of muscular strength, including maximum voluntary isometric contraction strength or 1RM

Results

The following studies were identified: Stone (1982), Stowers (1983), O’Bryant (1988), Herrick (1996), Moraes (2013), Ahmadizad (2014), Souza (2014a).

Findings

Of these studies, 4 reported significant benefits of periodization over no periodization. Using periodization may therefore be beneficial for strength gains in this population.

EFFECTS OF LINEAR VS. NON-LINEAR PROGRAMS ON STRENGTH (UNTRAINED)

Selection criteria

Population – untrained subjects

Intervention – resistance-training, where >1 group trained using a linear periodization model and >1 group trained using a non-linear periodization model

Comparator – baseline performance or a non-training control group

Outcome – at least one reliable measure of muscular strength, including maximum voluntary isometric contraction strength or 1RM

Results

The following studies were identified: Rhea (2002a), Rhea (2003a), Kok (2009), Apel (2011), Simão (2012), De Lima (2012), Ahmadizad (2014), Souza (2014a).

Findings

Of these studies, 4 reported significant benefits of non-linear periodization over no periodization while 1 reported significant benefits of linear periodization over non-linear periodization. It is possible that non-linear periodization might be superior to linear periodization for strength gains in this population but there are conflicting reports.

EFFECTS OF LINEAR VS. REVERSE LINEAR PROGRAMS ON STRENGTH (TRAINED)

Selection criteria

Population – untrained subjects

Intervention – resistance-training, where >1 group trained using a linear periodization model and >1 group trained using a reverse linear periodization model

Comparator – baseline performance or a non-training control group

Outcome – at least one reliable measure of muscular strength, including maximum voluntary isometric contraction strength or 1RM

Results

The following 1 study was identified (click to read): Rhea (2003a).

Findings

This study reported no significant benefits of linear periodization over reverse linear periodization. Using linear periodization may therefore be similar to reverse linear periodization for strength gains in this population.

SECTION CONCLUSIONS

For trained and untrained subjects, periodization is probably superior to no periodization for strength gains. For trained and untrained subjects, non-linear and linear periodization probably lead to similar strength gains. The mechanism by which periodization might affect strength gains is unclear. Transient increases in inter-muscular co-ordination might lead to superior strength gains prior to the post-intervention test.

