RESUMO
The aim of this study was to compare the effect of self-selected repetition duration (SELF), with and without volume load (VL) equalized with controlled repetition duration (CON) on muscle strength and hypertrophy in untrained males. We used a within-subjects