Top · Contents · References


REFERENCES

  1. Aagaard, P., Simonsen, E. B., Trolle, M., Bangsbo, J., & Klausen, K. (1996). Specificity of training velocity and training load on gains in isokinetic knee joint strength. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica, 156(2), 123-129.[PubMed]
  2. Aagaard, P. (2003). Training-induced changes in neural function. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, 31(2), 61-67.[PubMed]
  3. Abernethy, P. J., & Jürimäe, J. (1996). Cross-sectional and longitudinal uses of isoinertial, isometric, and isokinetic dynamometry. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 28(9), 1180.[PubMed]
  4. Ahtiainen, J. P., Pakarinen, A., Alen, M., Kraemer, W. J., & Häkkinen, K. (2005). Short vs. long rest period between the sets in hypertrophic resistance training: influence on muscle strength, size, and hormonal adaptations in trained men. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 19(3), 572 [PubMed]
  5. Ahmadizad, S., Ghorbani, S., Ghasemikaram, M., & Bahmanzadeh, M. (2014). Effects of short-term nonperiodized, linear periodized and daily undulating periodized resistance training on plasma adiponectin, leptin and insulin resistance. Clinical biochemistry, 47(6), 417-422.[PubMed]
  6. Akagi, R., Iwanuma, S., Hashizume, S., Kanehisa, H., Yanai, T., & Kawakami, Y. (2012). In vivo measurements of moment arm lengths of three elbow flexors at rest and during isometric contractions. Journal of applied biomechanics, 28(1).[PubMed]
  7. Akagi, R., Iwanuma, S., Hashizume, S., Kanehisa, H., Yanai, T., & Kawakami, Y. (2014). Association between contraction-induced increases in elbow flexor muscle thickness and distal biceps brachii tendon moment arm depends on the muscle thickness measurement site. Journal of applied biomechanics, 31(1), 134-139.[PubMed]
  8. Akima, H., & Saito, A. (2013). Activation of quadriceps femoris including vastus intermedius during fatiguing dynamic knee extensions. European journal of applied physiology, 113(11), 2829-2840.[PubMed]
  9. Almåsbakk, B., & Hoff, J. (1996). Coordination, the determinant of velocity specificity?. Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md.: 1985), 81(5), 2046.[PubMed]
  10. Alway, S. E., Stray-Gundersen, J., Grumbt, W. H., & Gonyea, W. J. (1990). Muscle cross-sectional area and torque in resistance-trained subjects. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 60(2), 86-90.[PubMed]
  11. American College of Sports Medicine. (2009). American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 41(3), 687 [PubMed]
  12. Andersen, L. L., Saervoll, C. A., Mortensen, O. S., Poulsen, O. M., Hannerz, H., & Zebis, M. K. (2011). Effectiveness of small daily amounts of progressive resistance training for frequent neck/shoulder pain: randomised controlled trial. Pain, 152(2), 440-446.[PubMed]
  13. Andersen, C. H., Andersen, L. L., Gram, B., Pedersen, M. T., Mortensen, O. S., Zebis, M. K., & Sjøgaard, G. (2012). Influence of frequency and duration of strength training for effective management of neck and shoulder pain: a randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 46(14), 1004-1010.[PubMed]
  14. Anderson, T., & Kearney, J. T. (1982). Effects of three resistance training programs on muscular strength and absolute and relative endurance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 53(1), 1-7.[PubMed]
  15. Anderson, C. E., Sforzo, G. A., & Sigg, J. A. (2008). The effects of combining elastic and free weight resistance on strength and power in athletes. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 22(2), 567-574.[PubMed]
  16. Antonio, J. (2000). Nonuniform response of skeletal muscle to heavy resistance training: Can bodybuilders induce regional muscle hypertrophy?. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 14(1), 102-113.[Citation]
  17. Apel, J. M., Lacey, R. M., & Kell, R. T. (2011). A comparison of traditional and weekly undulating periodized strength training programs with total volume and intensity equated. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 25(3), 694-703.[PubMed]
  18. Arazi, H., & Asadi, A. (2001). Effects of 8 Weeks Equal-Volume Resistance Training with Different Workout Frequency on Maximal Strength, Endurance and Body Composition. Int J Sports Sci Eng, 5(2), 112-118 [Citation]
  19. Arnold, P., & Bautmans, I. (2014). The influence of strength training on muscle activation in elderly persons: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Experimental gerontology, 58, 58-68.[Citation]
  20. Baker, D., Wilson, G., & Carlyon, R. (1994). Periodization: the effect on strength of manipulating volume and intensity. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 8(4), 235-242 [Citation]
  21. Baker, J. S., Davies, B., Cooper, S. M., Wong, D. P., Buchan, D. S., & Kilgore, L. (2013). Strength and Body Composition Changes in Recreationally Strength-Trained Individuals: Comparison of One versus Three Sets Resistance-Training Programmes. BioMed research international, 2013.[PubMed]
  22. Baechle, T. R., & Earle, R. W. (2008). Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. Vol. 7. Champaign, IL: Human kinetics [Citation]
  23. Bartolomei, S., Hoffman, J. R., Merni, F., & Stout, J. R. (2014). A Comparison of Traditional and Block Periodized Strength Training Programs in Trained Athletes. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 28(4), 990-997.[PubMed]
  24. Bast, S. C., Vangsness Jr, C. T., Takemura, J., Folkins, E., & Landel, R. (1997). The effects of concentric versus eccentric isokinetic strength training of the rotator cuff in the plane of the scapula at various speeds. Bulletin (Hospital for Joint Diseases (New York, NY)), 57(3), 139-144.[PubMed]
  25. Bawa, P., Jones, K. E., & Stein, R. B. Assessment of Size Ordered Recruitment. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. [PubMed]
  26. Baxter, J. R., & Piazza, S. J. (2014). Plantar flexor moment arm and muscle volume predict torque-generating capacity in young men. Journal of Applied Physiology, 116(5), 538-544.[PubMed]
  27. Beardsley, C., & Contreras, B. (2014). The Increasing Role of the Hip Extensor Musculature With Heavier Compound Lower-Body Movements and More Explosive Sport Actions. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 36(2), 49-55.[Citation]
  28. Beardsley, C., & Contreras, B. (2014a). lncreasing Role of Hips Supported by Electromyography and Musculoskeletal Modeling. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 36(4), 100-101.[Citation]
  29. Beck, T. W., Housh, T. J., Fry, A. C., Cramer, J. T., Weir, J. P., Schilling, B. K., & Moore, C. A. (2009). An examination of the relationships among myosin heavy chain isoform content, isometric strength, and mechanomyographic median frequency. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23(9), 2683-2688.[PubMed]
  30. Beck, T. W., Defreitas, J. M., Stock, M. S., & Dillon, M. A. (2011). Effects of resistance training on force steadiness and common drive. Muscle & nerve, 43(2), 245.[PubMed]
  31. Behm, D. G. (1995). Neuromuscular implications and applications of resistance training. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 9(4), 264-274.[Citation]
  32. Behrens, M., Mau-Moeller, A., & Bruhn, S. (2014). Effect of plyometric training on neural and mechanical properties of the knee extensor muscles. International journal of sports medicine, 35(2), 101.[PubMed]
  33. Behrens, M., Mau-Moeller, A., Mueller, K., Heise, S., Gube, M., Beuster, N., & Bruhn, S. (2015). Plyometric training improves voluntary activation and strength during isometric, concentric and eccentric contractions. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport.[Citation]
  34. Bemben, D. A., Fetters, N. L., Bemben, M. G., Nabavi, N., & Koh, E. T. (2000). Musculoskeletal responses to high-and low-intensity resistance training in early postmenopausal women. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 32(11), 1949-1957.[PubMed]
  35. Beneka, A., Malliou, P., Fatouros, I., Jamurtas, A., Gioftsidou, A., Godolias, G., & Taxildaris, K. (2005). Resistance training effects on muscular strength of elderly are related to intensity and gender. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 8(3), 274-283.[PubMed]
  36. Ben-Sira, D., Ayalon, A., & Tavi, M. (1995). The effect of different types of strength training on concentric strength in women. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 9(3), 143-148 [Citation]
  37. Benton, M. J., Kasper, M. J., Raab, S. A., Waggener, G. T., & Swan, P. D. (2011). Short-term effects of resistance training frequency on body composition and strength in middle-aged women. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 25(11), 3142-3149 [PubMed]
  38. Berger, R. A. (1962). Optimum repetitions for the development of strength. Research Quarterly. American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 33(3), 334-338.[Citation]
  39. Berger, R. A. (1965). Comparison of the effect of various weight training loads on strength. Research Quarterly. American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 36(2), 141-146.[PubMed]
  40. Bieuzen, F., Lepers, R., Vercruyssen, F., Hausswirth, C., & Brisswalter, J. (2007). Muscle activation during cycling at different cadences: effect of maximal strength capacity. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 17(6), 731-738.[PubMed]
  41. Blazevich, A. J., Cannavan, D., Coleman, D. R., & Horne, S. (2007). Influence of concentric and eccentric resistance training on architectural adaptation in human quadriceps muscles. Journal of Applied Physiology, 103(5), 1565-1575 [PubMed]
  42. Bloch, R. J., & Gonzalez-Serratos, H. (2003). Lateral force transmission across costameres in skeletal muscle. Exercise and sport sciences reviews, 31(2), 73-78.[PubMed]
  43. Bloomquist, K., Langberg, H., Karlsen, S., Madsgaard, S., Boesen, M., & Raastad, T. (2013). Effect of range of motion in heavy load squatting on muscle and tendon adaptations. European journal of applied physiology, 113(8), 2133-2142 [PubMed]
  44. Bobbert, M. F., & Van Soest, A. J. (1994). Effects of muscle strengthening on vertical jump height: a simulation study. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 26(8), 1012-1020.[PubMed]
  45. Bobbert, M. F., Richard, C. L., & Kistemaker, D. A. (2013). Humans make near-optimal adjustments of control to initial body configuration in vertical squat jumping. Neuroscience, 237, 232.[PubMed]
  46. Borst, S. E., De Hoyos, D. V., Garzarella, L., Vincent, K., Pollock, B. H., Lowenthal, D. T., & Pollock, M. L. (2001). Effects of resistance training on insulin-like growth factor-I and IGF binding proteins. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 33(4), 648.[PubMed]
  47. Bottaro, M., Veloso, J., Wagner, D., & Gentil, P. (2011). Resistance training for strength and muscle thickness: effect of number of sets and muscle group trained. Science & Sports, 26(5), 259-264 [Citation]
  48. Bottinelli, R., Canepari, M., Pellegrino, M. A., & Reggiani, C. (1996). Force‐velocity properties of human skeletal muscle fibres: myosin heavy chain isoform and temperature dependence. The Journal of physiology, 495(2), 573-586.[PubMed]
  49. Boyer, B. T. (1990). A comparison of the effects of three strength training programs on women. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 4(3), 88-94.[Citation]
  50. Braith, R. W., Graves, J. E., Pollock, M. L., Leggett, S. L., Carpenter, D. M., & Colvin, A. B. (1989). Comparison of 2 vs 3 days/week of variable resistance training during 10-and 18-week programs. International journal of sports medicine, 10(06), 450-454.[PubMed]
  51. Brechue, W. F., & Abe, T. (2002). The role of FFM accumulation and skeletal muscle architecture in powerlifting performance. European journal of applied physiology, 86(4), 327-336.[PubMed]
  52. Bryanton, M. A., Kennedy, M. D., Carey, J. P., & Chiu, L. Z. (2012). Effect of squat depth and barbell load on relative muscular effort in squatting. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 26(10), 2820-2828.[PubMed]
  53. Buchanan, T. S. (1995). Evidence that maximum muscle stress is not a constant: differences in specific tension in elbow flexors and extensors. Medical engineering & physics, 17(7), 529-536.[PubMed]
  54. Buckthorpe, M., Erskine, R. M., Fletcher, G., & Folland, J. P. (2014). Task‐specific neural adaptations to isoinertial resistance training. Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports.[PubMed]
  55. Buford, T. W., Rossi, S. J., Smith, D. B., & Warren, A. J. (2007). A comparison of periodization models during nine weeks with equated volume and intensity for strength. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 21(4), 1245-1250.[PubMed]
  56. Buresh, R., Berg, K., & French, J. (2009). The effect of resistive exercise rest interval on hormonal response, strength, and hypertrophy with training. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23(1), 62-71 [PubMed]
  57. Cadore, E. L., González‐Izal, M., Pallarés, J. G., Rodriguez‐Falces, J., Häkkinen, K., Kraemer, W. J., & Izquierdo, M. (2014). Muscle conduction velocity, strength, neural activity, and morphological changes after eccentric and concentric training. Scandinavian journal of Medicine & Science in Sports. [PubMed]
  58. Calder, A. W., Chilibeck, P. D., Webber, C. E., & Sale, D. G. (1994). Comparison of whole and split weight training routines in young women. Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology, 19(2), 185-199 [PubMed]
  59. Campos, G. E., Luecke, T. J., Wendeln, H. K., Toma, K., Hagerman, F. C., Murray, T. F., & Staron, R. S. (2002). Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones. European journal of applied physiology, 88(1-2), 50-60 [PubMed]
  60. Candow, D. G., & Burke, D. G. (2007). Effect of short-term equal-volume resistance training with different workout frequency on muscle mass and strength in untrained men and women. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 21(1), 204-207 [PubMed]
  61. Cannon, J., & Marino, F. E. (2010). Early-phase neuromuscular adaptations to high-and low-volume resistance training in untrained young and older women. Journal of sports sciences, 28(14), 1505-1514.[PubMed]
  62. Carolan, B., & Cafarelli, E. (1992). Adaptations in coactivation after isometric resistance training. Journal of Applied Physiology, 73(3), 911-917.[PubMed]
  63. Carpenter, D. M., Graves, J. E., Pollock, M. L., Leggett, S. H., Foster, D., Holmes, B., & Fulton, M. N. (1991). Effect of 12 and 20 weeks of resistance training on lumbar extension torque production. Physical Therapy, 71(8), 580-588.[PubMed]
  64. Carpinelli, R. N., Otto, R. M., & Winett, R. A. (2004). A critical analysis of the ACSM position stand on resistance training: insufficient evidence to support recommended training protocols. J Exerc Physiol, 7, 1-60.[Citation]
  65. Carpinelli, R. N. (2009). Challenging the American College of Sports Medicine 2009 position stand on resistance training. Medicina Sportiva, 13(2), 131-137.
  66. Carroll, T. J., Abernethy, P. J., Logan, P. A., Barber, M., & McEniery, M. T. (1998). Resistance training frequency: strength and myosin heavy chain responses to two and three bouts per week. European journal of applied physiology and occupational physiology, 78(3), 270-275.[PubMed]
  67. Carroll, T. J., Riek, S., & Carson, R. G. (2001). Neural adaptations to resistance training. Sports medicine, 31(12), 829-840.[PubMed]
  68. Carroll, T. J., Herbert, R. D., Munn, J., Lee, M., & Gandevia, S. C. (2006). Contralateral effects of unilateral strength training: evidence and possible mechanisms. Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md.: 1985), 101(5), 1514.[PubMed]
  69. Carroll, T. J., Selvanayagam, V. S., Riek, S., & Semmler, J. G. (2011). Neural adaptations to strength training: moving beyond transcranial magnetic stimulation and reflex studies. Acta physiologica, 202(2), 119-140.[PubMed]
  70. Carvalho, A., Caserotti, P., Carvalho, C., Abade, E., & Sampaio, J. (2014). Effect of a Short Time Concentric Versus Eccentric Training Program on Electromyography Activity and Peak Torque of Quadriceps. Journal of human kinetics, 41(1), 5-13.[PubMed]
  71. Chestnut, J. L., & Docherty, D. (1999). The Effects of 4 and 10 Repetition Maximum Weight-Training Protocols on Neuromuscular Adaptations in Untrained Men. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 13(4), 353-359.[Citation]
  72. Cholewa, J., Guimarães‐Ferreira, L., da Silva Teixeira, T., Naimo, M. A., Zhi, X., de Sá, R. B. D. P., & Zanchi, N. E. (2014). Basic Models Modeling Resistance Training: An Update for Basic Scientists Interested in Study Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy. Journal of cellular physiology, 229(9), 1148-1156.[PubMed]
  73. Christie, A., & Kamen, G. (2010). Short‐term training adaptations in maximal motor unit firing rates and afterhyperpolarization duration. Muscle & nerve, 41(5), 651-660.[PubMed]
  74. Chtourou, H., & Souissi, N. (2012). The effect of training at a specific time of day: a review. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 26(7), 1984-2005 [PubMed]
  75. Cissik, J., Hedrick, A., & Barnes, M. (2008). Challenges applying the research on periodization. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 30(1), 45-51 [Citation]
  76. Claassen, H., Gerber, C., Hoppeler, H., Lüthi, J. M., & Vock, P. (1989). Muscle filament spacing and short‐term heavy‐resistance exercise in humans. The Journal of physiology, 409(1), 491-495.[PubMed]
  77. Clark, B. C., & Manini, T. M. (2008). Sarcopenia≠ dynapenia. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 63(8), 829-834.[PubMed]
  78. Clark, B. C., & Manini, T. M. (2012). What is dynapenia?. Nutrition, 28(5), 495-503.[PubMed]
  79. Clarkson, P. M., Kroll, W., & McBride, T. C. (1980). Maximal isometric strength and fiber type composition in power and endurance athletes. European journal of applied physiology and occupational physiology, 44(1), 35-42.[PubMed]
  80. Clarkson, P. M., Kroll, W., & Melchionda, A. M. (1982). Isokinetic strength, endurance, and fiber type composition in elite American paddlers. European journal of applied physiology and occupational physiology, 48(1), 67-76.[PubMed]
  81. Clarkson, P. M., Johnson, J., Dextradeur, D., Leszczynski, W., Wai, J., & Melchionda, A. (1982a). The relationships among isokinetic endurance, initial strength level, and fiber type. Research quarterly for exercise and sport, 53(1), 15-19.[Citation]
  82. Clutch, D., Wilton, M., McGown, C., & Bryce, G. R. (1983). The effect of depth jumps and weight training on leg strength and vertical jump. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 54(1), 5-10.[Citation]
  83. Colson, S., Pousson, M., Martin, A., & Van Hoecke, J. (1999). Isokinetic elbow flexion and coactivation following eccentric training. Journal of electromyography and kinesiology: official journal of the International Society of Electrophysiological Kinesiology, 9(1), 13.[PubMed]
  84. Cook, S. B., Murphy, B. G., & Labarbera, K. E. (2013). Neuromuscular function after a bout of low-load blood flow-restricted exercise. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 45(1), 67-74.[PubMed]
  85. Correa, C. S., Teixeira, B. C., Kruger, R. L., Bittencourt, A., Lemos, L., Marques, N. R., & Pinto, R. S. (2014). Effects of high and low volume of strength training on muscle strength, muscle volume and lipid profile in postmenopausal women. Journal of Exercise Science & Fitness.[Citation]
  86. Danowski, B. A., Imanaka-Yoshida, K., Sanger, J. M., & Sanger, J. W. (1992). Costameres are sites of force transmission to the substratum in adult rat cardiomyocytes. The Journal of cell biology, 118(6), 1411-1420.[PubMed]
  87. D’Antona, G., Lanfranconi, F., Pellegrino, M. A., Brocca, L., Adami, R., Rossi, R., & Bottinelli, R. (2006). Skeletal muscle hypertrophy and structure and function of skeletal muscle fibres in male body builders. The Journal of physiology, 570(3), 611-627.[PubMed]
  88. Davies, J., Parker, D. F., Rutherford, O. M., & Jones, D. A. (1988). Changes in strength and cross sectional area of the elbow flexors as a result of isometric strength training. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 57(6), 667-670.[PubMed]
  89. De Lima, C., Boullosa, D. A., Frollini, A. B., Donatto, F. F., Leite, R. D., Gonelli, P. R. G., & Cesar, M. C. (2012). Linear and Daily Undulating Resistance Training Periodizations Have Differential Beneficial Effects in Young Sedentary Women. International journal of sports medicine, 33(9), 723 [PubMed]
  90. Delmonico, M. J., Harris, T. B., Lee, J. S., Visser, M., Nevitt, M., Kritchevsky, S. B., & Newman, A. B. (2007). Alternative definitions of sarcopenia, lower extremity performance, and functional impairment with aging in older men and women. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 55(5), 769-774.[PubMed]
  91. Delmonico, M. J., Harris, T. B., Visser, M., Park, S. W., Conroy, M. B., Velasquez-Mieyer, P., … & Goodpaster, B. H. (2009). Longitudinal study of muscle strength, quality, and adipose tissue infiltration. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 90(6), 1579-1585.[PubMed]
  92. De Luca, C. J., LeFever, R. S., McCue, M. P., & Xenakis, A. P. (1982). Behaviour of human motor units in different muscles during linearly varying contractions. The Journal of Physiology, 329(1), 113-128.[PubMed]
  93. De Luca, C. J., & Erim, Z. (1994). Common drive of motor units in regulation of muscle force. Trends in neurosciences, 17(7), 299-305. [PubMed]
  94. De Luca, C. J., & Contessa, P. (2012). Hierarchical control of motor units in voluntary contractions. Journal of neurophysiology, 107(1), 178-195.[PubMed]
  95. DeMichele, P. L., Pollock, M. L., Graves, J. E., Foster, D. N., Carpenter, D., Garzarella, L., & Fulton, M. (1997). Isometric torso rotation strength: effect of training frequency on its development. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 78(1), 64-69.[PubMed]
  96. De Rugy, A., Loeb, G. E., & Carroll, T. J. (2012). Muscle coordination is habitual rather than optimal. The Journal of Neuroscience, 32(21), 7384-7391.[PubMed]
  97. De Salles, B. F., Simão, R., Miranda, H., Bottaro, M., Fontana, F., & Willardson, J. M. (2010). Strength increases in upper and lower body are larger with longer inter-set rest intervals in trained men. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 13(4), 429-433.[PubMed]
  98. De Souza Jr, T. P., Fleck, S. J., Simão, R., Dubas, J. P., Pereira, B., de Brito Pacheco, E. M., & de Oliveira, P. R. (2010). Comparison between constant and decreasing rest intervals: influence on maximal strength and hypertrophy. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 24(7), 1843-1850 [PubMed]
  99. De Souza, R. W. A., Aguiar, A. F., Carani, F. R., Campos, G. E. R., Padovani, C. R., & Silva, M. D. P. (2011). High‐Intensity Resistance Training with Insufficient Recovery Time Between Bouts Induce Atrophy and Alterations in Myosin Heavy Chain Content in Rat Skeletal Muscle. The Anatomical Record, 294(8), 1393-1400 [PubMed]
  100. Desgorces, F. D., Berthelot, G., Dietrich, G., & Testa, M. S. (2010). Local muscular endurance and prediction of 1 repetition maximum for bench in 4 athletic populations. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 24(2), 394-400 [PubMed]
  101. Dideriksen, J. L., & Farina, D. (2013). Motor unit recruitment by size does not provide functional advantages for motor performance. The Journal of physiology, 591(24), 6139-6156.[PubMed]
  102. DiFrancisco-Donoghue, J., Werner, W., & Douris, P. C. (2007). Comparison of once-weekly and twice-weekly strength training in older adults. British journal of sports medicine, 41(1), 19-22.[PubMed]
  103. Dorel, S., Guilhem, G., Couturier, A., & Hug, F. (2012). Adjustment of muscle coordination during an all-out sprint cycling task. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 44(11), 2154.[PubMed]
  104. Drinkwater, E. J., Lawton, T. W., Lindsell, R. P., Pyne, D. B., Hunt, P. H., & McKenna, M. J. (2005). Training leading to repetition failure enhances bench press strength gains in elite junior athletes. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 19(2), 382.[PubMed]
  105. Driss, T., Serrau, V., Behm, D. G., Lesne-Chabran, E., Le Pellec-Muller, A., & Vandewalle, H. (2014). Isometric training with maximal co-contraction instruction does not increase co-activation during exercises against external resistances. Journal of sports sciences, 32(1), 60-69.[PubMed]
  106. Duchateau, J., & Hainaut, K. (1987). Electrical and mechanical changes in immobilized human muscle. Journal of Applied Physiology, 62(6), 2168-2173.[PubMed]
  107. Duchateau, J., Semmler, J. G., & Enoka, R. M. (2006). Training adaptations in the behavior of human motor units. Journal of Applied Physiology, 101(6), 1766-1775.[PubMed]
  108. Duchateau, J., & Enoka, R. M. (2008). Neural control of shortening and lengthening contractions: influence of task constraints. The Journal of physiology, 586(24), 5853-5864.[PubMed]
  109. Eloranta, V. (1995). Effect of postural and load variation on the coordination of the leg muscles in concentric jumping movement. Electromyography and clinical neurophysiology, 36(1), 59-64.[PubMed]
  110. Enoka, R. M., & Stuart, D. G. (1984). Henneman’s ‘size principle’: current issues. Trends in neurosciences, 7(7), 226-228 [Citation]
  111. Enoka, R. M. (1988). Muscle strength and its development. Sports Medicine, 6(3), 146-168.[PubMed]
  112. Enoka, R. M. (1996). Eccentric contractions require unique activation strategies by the nervous system. Journal of Applied Physiology, 81(6), 2339-2346.[PubMed]
  113. Enoka, R. M., & Fuglevand, A. J. (2001). Motor unit physiology: some unresolved issues. Muscle & nerve, 24(1), 4-17[PubMed]
  114. Ervasti, J. M. (2003). Costameres: the Achilles’ heel of Herculean muscle. Journal of Biological Chemistry.[PubMed]
  115. Erskine, R. M., Degens, H., & Jones, D. A. (2008). Factors contributing to an increase in quadriceps specific tension following resistance training in young men. Physiological Society Proceedings.[Citation]
  116. Erskine, R. M., Jones, D. A., Maganaris, C. N., & Degens, H. (2009). In vivo specific tension of the human quadriceps femoris muscle. European journal of applied physiology, 106(6), 827-838.[PubMed]
  117. Erskine, R. M., Jones, D. A., Williams, A. G., Stewart, C. E., & Degens, H. (2010). Resistance training increases in vivo quadriceps femoris muscle specific tension in young men. Acta physiologica, 199(1), 83-89.[PubMed]
  118. Erskine, R. M., Jones, D. A., Williams, A. G., Stewart, C. E., & Degens, H. (2010a). Inter-individual variability in the adaptation of human muscle specific tension to progressive resistance training. European journal of applied physiology, 110(6), 1117-1125.[PubMed]
  119. Erskine, R. M., Jones, D. A., Maffulli, N., Williams, A. G., Stewart, C. E., & Degens, H. (2011). What causes in vivo muscle specific tension to increase following resistance training?. Experimental physiology, 96(2), 145-155.[PubMed]
  120. Erskine, R. M., Fletcher, G., & Folland, J. P. (2014). The contribution of muscle hypertrophy to strength changes following resistance training. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 114(6), 1239-1249.[PubMed]
  121. Escamilla, R. F., Francisco, A. C., Fleisig, G. S., Barrentine, S. W., Welch, C. M., Kayes, A. V., & Andrews, J. R. (2000). A three-dimensional biomechanical analysis of sumo and conventional style deadlifts. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 32(7), 1265.[PubMed]
  122. Esquivel, A. A., & Welsch, M. A. (2007). High and low volume resistance training and vascular function. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 28(03), 217-221.[PubMed]
  123. Farina, D., Merletti, R., & Enoka, R. M. (2004). The extraction of neural strategies from the surface EMG. Journal of Applied Physiology, 96(4), 1486-1495.[PubMed]
  124. Farina, D., & Negro, F. (2015). Common Synaptic Input to Motor Neurons, Motor Unit Synchronization, and Force Control. Exercise and sport sciences reviews, 43(1), 23-33.[PubMed]
  125. Farinatti, P. T., Geraldes, A. A., Bottaro, M. F., Lima, M. V. I., Albuquerque, R. B., & Fleck, S. J. (2013). Effects of different resistance training frequencies on the muscle strength and functional performance of active women older than 60 years. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 27(8), 2225-2234.[PubMed]
  126. Farthing, J. P., & Chilibeck, P. D. (2003). The effects of eccentric and concentric training at different velocities on muscle hypertrophy. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 89(6), 578-586 [PubMed]
  127. Farup, J., Rahbek, S. K., Vendelbo, M. H., Matzon, A., Hindhede, J., Bejder, A., & Vissing, K. (2013). Whey protein hydrolysate augments tendon and muscle hypertrophy independent of resistance exercise contraction mode. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports. [PubMed]
  128. Farup, J., Rahbek, S. K., Riis, S., Vendelbo, M. H., de Paoli, F., & Vissing, K. (2014). Influence of exercise contraction mode and protein supplementation on human skeletal muscle satellite cell content and muscle fiber growth. Journal of Applied Physiology, 117(8), 898-909. [PubMed]
  129. Fatouros, I. G., Kambas, A., Katrabasas, I., Leontsini, D., Chatzinikolaou, A., Jamurtas, A. Z., … & Taxildaris, K. (2006). Resistance training and detraining effects on flexibility performance in the elderly are intensity-dependent. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 20(3), 634-642.[PubMed]
  130. Fisher, J. (2012). Beware the Meta-Analysis: Is Multiple Set Training Really Better than Single Set Training for Muscle Hypertrophy?. Journal of Exercise Physiology Online, 15(6).[Citation]
  131. Fisher, J., & Smith, D. (2012). Attempting to better define “intensity” for muscular performance: is it all wasted effort?. European journal of applied physiology, 1-3 [PubMed]
  132. Fisher, J., Steele, J., Bruce-Low, S., & Smith, D. (2011). Evidence-based resistance training recommendations. Medicina Sportiva, 15(3), 147-162 [Citation]
  133. Fisher, J., & Steele, J. (2012). Is Truth in Authority or Authority in Truth? Limitations to the Publication of Scientific Research. Journal of Exercise Physiology Online, 15(1).[Citation]
  134. Fisher, J. (2013). A critical commentary on the practical application of resistance training studies. Journal of Trainology, 2, 10-12.[Citation]
  135. Flack, N. A., Nicholson, H. D., & Woodley, S. J. (2014). The anatomy of the hip abductor muscles. Clinical Anatomy, 27(2), 241-253.[PubMed]
  136. Flanagan, S. D., Mills, M. D., Sterczala, A. J., Maladouangdock, J., Comstock, B. A., Szivak, T. K., & Kraemer, W. J. (2014). The Relationship between Muscle Action and Repetition Maximum on the Squat and Bench Press in Men and Women. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research [PubMed]
  137. Folland, J. P., Irish, C. S., Roberts, J. C., Tarr, J. E., & Jones, D. A. (2002). Fatigue is not a necessary stimulus for strength gains during resistance training. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 36(5), 370-373.[PubMed]
  138. Folland, J. P., & Williams, A. G. (2007). Morphological and Neurological Contributions to Increased Strength. Sports medicine, 37(2), 145-168.[PubMed]
  139. Franchi, M. V., Atherton, P. J., Reeves, N. D., Flück, M., Williams, J., Mitchell, W. K., & Narici, M. V. (2014). Architectural, functional and molecular responses to concentric and eccentric loading in human skeletal muscle. Acta Physiologica, 210(3), 642-654 [PubMed]
  140. Franchini, E., Branco, B. M., Agostinho, M. F., Calmet, M., & Candau, R. (2014). Influence of linear and undulating strength periodization on physical fitness, physiological and performance responses to simulated judo matches. The Journal of strength & conditioning research.[PubMed]
  141. Fröhlich, M., Emrich, E., & Schmidtbleicher, D. (2010). Outcome effects of single-set versus multiple-set training—An advanced replication study. Research in Sports Medicine, 18(3), 157-175.[PubMed]
  142. Frost, D. M., Cronin, J., & Newton, R. U. (2010). A biomechanical evaluation of resistance: fundamental concepts for training and sports performance. Sports Medicine, 40(4), 303.[PubMed]
  143. Frost, D. M., Beach, T. A., Callaghan, J. P., & McGill, S. M. (2013). The influence of load and speed on individuals’ movement behavior. Journal of strength and conditioning research.[PubMed]
  144. Gabriel, D. A., Basford, J. R., & An, K. N. (1997). Reversal of antagonists: Effect on elbow extension strength and endurance. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 78(11), 1191-1195.[PubMed]
  145. Gabriel, D. A., Kamen, G., & Frost, G. (2006). Neural adaptations to resistive exercise. Sports Medicine, 36(2), 133-149.[PubMed]
  146. Galvao, D. A., & Taaffe, D. R. (2005). Resistance Exercise Dosage in Older Adults: Single‐Versus Multiset Effects on Physical Performance and Body Composition. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 53(12), 2090-2097 [PubMed]
  147. Ganesh, G., Haruno, M., Kawato, M., & Burdet, E. (2010). Motor memory and local minimization of error and effort, not global optimization, determine motor behavior. Journal of neurophysiology, 104(1), 382-390.[PubMed]
  148. Gentil, P., Bottaro, M., Oliveira, E., Veloso, J., Amorim, N., Saiuri, A., & Wagner, D. R. (2010). Chronic effects of different between-set rest durations on muscle strength in nonresistance trained young men. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 24(1), 37-42.[PubMed]
  149. Ghigiarelli, J. J., Nagle, E. F., Gross, F. L., Robertson, R. J., Irrgang, J. J., & Myslinski, T. (2009). The effects of a 7-week heavy elastic band and weight chain program on upper-body strength and upper-body power in a sample of division 1-AA football players. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23(3), 756-764.[PubMed]
  150. Giessing, J., Fisher, J., Steele, J., Rothe, F., Raubold, K., & Eichmann, B. (2014). The effects of low volume resistance training with and without advanced techniques in trained participants. The Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness.[PubMed]
  151. Giroux, C., Guilhem, G., Chollet, D., & Rabita, G. (2014). Muscle coordination in loaded squat jump. Computer methods in biomechanics and biomedical engineering, 17(sup1), 158-159.[PubMed]
  152. Giroux, C., Guilhem, G., Couturier, A., Chollet, D., & Rabita, G. (2015). Is muscle coordination affected by loading condition in ballistic movements?. Journal of electromyography and kinesiology.[PubMed]
  153. Goto, K., Ishii, N., Kizuka, T., & Takamatsu, K. (2005). The impact of metabolic stress on hormonal responses and muscular adaptations. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 37(6), 955-963 [PubMed]
  154. Graves, J. E., Pollock, M. L., Leggett, S. H., Braith, R. W., Carpenter, D. M., & Bishop, L. E. (1988). Effect of Reduced Training Frequency on Muscular Strength*. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 9(05), 316-319.[PubMed]
  155. Graves, J. E., Pollock, M. L., Jones, A. E., Colvin, A. B., & Leggett, S. H. (1989). Specificity of limited range of motion variable resistance training. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 21(1), 84-89.[PubMed]
  156. Graves, J. E., Pollock, M. L., Foster, D., Leggett, S. H., Carpenter, D. M., Vuoso, R., & Jones, A. (1990). Effect of training frequency and specificity on isometric lumbar extension strength. Spine, 15(6), 504.[PubMed]
  157. Graves, J. E., Pollock, M. L., Leggett, S. H., Carpenter, D. M., Fix, C. K., & Fulton, M. N. (1992). Limited range-of-motion lumbar extension strength training. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 24(1), 128-133.[PubMed]
  158. Grindrod, S., Round, J. M., & Rutherford, O. M. (1987). Type-2 fiber composition and force per cross-sectional area in the human quadriceps. In Journal of Physiology, Vol. 390, pp. P154-P154.
  159. Haff, G. G. (2004). Roundtable discussion: periodization of training-part 1. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 26(1), 50-69 [Citation]
  160. Häkkinen, K., & Kallinen, M. (1994). Distribution of strength training volume into one or two daily sessions and neuromuscular adaptations in female athletes. Electromyography and clinical neurophysiology, 34(2), 117-124 [PubMed]
  161. Häkkinen, K., Kallinen, M., Izquierdo, M., Jokelainen, K., Lassila, H., Mälkiä, E., & Alen, M. (1998). Changes in agonist-antagonist EMG, muscle CSA, and force during strength training in middle-aged and older people. Journal of Applied Physiology, 84(4), 1341-1349.[PubMed]
  162. Hanssen, K. E., Kvamme, N. H., Nilsen, T. S., Rønnestad, B., Ambjørnsen, I. K., Norheim, F., & Raastad, T. (2013). The effect of strength training volume on satellite cells, myogenic regulatory factors, and growth factors. Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports, 23(6), 728-739.[PubMed]
  163. Harber, M. P., Gallagher, P. M., Creer, A. R., Minchev, K. M., & Trappe, S. W. (2004). Single muscle fiber contractile properties during a competitive season in male runners. American journal of physiology. Regulatory, integrative and comparative physiology, 287(5), R1124.[PubMed]
  164. Harries, S. K., Lubans, D. R., & Callister, R. (2014). Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Linear and Undulating Periodized Resistance Training Programs on Muscular Strength. The Journal of strength and conditioning research. [PubMed]
  165. Harries, S. K., Lubans, D. R., & Callister, R. (2015). Comparison of resistance training progression models on maximal strength in sub-elite adolescent rugby union players. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport.[PubMed]
  166. Harris, C., DeBeliso, M. A., Spitzer-Gibson, T. A., & Adams, K. J. (2004). The effect of resistance-training intensity on strength-gain response in the older adult. Journal of strength and conditioning research/National Strength & Conditioning Association, 18(4), 833.[PubMed]
  167. Hartman, M. J., Clark, B., Bemben, D. A., Kilgore, J. L., & Bemben, M. G. (2007). Comparisons between twice-daily and once-daily training sessions in male weight lifters. International journal of sports physiology and performance, 2(2), 159 [PubMed]
  168. Hartmann, H., Bob, A., Wirth, K., & Schmidtbleicher, D. (2009). Effects of different periodization models on rate of force development and power ability of the upper extremity. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23(7), 1921-1932.[PubMed]
  169. Hartmann, H., Wirth, K., Klusemann, M., Dalic, J., Matuschek, C., & Schmidtbleicher, D. (2012). Influence of squatting depth on jumping performance. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 26(12), 3243-3261.[PubMed]
  170. Hass, C. J., Garzarella, L., De Hoyos, D., & Pollock, M. L. (2000). Single versus multiple sets in long-term recreational weightlifters. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 32(1), 235-242.[PubMed]
  171. Hawkins, S. A., Schroeder, E. T., Wiswell, R. A., Jaque, S. V., Marcell, T. J., & Costa, K. (1999). Eccentric muscle action increases site-specific osteogenic response. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 31(9), 1287.[PubMed]
  172. Heckman, C. J., & Enoka, R. M. (2012). Motor unit. Comprehensive Physiology. [PubMed]
  173. Hendy, A. M., Spittle, M., & Kidgell, D. J. (2012). Cross education and immobilisation: mechanisms and implications for injury rehabilitation. Journal of science and medicine in sport, 15(2), 94-101.[PubMed]
  174. Henneman, E., Somjen, G., & Carpenter, D. O. (1965). Functional significance of cell size in spinal motoneurons. Journal of neurophysiology, 28(3), 560-580.[PubMed]
  175. Henselmans, M., & Schoenfeld, B. J. (2014). The effect of inter-set rest intervals on resistance exercise-induced muscle hypertrophy. Sports medicine (Auckland, NZ), 44(12), 1635.[PubMed]
  176. Herbert, R. D., & Gandevia, S. C. (1999). Twitch interpolation in human muscles: mechanisms and implications for measurement of voluntary activation. Journal of Neurophysiology, 82(5), 2271-2283.[PubMed]
  177. Herbert, R. D., Dean, C., & Gandevia, S. C. (1998). Effects of real and imagined training on voluntary muscle activation during maximal isometric contractions. Acta physiologica Scandinavica, 163(4), 361.[PubMed]
  178. Herrick, A. B., & Stone, W. J. (1996). The effects of periodization versus progressive resistance exercise on upper and lower body strength in women. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 10(2), 72-76.[Citation]
  179. Higbie, E. J., Cureton, K. J., Warren III, G. L., & Prior, B. M. (1996). Effects of concentric and eccentric training on muscle strength, cross-sectional area, and neural activation. Journal of Applied Physiology, 81(5), 2173-2181 [PubMed]
  180. Hill, A. V. (1938). The heat of shortening and the dynamic constants of muscle. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 126(843), 136-195.[Citation]
  181. Hill-Haas, S., Bishop, D., Dawson, B., Goodman, C., & Edge, J. (2007). Effects of rest interval during high-repetition resistance training on strength, aerobic fitness, and repeated-sprint ability. Journal of sports sciences, 25(6), 619-628.[PubMed]
  182. Hisaeda, H., Miyagawa, K., Kuno, S., Fukunaga, T., & Muraoka, I. (1996). Influence of two different modes of resistance training in female subjects. Ergonomics, 39(6), 842.[PubMed]
  183. Hoeger, W. W., Barette, S. L., Hale, D. F., & Hopkins, D. R. (1987). Relationship between repetitions and selected percentages of one repetition maximum. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 1(1), 11-13 [Citation]
  184. Hoeger, W. W., Hopkins, D. R., Barette, S. L., & Hale, D. F. (1990). Relationship between repetitions and selected percentages of one repetition maximum: a comparison between untrained and trained males and females. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 4(2), 47-54 [Citation]
  185. Holm, L., Reitelseder, S., Pedersen, T. G., Doessing, S., Petersen, S. G., Flyvbjerg, A., & Kjaer, M. (2008). Changes in muscle size and MHC composition in response to resistance exercise with heavy and light loading intensity. Journal of applied physiology, 105(5), 1454-1461 [PubMed]
  186. Holm, L., van Hall, G., Rose, A. J., Miller, B. F., Doessing, S., Richter, E. A., & Kjaer, M. (2010). Contraction intensity and feeding affect collagen and myofibrillar protein synthesis rates differently in human skeletal muscle. American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism, 298(2), E257-E269. [PubMed]
  187. Hortobagyi, T., Hill, J. P., Houmard, J. A., Fraser, D. D., Lambert, N. J., & Israel, R. G. (1996). Adaptive responses to muscle lengthening and shortening in humans. Journal of Applied Physiology, 80(3), 765-772 [PubMed]
  188. Hortobagyi, T., Dempsey, L., Fraser, D., Zheng, D., Hamilton, G., Lambert, J., & Dohm, L. (2000). Changes in muscle strength, muscle fibre size and myofibrillar gene expression after immobilization and retraining in humans. The Journal of physiology, 524(1), 293-304 [PubMed]
  189. Houston, M. E., Froese, E. A., St P, V., Green, H. J., & Ranney, D. A. (1983). Muscle performance, morphology and metabolic capacity during strength training and detraining: a one leg model. European journal of applied physiology and occupational physiology, 51(1), 25-35.[PubMed]
  190. Hubal, M. J., Gordish-Dressman, H., Thompson, P. D., Price, T. B., Hoffman, E. P., Angelopoulos, T. J., & Clarkson, P. M. (2005). Variability in muscle size and strength gain after unilateral resistance training. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 37(6), 964-972 [PubMed]
  191. Hug, F. (2011). Can muscle coordination be precisely studied by surface electromyography?. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 21(1), 1-12.[PubMed]
  192. Humburg, H., Baars, H., Schroeder, J., Reer, R., & Braumann, K. M. (2007). 1-Set Vs. 3-Set Resistance Training: Acrossover Study. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 21(2), 578-582.[PubMed]
  193. Hunter, G. R. (1985). Research: Changes in body composition, body build and performance associated with different weight training frequencies in males and females. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 7(1), 26-28.[Citation]
  194. Hunter, G. R., McCarthy, J. P., & Bamman, M. M. (2004). Effects of resistance training on older adults. Sports Medicine, 34(5), 329-348.[PubMed]
  195. Ikai, M., & Fukunaga, T. (1968). Calculation of muscle strength per unit cross-sectional area of human muscle by means of ultrasonic measurement. Internationale Zeitschrift fuer Angewandte Physiologie Einschliesslich Arbeitsphysiologie, 26(1), 26-32.[PubMed]
  196. Infantolino, B. W., & Challis, J. H. (2014). Short communication: pennation angle variability in human muscle. Journal of applied biomechanics, 30(5), 663-667.[PubMed]
  197. Izquierdo, M., Ibañez, J., González-Badillo, J. J., Häkkinen, K., Ratamess, N. A., Kraemer, W. J., & Gorostiaga, E. M. (2006). Differential effects of strength training leading to failure versus not to failure on hormonal responses, strength, and muscle power gains. Journal of Applied Physiology, 100(5), 1647-1656.[PubMed]
  198. Janssen, I., Heymsfield, S. B., & Ross, R. (2002). Low relative skeletal muscle mass (sarcopenia) in older persons is associated with functional impairment and physical disability. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 50(5), 889-896.[PubMed]
  199. Janssen, I., Baumgartner, R. N., Ross, R., Rosenberg, I. H., & Roubenoff, R. (2004). Skeletal muscle cutpoints associated with elevated physical disability risk in older men and women. American Journal of Epidemiology, 159(4), 413-421.[PubMed]
  200. Johnson, B. L., Adamczyk, J. W., Tennoe, K. O., & Stromme, S. B. (1976). A comparison of concentric and eccentric muscle training. Medicine & Science in Sports, 8(1), 35.[PubMed]
  201. Jones, D. A., & Rutherford, O. M. (1987). Human muscle strength training: the effects of three different regimens and the nature of the resultant changes. The Journal of Physiology, 391(1), 1-11 [PubMed]
  202. Jones, D. A., Rutherford, O. M., & Parker, D. F. (1989). Physiological changes in skeletal muscle as a result of strength training. Quarterly journal of experimental physiology (Cambridge, England), 74(3), 233.[PubMed]
  203. Joy, J. M., Lowery, R. P., de Souza, E. O., & Wilson, J. M. (2014). Elastic Bands as a Component of Periodized Resistance Training. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.[PubMed]
  204. Issurin, V. (2008). Block periodization versus traditional training theory: a review. The Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness, 48(1), 65-75 [PubMed]
  205. Kalapotharakos, V. I., Michalopoulou, M., Godolias, G., Tokmakidis, S. P., Malliou, P. V., & Gourgoulis, V. (2004). The effects of high-and moderate-resistance training on muscle function in the elderly. Journal of aging and physical activity, 12(2), 131-143.[PubMed]
  206. Kalapotharakos, V. I., Michalopoulos, M., Tokmakidis, S. P., Godolias, G., & Gourgoulis, V. (2005). Effects of a heavy and a moderate resistance training on functional performance in older adults. Journal of strength and conditioning research/National Strength & Conditioning Association, 19(3), 652.[PubMed]
  207. Kamen, G., & Knight, C. A. (2004). Training-related adaptations in motor unit discharge rate in young and older adults. The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences, 59(12), 1334.[PubMed]
  208. Kanehisa, H., Ikegawa, S., & Fukunaga, T. (1998). Body composition and cross‐sectional areas of limb lean tissues in Olympic weight lifters. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 8(5), 271-278. [PubMed]
  209. Kanosue, K., Yoshida, M., Akazawa, K., & Fujii, K. (1979). The number of active motor units and their firing rates in voluntary contraction of human brachialis muscle. The Japanese journal of physiology, 29(4), 427.[PubMed]
  210. Keeler, L. K., Finkelstein, L. H., Miller, W., & Fernhall, B. (2001). Early-phase adaptations of traditional-speed vs. superslow resistance training on strength and aerobic capacity in sedentary individuals. The Journal of strength and conditioning research, 15(3), 309-314 [PubMed]
  211. Kemmler, W. K., Lauber, D., Engelke, K., & Weineck, J. (2004). Effects of single-vs. multiple-set resistance training on maximum strength and body composition in trained postmenopausal women. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 18(4), 689.[PubMed]
  212. Kiely, J. (2012). Periodization paradigms in the 21st century: evidence-led or tradition-driven. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 7(3), 242-250 [PubMed]
  213. Kim, Y. S., Park, J., Hsu, J., Cho, K. K., Kim, Y. H., & Shim, J. K. (2010). Effects of training frequency on lumbar extension strength in patients recovering from lumbar discectomy. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 42(9), 839-845.[PubMed]
  214. Kim, S. Y., Ko, J. B., Farthing, J. P., & Butcher, S. J. (2014). Investigation of supraspinatus muscle architecture following concentric and eccentric training. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. [PubMed]
  215. Kitai, T. A., & Sale, D. G. (1989). Specificity of joint angle in isometric training. European journal of applied physiology and occupational physiology, 58(7), 744-748.[PubMed]
  216. Knight, C. A., & Kamen, G. (2001). Adaptations in muscular activation of the knee extensor muscles with strength training in young and older adults. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 11(6), 405-412.[PubMed]
  217. Kok, L. Y., Hamer, P. W., & Bishop, D. J. (2009). Enhancing muscular qualities in untrained women: linear versus undulating periodization. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 41(9), 1797-1807 [PubMed]
  218. Komi, P. V., & Buskirk, E. R. (1972). Effect of Eccentric and Concentric Muscle Conditioning on Tension and Electrical Activity of Human Muscle. Ergonomics, 15(4), 417-434 [PubMed]
  219. Kosek, D. J., & Bamman, M. M. (2008). Modulation of the dystrophin-associated protein complex in response to resistance training in young and older men. Journal of Applied Physiology, 104(5), 1476-1484.[PubMed]
  220. Kraemer, W. J., Adams, K., Cafarelli, E., Dudley, G. A., Dooly, C., Feigenbaum, M. S., & Triplett-McBride, T. (2002). American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 34(2), 364-380.[PubMed]
  221. Kramer, J. B., Stone, M. H., O’Bryant, H. S., Conley, M. S., Johnson, R. L., Nieman, D. C., & Hoke, T. P. (1997). Effects of single vs. multiple sets of weight training: impact of volume, intensity, and variation. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 11(3), 143-147.[Citation]
  222. Krieger, J. W. (2009). Single versus multiple sets of resistance exercise: A meta-regression. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23(6), 1890-1901.[PubMed]
  223. Kukulka, C. G., & Clamann, H. P. (1981). Comparison of the recruitment and discharge properties of motor units in human brachial biceps and adductor pollicis during isometric contractions. Brain research, 219(1), 45-55.[PubMed]
  224. Kyröläinen, H., Avela, J., McBride, J. M., Koskinen, S., Andersen, J. L., Sipilä, S., & Komi, P. V. (2005). Effects of power training on muscle structure and neuromuscular performance. Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports, 15(1), 58-64.[PubMed]
  225. Lawrence, J. H., & De Luca, C. J. (1983). Myoelectric signal versus force relationship in different human muscles. Journal of Applied Physiology: Respiratory, Environmental and Exercise Physiology, 54(6), 1653-1659.[PubMed]
  226. Lawton, T., Cronin, J., Drinkwater, E., Lindsell, R., & Pyne, D. (2004). The effect of continuous repetition training and intra-set rest training on bench press strength and power. The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 44(4), 361.[PubMed]
  227. Lee, M., Gandevia, S. C., & Carroll, T. J. (2009). Short-term strength training does not change cortical voluntary activation. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 41(7), 1452.[PubMed]
  228. Loeb, G. E. (2012). Optimal isn’t good enough. Biological cybernetics, 106(11-12), 757.[PubMed]
  229. Léger, B., Cartoni, R., Praz, M., Lamon, S., Dériaz, O., Crettenand, A., & Russell, A. P. (2006). Akt signalling through GSK-3β, mTOR and Foxo1 is involved in human skeletal muscle hypertrophy and atrophy. The Journal of physiology, 576(3), 923-933 [PubMed]
  230. Lexell, J., Henriksson‐Larsén, K., Winblad, B., & Sjöström, M. (1983). Distribution of different fiber types in human skeletal muscles: effects of aging studied in whole muscle cross sections. Muscle & Nerve, 6(8), 588-595.[PubMed]]
  231. Lieber, R. L., & Ward, S. R. (2011). Skeletal muscle design to meet functional demands. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366(1570), 1466-1476.[PubMed]
  232. Liow, D. K., & Hopkins, W. G. (2003). Velocity specificity of weight training for kayak sprint performance. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 35(7), 1232-1237.[PubMed]
  233. Maeo, S., Yoshitake, Y., Takai, Y., Fukunaga, T., & Kanehisa, H. (2013). Effect of short-term maximal voluntary co-contraction training on neuromuscular function. International journal of sports medicine, 35(02), 125-134.[PubMed]
  234. Maeo, S., Takahashi, T., Takai, Y., & Kanehisa, H. (2013a). Trainability of muscular activity level during maximal voluntary co-contraction: comparison between bodybuilders and nonathletes. PloS one, 8(11), e79486.[PubMed]
  235. Maeo, S., Yoshitake, Y., Takai, Y., Fukunaga, T., & Kanehisa, H. (2014). Neuromuscular adaptations following 12-week maximal voluntary co-contraction training. European journal of applied physiology, 114(4), 663-673.[PubMed]
  236. Macaluso, A., Nimmo, M. A., Foster, J. E., Cockburn, M., McMillan, N. C., & De Vito, G. (2002). Contractile muscle volume and agonist-antagonist coactivation account for differences in torque between young and older women. Muscle & nerve, 25(6), 858.[PubMed]
  237. Maganaris, C. N., Baltzopoulos, V., Ball, D., & Sargeant, A. J. (2001). In vivo specific tension of human skeletal muscle. Journal of applied physiology, 90(3), 865-872.[PubMed]
  238. Manini, T. M., & Clark, B. C. (2011). Dynapenia and aging: an update. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, glr010.[PubMed]
  239. Mannheimer, J. S. (1969). A comparison of strength gain between concentric and eccentric contractions. Physical therapy, 49(11), 1201-1207.[PubMed]
  240. Manning, R. J., Graves, J. E., Carpenter, D. M., Leggett, S. H., & Pollock, M. L. (1990). Constant vs variable resistance knee extension training. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 22(3), 397-401.[PubMed]
  241. Marcus, R. L., Addison, O., Kidde, J. P., Dibble, L. E., & Lastayo, P. C. (2010). Skeletal muscle fat infiltration: impact of age, inactivity, and exercise. The journal of nutrition, health & aging, 14(5), 362-366.[PubMed]
  242. Markovic, G., & Mikulic, P. (2010). Neuro-musculoskeletal and performance adaptations to lower-extremity plyometric training. Sports medicine (Auckland, NZ), 40(10), 859.[PubMed]
  243. Mars, G. D., Thomis, M. A., Windelinckx, A., Leemputte, M. V., Maes, H. H., Blimkie, C. J., & Beunen, G. (2007). Covariance of isometric and dynamic arm contractions: multivariate genetic analysis. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 10(01), 180-190.[PubMed]
  244. Marshall, P. W. M., McEwen, M., & Robbins, D. W. (2011). Strength and neuromuscular adaptation following one, four, and eight sets of high intensity resistance exercise in trained males. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 111(12), 3007-3016.[PubMed]
  245. Masakado, Y. (1994). Motor unit firing behavior in man. The Keio journal of medicine, 43(3), 137-142.[PubMed]
  246. Massey, C. D., Vincent, J., Maneval, M., Moore, M., & Johnson, J. T. (2004). An analysis of full range of motion vs. partial range of motion training in the development of strength in untrained men. The Journal of strength & conditioning research, 18(3), 518.[PubMed]
  247. Massey, C. D., Vincent, J., Maneval, M., & Johnson, J. T. (2005). Influence of range of motion in resistance training in women: early phase adaptations. Journal of strength & conditioning research, 19(2), 409.[PubMed]
  248. Maughan, R. J., Watson, J. S., & Weir, J. (1983). Strength and cross-sectional area of human skeletal muscle. The Journal of Physiology, 338, 37.[PubMed]
  249. Maughan, R. J., Watson, J. S., & Weir, J. (1983a). Relationships between muscle strength and muscle cross-sectional area in male sprinters and endurance runners. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 50(3), 309-318.[PubMed]
  250. Maughan, R. J., & Nimmo, M. A. (1984). The influence of variations in muscle fibre composition on muscle strength and cross‐sectional area in untrained males. The Journal of physiology, 351(1), 299-311.[PubMed]
  251. Marzolini, S., Oh, P. I., Thomas, S. G., & Goodman, J. M. (2008). Aerobic and resistance training in coronary disease: single versus multiple sets. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 40(9), 1557 [PubMed]
  252. Matta, T. T., Nascimento, F. X., Fernandes, I. A., & Oliveira, L. F. (2014). Heterogeneity of rectus femoris muscle architectural adaptations after two different 14‐week resistance training programmes. Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging.[PubMed]
  253. Mayhew, T. P., Rothstein, J. M., Finucane, S. D., & Lamb, R. L. (1995). Muscular adaptation to concentric and eccentric exercise at equal power levels. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 27(6), 868-873 [PubMed]
  254. McBride, J. M., Blaak, J. B., & Triplett-McBride, T. (2003). Effect of resistance exercise volume and complexity on EMG, strength, and regional body composition. European journal of applied physiology, 90(5-6), 626-632 [PubMed]
  255. McCurdy, K., Langford, G., Ernest, J., Jenkerson, D., & Doscher, M. (2009). Comparison of chain-and plate-loaded bench press training on strength, joint pain, and muscle soreness in Division II baseball players. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23(1), 187-195.[PubMed]
  256. McDonagh, M. J. N., & Davies, C. T. M. (1984). Adaptive response of mammalian skeletal muscle to exercise with high loads. European journal of applied physiology and occupational physiology, 52(2), 139-155. [PubMed]
  257. McGlory, C., & Phillips, S. M. (2014). Assessing the regulation of skeletal muscle plasticity in response to protein ingestion and resistance exercise: recent developments. Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care, 17(5), 412-417.[Citation]
  258. McKenzie Gillam, G. (1981). Effects of frequency of weight training on muscle strength enhancement. The Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness, 21(4), 432.[PubMed]
  259. McLester, J. R., Bishop, E., & Guilliams, M. E. (2000). Comparison of 1 day and 3 days per week of equal-volume resistance training in experienced subjects. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 14(3), 273-281 [Citation]
  260. McMahon, G. E., Morse, C. I., Burden, A., Winwood, K., & Onambélé, G. L. (2014). Impact of Range of Motion During Ecologically Valid Resistance Training Protocols on Muscle Size, Subcutaneous Fat, and Strength. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 28(1), 245-255 [PubMed]
  261. McMaster, D. T., Cronin, J., & McGuigan, M. (2009). Forms of variable resistance training. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 31(1), 50-64.[Citation]
  262. Miller, B. F., Olesen, J. L., Hansen, M., Døssing, S., Crameri, R. M., Welling, R. J., … & Rennie, M. J. (2005). Coordinated collagen and muscle protein synthesis in human patella tendon and quadriceps muscle after exercise. The Journal of Physiology, 567(Pt 3), 1021.[PubMed]
  263. Miller, L. E., Pierson, L. M., Nickols-Richardson, S. M., Wootten, D. F., Selmon, S. E., Ramp, W. K., & Herbert, W. G. (2006). Knee extensor and flexor torque development with concentric and eccentric isokinetic training. Research quarterly for exercise and sport, 77(1), 58.[PubMed]
  264. Miranda, H., Simão, R., Moreira, L. M., de Souza, R. A., de Souza, J. A. A., de Salles, B. F., & Willardson, J. M. (2009). Effect of rest interval length on the volume completed during upper body resistance exercise. Journal of sports science & medicine, 8(3), 388.[PubMed]
  265. Miranda, F., Simão, R., Rhea, M., Bunker, D., Prestes, J., Leite, R. D., … & Novaes, J. (2011). Effects of linear vs. daily undulatory periodized resistance training on maximal and submaximal strength gains. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 25(7), 1824-1830.[PubMed]
  266. Mitchell, W. K., Williams, J., Atherton, P., Larvin, M., Lund, J., & Narici, M. (2012). Sarcopenia, dynapenia, and the impact of advancing age on human skeletal muscle size and strength; a quantitative review. Frontiers in physiology, 3.[PubMed]
  267. Mitchell, C. J., Churchward-Venne, T. A., West, D. W., Burd, N. A., Breen, L., Baker, S. K., & Phillips, S. M. (2012). Resistance exercise load does not determine training-mediated hypertrophic gains in young men. Journal of applied physiology, 113(1), 71-77 [PubMed]
  268. Mitchell, C. J., Churchward-Venne, T. A., Bellamy, L., Parise, G., Baker, S. K., & Phillips, S. M. (2013). Muscular and systemic correlates of resistance training-induced muscle hypertrophy. PloS one, 8(10), e78636 [PubMed]
  269. Miyamoto, N., Wakahara, T., Ema, R., & Kawakami, Y. (2013). Non‐uniform muscle oxygenation despite uniform neuromuscular activity within the vastus lateralis during fatiguing heavy resistance exercise. Clinical physiology and functional imaging, 33(6), 463-469.[PubMed]
  270. Mohan, V., & Morasso, P. (2011). Passive motion paradigm: an alternative to optimal control. Frontiers in neurorobotics, 5.[PubMed]
  271. Moir, G. L., Erny, K. F., Davis, S. E., Guers, J. J., & Witmer, C. A. (2013). The Development of a Repetition-Load Scheme for the Eccentric-Only Bench Press Exercise. Journal of human kinetics, 38, 23-31 [PubMed]
  272. Moore, D. R., Young, M., & Phillips, S. M. (2012). Similar increases in muscle size and strength in young men after training with maximal shortening or lengthening contractions when matched for total work. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 112(4), 1587-1592.[PubMed]
  273. Monteiro, A. G., Aoki, M. S., Evangelista, A. L., Alveno, D. A., Monteiro, G. A., da Cruz Piçarro, I., & Ugrinowitsch, C. (2009). Nonlinear periodization maximizes strength gains in split resistance training routines. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23(4), 1321-1326 [PubMed]
  274. Moore, D. R., Phillips, S. M., Babraj, J. A., Smith, K., & Rennie, M. J. (2005). Myofibrillar and collagen protein synthesis in human skeletal muscle in young men after maximal shortening and lengthening contractions. American journal of physiology. Endocrinology and metabolism, 288(6), E1153.[PubMed]
  275. Moraes, E., Fleck, S. J., Dias, M. R., & Simão, R. (2013). Effects on Strength, Power, and Flexibility in Adolescents of Nonperiodized Vs. Daily Nonlinear Periodized Weight Training. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 27(12), 3310-3321.[PubMed]
  276. Moraes, E., Alves, H. B., Teixeira, A. L., Dias, M. R., Miranda, H., & Simão, R. (2014). Relationship between Repetitions and Selected Percentage of One Repetition Maximum in Trained and Untrained Adolescent Subjects. Journal of Exercise Physiology Online, 17(2) [Citation]
  277. Morrissey, M. C., Harman, E. A., Frykman, P. N., & Han, K. H. (1998). Early phase differential effects of slow and fast barbell squat training. The American journal of sports medicine, 26(2), 221-230.[PubMed]
  278. Morrissey, M. C., Harman, E. A., & Johnson, M. J. (1995). Resistance training modes: specificity and effectiveness. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 27(5), 648-660.[PubMed]
  279. Moss, B. M., Refsnes, P. E., Abildgaard, A., Nicolaysen, K., & Jensen, J. (1997). Effects of maximal effort strength training with different loads on dynamic strength, cross-sectional area, load-power and load-velocity relationships. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 75(3), 193-199.[PubMed]
  280. Munn, J., Herbert, R. D., & Gandevia, S. C. (2004). Contralateral effects of unilateral resistance training: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Physiology, 96(5), 1861-1866.[PubMed]
  281. Munn, J., Herbert, R. D., Hancock, M. J., & Gandevia, S. C. (2005). Resistance training for strength: effect of number of sets and contraction speed. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 37(9), 1622 [PubMed]
  282. Naclerio, F., Faigenbaum, A. D., Larumbe-Zabala, E., Perez-Bibao, T., Kang, J., Ratamess, N. A., & Triplett, N. T. (2013). Effects of different resistance training volumes on strength and power in team sport athletes. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 27(7), 1832-1840.[PubMed]
  283. Narici, M. V., Binzoni, T., Hiltbrand, E., Fasel, J., Terrier, F., & Cerretelli, P. (1996). In vivo human gastrocnemius architecture with changing joint angle at rest and during graded isometric contraction. The Journal of Physiology, 496(1), 287-297.[PubMed]
  284. Neils, C. M., Udermann, B. E., Brice, G. A., Winchester, J. B., & McGuigan, M. R. (2005). Influence of contraction velocity in untrained individuals over the initial early phase of resistance training. The Journal of strength and conditioning research, 19(4), 883 [PubMed]
  285. Nickols-Richardson, S. M., Miller, L. E., Wootten, D. F., Ramp, W. K., & Herbert, W. G. (2007). Concentric and eccentric isokinetic resistance training similarly increases muscular strength, fat-free soft tissue mass, and specific bone mineral measurements in young women. Osteoporosis international, 18(6), 789-796 [PubMed]
  286. Nuzzo, J. L., & McBride, J. M. (2013). The effect of loading and unloading on muscle activity during the jump squat. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 27(7), 1758-1764.[PubMed]
  287. O’Brien, T. D., Reeves, N. D., Baltzopoulos, V., Jones, D. A., & Maganaris, C. N. (2010). In vivo measurements of muscle specific tension in adults and children. Experimental physiology, 95(1), 202-210.[PubMed]
  288. O’Bryan, S. J., Brown, N. A., Billaut, F., & Rouffet, D. M. (2014). Changes in muscle coordination and power output during sprint cycling. Neuroscience letters, 576, 11-16.[PubMed]
  289. O’Bryant, H. S., Byrd, R., & Stone, M. H. (1988). Cycle ergometer performance and maximum leg and hip strength adaptations to two different methods of weight-training. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 2(2), 27-30.[Citation]
  290. Ogasawara, R., Loenneke, J. P., Thiebaud, R. S., & Abe, T. (2013). Low-load bench press training to fatigue results in muscle hypertrophy similar to high-load bench press training. International Journal of Clinical Medicine, 4(02), 114 [Citation]
  291. Ogborn, D., & Schoenfeld, B. J. (2014). The Role of Fiber Types in Muscle Hypertrophy: Implications for Loading Strategies. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 36(2), 20-25.[Citation]
  292. O’Hagan, F. T., Sale, D. G., MacDougall, J. D., & Garner, S. H. (1995). Comparative effectiveness of accommodating and weight resistance training modes. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 27(8), 1210-1219.[PubMed]
  293. Oliver, J. M., Jagim, A. R., Sanchez, A. C., Mardock, M. A., Kelly, K. A., Meredith, H. J., & Kreider, R. B. (2013). Greater Gains in Strength and Power With Intraset Rest Intervals in Hypertrophic Training. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 27(11), 3116-3131.[PubMed]
  294. O’Shea, P. (1966). Effects of selected weight training programs on the development of strength and muscle hypertrophy. Research Quarterly. American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 37(1), 95-102.[Citation]
  295. Ostrowski, K. J., Wilson, G. J., Weatherby, R., Murphy, P. W., & Lyttle, A. D. (1997). The effect of weight training volume on hormonal output and muscular size and function. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 11(3), 148-154 [Citation]
  296. Otto, R. M., & Carpinelli, R. N. (2006). A critical analysis of the single versus multiple set debate. Journal of Exercise Physiology Online, 9(1), 32-57.[Citation]
  297. Ozaki, H., Loenneke, J. P., Thiebaud, R. S., Stager, J. M., & Abe, T. (2013). Possibility of leg muscle hypertrophy by ambulation in older adults: a brief review. Clinical interventions in aging, 8, 369.[PubMed]
  298. Painter, K. B., Haff, G. G., Ramsey, M. W., McBride, J., Triplett, T., Sands, W. A., & Stone, M. H. (2012). Strength gains: block versus daily undulating periodization weight training among track and field athletes. International journal of sports physiology and performance, 7(2), 161.[PubMed]
  299. Pansarasa, O., Rinaldi, C., Parente, V., Miotti, D., Capodaglio, P., & Bottinelli, R. (2009). Resistance training of long duration modulates force and unloaded shortening velocity of single muscle fibres of young women. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 19(5), e290-e300.[PubMed]
  300. Pardo, J. V., Siliciano, J. D., & Craig, S. W. (1983). A vinculin-containing cortical lattice in skeletal muscle: transverse lattice elements (” costameres”) mark sites of attachment between myofibrils and sarcolemma. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 80(4), 1008-1012.[PubMed]
  301. Parente, V., D’Antona, G., Adami, R., Miotti, D., Capodaglio, P., De Vito, G., & Bottinelli, R. (2008). Long-term resistance training improves force and unloaded shortening velocity of single muscle fibres of elderly women. European journal of applied physiology, 104(5), 885-893.[PubMed]
  302. Patten, C., Kamen, G., & Rowland, D. M. (2001). Adaptations in maximal motor unit discharge rate to strength training in young and older adults. Muscle & nerve, 24(4), 542-550.[PubMed]
  303. Paulsen, G., Myklestad, D., & Raastad, T. (2003). The influence of volume of exercise on early adaptations to strength training. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 17(1), 115-120.[PubMed]
  304. Pavone, E., & Moffat, M. (1985). Isometric torque of the quadriceps femoris after concentric, eccentric and isometric training. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 66(3), 168-170.[PubMed]
  305. Pearson, D. R., & Costill, D. L. (1988). The Effects of Constant External Resistance Exercise and Isokinetic Exercise Training on Work-induced Hypertrophy. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 2(3), 39-41.[Citation]
  306. Penman, K. A. (1970). Human striated muscle ultrastructural changes accompanying increased strength without hypertrophy. Research Quarterly. American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 41(3), 418-424.[Citation]
  307. Pereira, M. I. R., & Gomes, P. S. C. (2007). Effects of isotonic resistance training at two movement velocities on strength gains. Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Esporte, 13(2), 91-96.[Citation]
  308. Peterson, M. D., Rhea, M. R., & Alvar, B. A. (2004). Maximizing strength development in athletes: a meta-analysis to determine the dose-response relationship. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 18(2), 377-382.[PubMed]
  309. Peterson, M. D., Rhea, M. R., & Alvar, B. A. (2005). Applications of the dose-response for muscular strength development: a review of meta-analytic efficacy and reliability for designing training prescription. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 19(4), 950-958.[PubMed]
  310. Phillips, S. M. (2000). Short-term training: when do repeated bouts of resistance exercise become training?. Canadian journal of applied physiology, 25(3), 185-193.[PubMed]
  311. Pincivero, D. M., Lephart, S. M., & Karunakara, R. G. (1997). Effects of rest interval on isokinetic strength and functional performance after short-term high intensity training. British journal of sports medicine, 31(3), 229-234.[PubMed]
  312. Pincivero, D. M., & Campy, R. M. (2004). The effects of rest interval length and training on quadriceps femoris muscle. Part I: knee extensor torque and muscle fatigue. The Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness, 44(2), 111-118.[PubMed]
  313. Pinto, R. S., Gomes, N., Radaelli, R., Botton, C. E., Brown, L. E., & Bottaro, M. (2012). Effect of range of motion on muscle strength and thickness. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 26(8), 2140-2145 [PubMed]
  314. Pipes, T. V., & Wilmore, J. H. (1974). Isokinetic vs isotonic strength training in adult men. Medicine & Science in Sports, 7(4), 262-274.[PubMed]
  315. Pipes, T. V. (1978). Variable resistance versus constant resistance strength training in adult males. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 39(1), 27-35.[PubMed]
  316. Pollock, M. L., Graves, J. E., Bamman, M. M., & Leggett, H. (1993). Frequency and Volume of Resistance Training: Effect on cervical extension strength. Archives of Physical Medicine Rehabilitation, 74.[PubMed]
  317. Popov, D. V., Swirkun, D. V., Netreba, A. I., Tarasova, O. S., Prostova, A. B., Larina, I. M., & Vinogradova, O. L. (2006). Hormonal adaptation determines the increase in muscle mass and strength during low-intensity strength training without relaxation. Human Physiology, 32(5), 609-614 [PubMed]
  318. Prestes, J., De Lima, C., Frollini, A. B., Donatto, F. F., & Conte, M. (2009). Comparison of linear and reverse linear periodization effects on maximal strength and body composition. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23(1), 266-274 [PubMed]
  319. Prestes, J., Frollini, A. B., de Lima, C., Donatto, F. F., Foschini, D., de Cássia Marqueti, R., & Fleck, S. J. (2009a). Comparison between linear and daily undulating periodized resistance training to increase strength. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23(9), 2437-2442 [PubMed]
  320. Prilutsky, B. I. (2000). Coordination of two-and one-joint muscles: functional consequences and implications for motor control. Motor control, 4(1), 1-44.[PubMed]
  321. Prilutsky, B. I., & Zatsiorsky, V. M. (2002). Optimization-based models of muscle coordination. Exercise and sport sciences reviews, 30(1), 32.[PubMed]
  322. Pruitt, L. A., Taaffe, D. R., & Marcus, R. (1995). Effects of a one‐year high‐intensity versus low‐intensity resistance training program on bone mineral density in older women. Journal of bone and mineral research, 10(11), 1788-1795.[PubMed]
  323. Pucci, A. R., Griffin, L., & Cafarelli, E. (2006). Maximal motor unit firing rates during isometric resistance training in men. Experimental physiology, 91(1), 171-178.[PubMed]
  324. Radaelli, R., Botton, C. E., Wilhelm, E. N., Bottaro, M., Lacerda, F., Gaya, A., & Pinto, R. S. (2013). Low-and high-volume strength training induces similar neuromuscular improvements in muscle quality in elderly women. Experimental Gerontology, 48(8), 710-716 [PubMed]
  325. Radaelli, R., Botton, C. E., Wilhelm, E. N., Bottaro, M., Brown, L. E., Lacerda, F., & Pinto, R. S. (2014). Time course of low-and high-volume strength training on neuromuscular adaptations and muscle quality in older women. Age, 36(2), 881-892.[PubMed]
  326. Radaelli, R., Wilhelm, E. N., Botton, C. E., Rech, A., Bottaro, M., Brown, L. E., & Pinto, R. S. (2014a). Effects of single vs. multiple-set short-term strength training in elderly women. Age, 36(6), 1-11.[PubMed]
  327. Radaelli, R., Fleck, S. J., Leite, T., Leite, R. D., Pinto, R. S., Fernandes, L., & Simão, R. (2014b). Dose Response of 1, 3 and 5 Sets of Resistance Exercise on Strength, Local Muscular Endurance and Hypertrophy. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.[PubMed]
  328. Ramaswamy, K. S., Palmer, M. L., van der Meulen, J. H., Renoux, A., Kostrominova, T. Y., Michele, D. E., & Faulkner, J. A. (2011). Lateral transmission of force is impaired in skeletal muscles of dystrophic mice and very old rats. The Journal of physiology, 589(5), 1195-1208.[PubMed]
  329. Rana, S. R., Chleboun, G. S., Gilders, R. M., Hagerman, F. C., Herman, J. R., Hikida, R. S., & Toma, K. (2008). Comparison of early phase adaptations for traditional strength and endurance, and low velocity resistance training programs in college-aged women. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 22(1), 119-127.[PubMed]
  330. Ranganathan, V. K., Siemionow, V., Liu, J. Z., Sahgal, V., & Yue, G. H. (2004). From mental power to muscle power–gaining strength by using the mind. Neuropsychologia, 42(7), 944.[PubMed]
  331. Raue, U., Terpstra, B., Williamson, D. L., Gallagher, P. M., & Trappe, S. W. (2005). Effects of short-term concentric vs. eccentric resistance training on single muscle fiber MHC distribution in humans. International journal of sports medicine, 26(5), 339-343.[PubMed]
  332. Reeves, N. D., Narici, M. V., & Maganaris, C. N. (2004). Effect of resistance training on skeletal muscle-specific force in elderly humans. Journal of applied physiology, 96(3), 885-92.[PubMed]
  333. Reeves, N. D., Maganaris, C. N., Longo, S., & Narici, M. V. (2009). Differential adaptations to eccentric versus conventional resistance training in older humans. Experimental physiology, 94(7), 825-833 [PubMed]
  334. Reid, K. F., Martin, K. I., Doros, G., Clark, D. J., Hau, C., Patten, C., & Fielding, R. A. (2014). Comparative Effects of Light or Heavy Resistance Power Training for Improving Lower Extremity Power and Physical Performance in Mobility-Limited Older Adults. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, glu156[Citation]
  335. Reiser, M., Büsch, D., & Munzert, J. (2011). Strength gains by motor imagery with different ratios of physical to mental practice. Frontiers in psychology, 2.[PubMed]
  336. Rhea, M. R., Alvar, B. A., Ball, S. D., & Burkett, L. N. (2002). Three sets of weight training superior to 1 set with equal intensity for eliciting strength. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 16(4), 525 [PubMed]
  337. Rhea, M. R., Ball, S. D., Phillips, W. T., & Burkett, L. N. (2002a). A comparison of linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume and intensity for strength. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 16(2), 250-255.[PubMed]
  338. Rhea, M. R., Alvar, B. A., Burkett, L. N., & Ball, S. D. (2003). A meta-analysis to determine the dose response for strength development. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 35(3), 456-464.[PubMed]
  339. Rhea, M. R., Phillips, W. T., Burkett, L. N., Stone, W. J., Ball, S. D., Alvar, B. A., & Thomas, A. B. (2003a). A comparison of linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume and intensity for local muscular endurance. The Journal of strength & conditioning research, 17(1), 82-87.[PubMed]
  340. Rich, C., & Cafarelli, E. (2000). Submaximal motor unit firing rates after 8 wk of isometric resistance training. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 32(1), 190.[PubMed]
  341. Riley, D. A., Bain, J. L., Thompson, J. L., Fitts, R. H., Widrick, J. J., Trappe, S. W., & Costill, D. L. (1998). Disproportionate loss of thin filaments in human soleus muscle after 17‐day bed rest. Muscle & nerve, 21(10), 1280-1289.[PubMed]
  342. Riley, D. A., Bain, J. L. W., Romatowski, J. G., & Fitts, R. H. (2005). Skeletal muscle fiber atrophy: altered thin filament density changes slow fiber force and shortening velocity. American Journal of Physiology-Cell Physiology, 288(2), C360-C365.[PubMed]
  343. Robinson, J. M., Stone, M. H., Johnson, R. L., Penland, C. M., Warren, B. J., & Lewis, R. D. (1995). Effects of Different Weight Training Exercise/Rest Intervals on Strength, Power, and High Intensity Exercise Endurance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 9(4), 216-221.[Citation]
  344. Roig, M., O’Brien, K., Kirk, G., Murray, R., McKinnon, P., Shadgan, B., & Reid, W. D. (2009). The effects of eccentric versus concentric resistance training on muscle strength and mass in healthy adults: a systematic review with meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 43, 556-568.[PubMed]
  345. Rønnestad, B. R., Egeland, W., Kvamme, N. H., Refsnes, P. E., Kadi, F., & Raastad, T. (2007). Dissimilar effects of one-and three-set strength training on strength and muscle mass gains in upper and lower body in untrained subjects. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 21(1), 157-163 [PubMed]
  346. Rooney, K. J., Herbert, R. D., & Balnave, R. J. (1994). Fatigue contributes to the strength training stimulus. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 26(9), 1160-1164.[PubMed]
  347. Rozier, C. K., & Schafer, D. S. (1981). Isokinetic strength training: comparison of daily and three times weekly patterns. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 4(3), 345-352.[PubMed]
  348. Rutherford, O. M., & Jones, D. A. (1986). The role of learning and coordination in strength training. European journal of applied physiology and occupational physiology, 55(1), 100-105.[PubMed]
  349. Rutherford, O. M. (1988). Muscular coordination and strength training. Sports Medicine, 5(3), 196-202.[PubMed]
  350. Rutherford, O. M., Purcell, C., & Newham, D. J. (2001). The human force: velocity relationship; activity in the knee flexor and extensor muscles before and after eccentric practice. European journal of applied physiology, 84(1-2), 133-140.[PubMed]
  351. Sale, D. G., MacDougall, J. D., Alway, S. E., & Sutton, J. R. (1987). Voluntary strength and muscle characteristics in untrained men and women and male bodybuilders. Journal of Applied Physiology, 62(5), 1786-1793.[PubMed]
  352. Sale, D. G., Martin, J. E., & Moroz, D. E. (1992). Hypertrophy without increased isometric strength after weight training. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 64(1), 51-55.[PubMed]
  353. Schantz, P., Randall-Fox, E., Hutchison, W., Tydén, A., & Astrand, P. O. (1983). Muscle fibre type distribution, muscle cross-sectional area and maximal voluntary strength in humans. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica, 117(2), 219.[PubMed]
  354. Schilling, B. K., Fry, A. C., Chiu, L. Z., & Weiss, L. W. (2005). Myosin heavy chain isoform expression and in vivo isometric performance: a regression model. Journal of strength and conditioning research/National Strength & Conditioning Association, 19(2), 270.[PubMed]
  355. Schilling, B. K., Fry, A. C., Weiss, L. W., & Chiu, L. Z. (2005a). Myosin heavy chain isoform expression: influence on isoinertial and isometric performance. Research in sports medicine (Print), 13(4), 301.[PubMed]
  356. Schiotz, M. K., Potteiger, J. A., Huntsinger, P. G., & Denmark, L. C. D. C. (1998). The short-term effects of periodized and constant-intensity training on body composition, strength, and performance. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 12(3), 173-178.[Citation]
  357. Schlumberger, A., Stec, J., & Schmidtbleicher, D. (2001). Single-vs. multiple-set strength training in women. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 15(3), 284-289.[PubMed]
  358. Schmidtbleicher, D., & Haralambie, G. (1981). Changes in contractile properties of muscle after strength training in man. European journal of applied physiology and occupational physiology, 46(3), 221-228.[PubMed]
  359. Schuenke, M. D., Herman, J. R., Gliders, R. M., Hagerman, F. C., Hikida, R. S., Rana, S. R., & Staron, R. S. (2012). Early-phase muscular adaptations in response to slow-speed versus traditional resistance-training regimens. European journal of applied physiology, 112(10), 3585-3595 [PubMed]
  360. Schuenke, M. D., Herman, J., & Staron, R. S. (2013). Preponderance of evidence proves “big” weights optimize hypertrophic and strength adaptations. European journal of applied physiology, 1-3.[PubMed]
  361. Schoenfeld, B. J. (2010). The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their application to resistance training. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 24(10), 2857-2872.[PubMed]
  362. Schoenfeld, B. J., Contreras, B., Willardson, J. M., Fontana, F., & Tiryaki-Sonmez, G. (2014). Muscle activation during low-versus high-load resistance training in well-trained men. European journal of applied physiology, 114(12), 2491-2497 [PubMed]
  363. Schoenfeld, B. J., Ratamess, N. A., Peterson, M. D., Contreras, B., Sonmez, G. T., & Alvar, B. A. (2014a). Effects of different volume-equated resistance training loading strategies on muscular adaptations in well-trained men. Journal of strength and conditioning research, 28(10), 2909.[PubMed]
  364. Schoenfeld, B. J., Wilson, J. M., Lowery, R. P., & Krieger, J. W. (2014). Muscular adaptations in low-versus high-load resistance training: A meta-analysis. European journal of sport science, (ahead-of-print), 1-10.[PubMed]
  365. Schott, J., McCully, K., & Rutherford, O. M. (1995). The role of metabolites in strength training. European journal of applied physiology and occupational physiology, 71(4), 337-341 [PubMed]
  366. Scott, W., Stevens, J., & Binder–Macleod, S. A. (2001). Human skeletal muscle fiber type classifications. Physical therapy, 81(11), 1810-1816.[PubMed]
  367. Seger, J. Y., Arvidsson, B., Thorstensson, A., & Seger, J. Y. (1998). Specific effects of eccentric and concentric training on muscle strength and morphology in humans. European journal of applied physiology and occupational physiology, 79(1), 49-57 [PubMed]
  368. Seger, J. Y., & Thorstensson, A. (2005). Effects of eccentric versus concentric training on thigh muscle strength and EMG. International journal of sports medicine, 26(01), 45-52.[PubMed]
  369. Sekiguchi, H., Nakazawa, K., & Hortobágyi, T. (2013). Neural control of muscle lengthening: Task-and muscle-specificity. The Journal of Physical Fitness and Sports Medicine, 2(2), 191-201.[Citation]
  370. Seliger, V., Dolejš, L., Karas, V., & Pachlopnikova, I. (1968). Adaptation of trained athletes’ energy expenditure to repeated concentric and eccentric muscle contractions. Internationale Zeitschrift für angewandte Physiologie einschließlich Arbeitsphysiologie, 26(3), 227-234.[PubMed]
  371. Senna, G., Salles, B. F., Prestes, J., Mello, R. A., & Roberto, S. (2009). Influence of two different rest interval lengths in resistance training sessions for upper and lower body. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 8(2), 197.[PubMed]
  372. Senna, G., Willardson, J. M., de Salles, B. F., Scudese, E., Carneiro, F., Palma, A., & Simão, R. (2011). The effect of rest interval length on multi and single-joint exercise performance and perceived exertion. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 25(11), 3157-3162.[PubMed]
  373. Seynnes, O., Singh, M. A. F., Hue, O., Pras, P., Legros, P., & Bernard, P. L. (2004). Physiological and functional responses to low-moderate versus high-intensity progressive resistance training in frail elders. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 59(5), M503-M509.[PubMed]
  374. Shield, A., & Zhou, S. (2004). Assessing voluntary muscle activation with the twitch interpolation technique. Sports Medicine, 34(4), 253-267.[PubMed]
  375. Shimano, T., Kraemer, W. J., Spiering, B. A., Volek, J. S., Hatfield, D. L., Silvestre, R., & Häkkinen, K. (2006). Relationship between the number of repetitions and selected percentages of one repetition maximum in free weight exercises in trained and untrained men. The Journal of strength and conditioning research, 20(4), 819-823 [PubMed]
  376. Shoepe, T., Ramirez, D., Rovetti, R., Kohler, D., & Almstedt, H. (2011). The effects of 24 weeks of resistance training with simultaneous elastic and free weight loading on muscular performance of novice lifters. Journal of human kinetics, 29, 93-106.[PubMed]
  377. Sidaway, B., & Trzaska, A. R. (2005). Can mental practice increase ankle dorsiflexor torque?. Physical therapy, 85(10), 1053.[PubMed]
  378. Silva, N. L., Oliveira, R. B., Fleck, S. J., Leon, A. C., & Farinatti, P. (2014). Influence of strength training variables on strength gains in adults over 55 years-old: A meta-analysis of dose–response relationships. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 17(3), 337-344.[PubMed]
  379. Simão, R., Spineti, J., de Salles, B. F., Matta, T., Fernandes, L., Fleck, S. J., & Strom-Olsen, H. E. (2012). Comparison between nonlinear and linear periodized resistance training: Hypertrophic and strength effects. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 26(5), 1389-1395 [PubMed]
  380. Smith, R. C., & Rutherford, O. M. (1995). The role of metabolites in strength training. European journal of applied physiology and occupational physiology, 71(4), 332-336 [PubMed]
  381. Smith, D., Collins, D., & Holmes, P. (2003). Impact and mechanism of mental practice effects on strength. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1(3), 293- 306.[Citation]
  382. Sola, O. M., Herring, S., Zhang, G., Huang, X., Hayashida, N., Haines, L. C., & Sauvage, L. R. (1992). Significance of the biopsy site of the latissimus dorsi muscle for fiber typing. The Journal of heart and lung transplantation: the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation, 11(5), S315.[PubMed]
  383. Sooneste, H., Tanimoto, M., Kakigi, R., Saga, N., & Katamoto, S. (2013). Effects of training volume on strength and hypertrophy in young men. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 27(1), 8-13 [PubMed]
  384. Souza, R. W. A., Aguiar, A. F., Vechetti-Júnior, I. J., Piedade, W. P., Campos, G. E. R., & Dal-Pai-Silva, M. (2014). Resistance Training With Excessive Training Load and Insufficient Recovery Alters Skeletal Muscle Mass-Related Protein Expression. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research [PubMed]
  385. Souza, E. O., Ugrinowitsch, C., Tricoli, V., Roschel, H., Lowery, R. P., Aihara, A. Y., & Wilson, J. M. (2014a). Early Adaptations to Six Weeks of Non-Periodized and Periodized Strength Training Regimens in Recreational Males. Journal of sports science & medicine, 13(3), 604.[PubMed]
  386. Souza-Junior, T. P., Willardson, J. M., Bloomer, R., Leite, R. D., Fleck, S. J., Oliveira, P. R., & Simão, R. (2011). Strength and hypertrophy responses to constant and decreasing rest intervals in trained men using creatine supplementation. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 8(1), 1-11 [PubMed]
  387. Spiering, B. A., Kraemer, W. J., Anderson, J. M., Armstrong, L. E., Nindl, B. C., Volek, J. S., & Maresh, C. M. (2008). Resistance Exercise Biology. Sports Medicine, 38(7), 527-540.[PubMed]
  388. Starkey, D. B., Pollock, M. L., Ishida, Y., Welsch, M. A., Brechue, W. F., Graves, J. E., & Feigenbaum, M. S. (1996). Effect of resistance training volume on strength and muscle thickness. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 28(0), 10 [PubMed]
  389. Steele, J. (2013). Intensity; in-ten-si-ty; noun. 1. Often used ambiguously within resistance training. 2. Is it time to drop the term altogether?. British Journal of Sports Medicine [PubMed]
  390. Steele, J., & Fisher, J. (2014). Scientific rigour: a heavy or light load to carry?. Sports Medicine, 44(1), 141-142 [PubMed]
  391. Stock, M. S., & Thompson, B. J. (2014). Effects of Barbell Deadlift Training on Submaximal Motor Unit Firing Rates for the Vastus Lateralis and Rectus Femoris. PloS one, 9(12), e115567.[PubMed]
  392. Stock, M. S., & Thompson, B. J. (2014a). Sex comparisons of strength and coactivation following ten weeks of deadlift training. Journal of musculoskeletal & neuronal interactions, 14(3), 387-397.[PubMed]
  393. Stone, M. H., O’Bryant, H., Garhammer, J., McMillan, J., & Rozenek, R. (1982). A theoretical model of strength training. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 4(4), 36-39 [Citation]
  394. Stone, W. J., & Coulter, S. P. (1994). Strength/endurance effects from three resistance training protocols with women. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 8(4), 231-234.[Citation]
  395. Stone, M. H., Chandler, T. J., Conley, M. S., Kramer, J. B., & Stone, M. E. (1996). Training to muscular failure: is it necessary?. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 18(3), 44-48 [Citation]
  396. Stone, M. H., Potteiger, J. A., Pierce, K. C., Proulx, C. M., O’Bryant, H. S., Johnson, R. L., & Stone, M. E. (2000). Comparison of the Effects of Three Different Weight-Training Programs on the One Repetition Maximum Squat. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 14(3), 332-337.[Citation]
  397. Stowers, T., McMillan, J., Scala, D., Davis, V., Wilson, D., & Stone, M. (1983). The short-term effects of three different strength-power training methods. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 5(3), 24-27.[Citation]
  398. Street, S. F. (1983). Lateral transmission of tension in frog myofibers: a myofibrillar network and transverse cytoskeletal connections are possible transmitters. Journal of cellular physiology, 114(3), 346-364.[PubMed]
  399. Sugisaki, N., Wakahara, T., Miyamoto, N., Murata, K., Kanehisa, H., Kawakami, Y., & Fukunaga, T. (2010). Influence of muscle anatomical cross-sectional area on the moment arm length of the triceps brachii muscle at the elbow joint. Journal of biomechanics, 43(14), 2844-2847.[PubMed]
  400. Sugisaki, N., Wakahara, T., Murata, K., Miyamoto, N., Kawakami, Y., Kanehisa, H., & Fukunaga, T. (2014). Influence of Muscle Hypertrophy on the Moment Arm of the Triceps Brachii Muscle. Journal of Applied Biomechanics.[PubMed]
  401. Sundstrup, E., Jakobsen, M. D., Andersen, C. H., Zebis, M. K., Mortensen, O. S., & Andersen, L. L. (2012). Muscle activation strategies during strength training with heavy loading vs. repetitions to failure. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 26(7), 1897-1903 [PubMed]
  402. Symons, T. B., Vandervoort, A. A., Rice, C. L., Overend, T. J., & Marsh, G. D. (2005). Effects of maximal isometric and isokinetic resistance training on strength and functional mobility in older adults. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 60(6), 777-781.[PubMed]
  403. Taaffe, D. R., Duret, C., Wheeler, S., & Marcus, R. (1999). Once-weekly resistance exercise improves muscle strength and neuromuscular performance in older adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 47(10), 1208-1214.[PubMed]
  404. Tan, B. (1999). Manipulating resistance training program variables to optimize maximum strength in men: a review. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 13(3), 289-304.[Citation]
  405. Taniguchi, Y. (1997). Lateral specificity in resistance training: the effect of bilateral and unilateral training. European journal of applied physiology and occupational physiology, 75(2), 144-150.[PubMed]
  406. Tanimoto, M., & Ishii, N. (2006). Effects of low-intensity resistance exercise with slow movement and tonic force generation on muscular function in young men. Journal of Applied Physiology, 100(4), 1150-1157 [PubMed]
  407. Tanimoto, M., Sanada, K., Yamamoto, K., Kawano, H., Gando, Y., Tabata, I., & Miyachi, M. (2008). Effects of whole-body low-intensity resistance training with slow movement and tonic force generation on muscular size and strength in young men. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 22(6), 1926-1938 [PubMed]
  408. Tesch, P., & Karlsson, J. (1978). Isometric strength performance and muscle fibre type distribution in man. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica, 103(1), 47-51.[PubMed]
  409. Thomis, M. A., Beunen, G. P., Maes, H. H., Blimkie, C. J., Van Leemputte, M., Claessens, A. L., & Vlietinck, R. F. (1998). Strength training: importance of genetic factors. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 30(5), 724-731.[PubMed]
  410. Thomis, M. A., Vlietinck, R. F., Maes, H. H., Blimkie, C. J., Van Leemputte, M., Claessens, A. L., & Beunen, G. P. (2000). Predictive power of individual genetic and environmental factor scores. Twin Research, 3(02), 99-108.[PubMed]
  411. Tiainen, K., Sipilä, S., Alen, M., Heikkinen, E., Kaprio, J., Koskenvuo, M., & Rantanen, T. (2004). Heritability of maximal isometric muscle strength in older female twins. Journal of applied physiology, 96(1), 173-180.[PubMed]
  412. Tillin, N. A., Pain, M. T., & Folland, J. P. (2011). Short‐term unilateral resistance training affects the agonist–antagonist but not the force–agonist activation relationship. Muscle & nerve, 43(3), 375-384.[PubMed]
  413. Trappe, S., Williamson, D., Godard, M., Porter, D., Rowden, G., & Costill, D. (2000). Effect of resistance training on single muscle fiber contractile function in older men. Journal of Applied Physiology, 89(1), 143-152.[PubMed]
  414. Trappe, S., Godard, M., Gallagher, P., Carroll, C., Rowden, G., & Porter, D. (2001). Resistance training improves single muscle fiber contractile function in older women. American Journal of Physiology-Cell Physiology, 281(2), C398-C406.[PubMed]
  415. Trappe, S., Harber, M., Creer, A., Gallagher, P., Slivka, D., Minchev, K., & Whitsett, D. (2006). Single muscle fiber adaptations with marathon training. Journal of Applied Physiology, 101(3), 721-727.[PubMed]
  416. Trezise, J., Collier, N., & Blazevich, A. J. (2016). Anatomical and neuromuscular variables strongly predict maximum knee extension torque in healthy men. European journal of applied physiology, 116(6), 1159-1177.[PubMed]
  417. Váczi, M., Nagy, S. A., Kőszegi, T., Ambrus, M., Bogner, P., Perlaki, G., & Hortobágyi, T. (2014). Mechanical, hormonal, and hypertrophic adaptations to 10weeks of eccentric and stretch-shortening cycle exercise training in old males. Experimental gerontology, 58, 69-77. [PubMed]
  418. Van Cutsem, M., Duchateau, J., & Hainaut, K. (1998). Changes in single motor unit behaviour contribute to the increase in contraction speed after dynamic training in humans. The Journal of Physiology, 513(Pt 1), 295.[PubMed]
  419. Van Roie, E., Delecluse, C., Coudyzer, W., Boonen, S., & Bautmans, I. (2013). Strength training at high versus low external resistance in older adults: Effects on muscle volume, muscle strength, and force–velocity characteristics. Experimental gerontology, 48(11), 1351-1361 [PubMed]
  420. Van Zandwijk, J. P., Bobbert, M. F., Munneke, M., & Pas, P. (2000). Control of maximal and submaximal vertical jumps. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 32(2), 477.[PubMed]
  421. Verdijk, L. B., Snijders, T., Beelen, M., Savelberg, H. H., Meijer, K., Kuipers, H., & Van Loon, L. J. (2010). Characteristics of muscle fiber type are predictive of skeletal muscle mass and strength in elderly men. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 58(11), 2069-2075.[PubMed]
  422. Verkhohansky, Y. (1998). Organization of the training process. New Studies in Athletics, 13, 21-32 [Citation]
  423. Vikne, H., Refsnes, P. E., Ekmark, M., Medbø, J. I., Gundersen, V., & Gundersen, K. (2006). Muscular performance after concentric and eccentric exercise in trained men. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 38(10), 1770-1781 [PubMed]
  424. Villanueva, M. G., Lane, C. J., & Schroeder, E. T. (2014). Short rest interval lengths between sets optimally enhance body composition and performance with 8 weeks of strength resistance training in older men. European journal of applied physiology, 1-14.[PubMed]
  425. Visser, M., Goodpaster, B. H., Kritchevsky, S. B., Newman, A. B., Nevitt, M., Rubin, S. M., & Harris, T. B. (2005). Muscle mass, muscle strength, and muscle fat infiltration as predictors of incident mobility limitations in well-functioning older persons. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 60(3), 324-333.[PubMed]
  426. Wakahara, T., Fukutani, A., Kawakami, Y., & Yanai, T. (2013). Nonuniform muscle hypertrophy: its relation to muscle activation in training session. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 45(11), 2158-2165.[PubMed]
  427. Walker, S., Hulmi, J. J., Wernbom, M., Nyman, K., Kraemer, W. J., Ahtiainen, J. P., & Häkkinen, K. (2013). Variable resistance training promotes greater fatigue resistance but not hypertrophy versus constant resistance training. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 113(9), 2233-2244.[PubMed]
  428. Ward, S. R., Eng, C. M., Smallwood, L. H., & Lieber, R. L. (2009). Are current measurements of lower extremity muscle architecture accurate?. Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 467(4), 1074-1082.[PubMed]
  429. Watanabe, Y., Tanimoto, M., Ohgane, A., Sanada, K., Miyachi, M., & Ishii, N. (2013). Increased muscle size and strength from slow-movement, low-intensity resistance exercise and tonic force generation. Journal of aging and physical activity, 21, 71-84.[PubMed]
  430. Watanabe, Y., Madarame, H., Ogasawara, R., Nakazato, K., & Ishii, N. (2013a). Effect of very low‐intensity resistance training with slow movement on muscle size and strength in healthy older adults. Clinical physiology and functional imaging.[PubMed]
  431. Weir, J. P., Housh, T. J., & Weir, L. L. (1994). Electromyographic evaluation of joint angle specificity and cross-training after isometric training. Journal of applied physiology, 77(1), 197-201.[PubMed]
  432. Weir, J. P., Housh, T. J., Weir, L. L., & Johnson, G. O. (1995). Effects of unilateral isometric strength training on joint angle specificity and cross-training. European journal of applied physiology and occupational physiology, 70(4), 337-343.[PubMed]
  433. Weiss, L W., Conex, H. D., and Clark, F. C. “Differential functional adaptations to short-term low-, moderate-, and high-repetition weight training.” The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 13.3 (1999): 236-241 [Citation]
  434. Weiss, L. W., Fry, A. C., Wood, L. E., Relyea, G. E., & Melton, C. (2000). Comparative effects of deep versus shallow squat and leg-press training on vertical jumping ability and related factors. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 14(3), 241-247.[Citation]
  435. Wernbom, M., Augustsson, J., & Thomeé, R. (2007). The influence of frequency, intensity, volume and mode of strength training on whole muscle cross-sectional area in humans. Sports Medicine, 37(3), 225-264.[PubMed]
  436. Widrick, J. J., Stelzer, J. E., Shoepe, T. C., & Garner, D. P. (2002). Functional properties of human muscle fibers after short-term resistance exercise training. American journal of physiology. Regulatory, integrative and comparative physiology, 283(2), R408.[PubMed]
  437. Willardson, J. M. (2007). The application of training to failure in periodized multiple-set resistance exercise programs. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 21(2), 628-631.[PubMed]
  438. Willardson, J. M., & Burkett, L. N. (2008). The effect of different rest intervals between sets on volume components and strength gains. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 22(1), 146-152.[PubMed]
  439. Willoughby, D. S. (1991). Training volume equated – A comparison of periodized and progressive resistance weight training programs. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 21(5), 233-248.
  440. Willoughby, D. S. (1993). The effects of mesocycle-length weight training programs involving periodization and partially equated volumes on upper and lower body strength. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 7(1), 2-8.[Citation]
  441. Wilson, J. M., Loenneke, J. P., Jo, E., Wilson, G. J., Zourdos, M. C., & Kim, J. S. (2012). The effects of endurance, strength, and power training on muscle fiber type shifting. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 26(6), 1724-1729.[PubMed]
  442. Winett, R. A. (2004). Meta-Analyses Do Not Support Performance of Multiple Sets or High Volume Resistance Training. Journal of Exercise Physiology Online, 7(5).[Citation]
  443. Wolf, E., Magora, A., & Gonen, B. (1971). Disuse atrophy of the quadriceps muscle. Electromyography, 11(5), 479-490.
  444. Wolfe, B. L., Lemura, L. M., & Cole, P. J. (2004). Quantitative analysis of single-vs. multiple-set programs in resistance training. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 18(1), 35-47.[PubMed]
  445. Woolstenhulme, M. T., Conlee, R. K., Drummond, M. J., Stites, A. W., & Parcell, A. C. (2006). Temporal response of desmin and dystrophin proteins to progressive resistance exercise in human skeletal muscle. Journal of Applied Physiology, 100(6), 1876-1882.[PubMed]
  446. Young, A. (1984). The relative isometric strength of type I and type II muscle fibres in the human quadriceps. Clinical Physiology, 4(1), 23-32.[PubMed]
  447. Young, W. B., & Bilby, G. E. (1993). The effect of voluntary effort to influence speed of contraction on strength, muscular power, and hypertrophy development. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 7(3), 172-178 [Citation]
  448. Yoshida, Y., Marcus, R. L., & Lastayo, P. C. (2012). Intramuscular adipose tissue and central activation in older adults. Muscle & nerve, 46(5), 813-816.[PubMed]
  449. Yue, G., & Cole, K. J. (1992). Strength increases from the motor program: comparison of training with maximal voluntary and imagined muscle contractions. Journal of neurophysiology, 67(5), 1114-1123.[PubMed]
  450. Zijdewind, I., Toering, S. T., Bessem, B., Van Der Laan, O., & Diercks, R. L. (2003). Effects of imagery motor training on torque production of ankle plantar flexor muscles. Muscle & nerve, 28(2), 168.[PubMed]


CONTRIBUTORS

Chris Beardsley performed the literature reviews, wrote the first draft of this page and was the primary author.


PROVIDE FEEDBACK

If you are knowledgable about this area of research, please help us improve this resource. Simply provide brief comments and your email address in the form below. Chris will then contact you by email to start the process of incorporating your feedback into the resource:

Your Name (required)

Your Email (required)

Your Message


Top · Contents · References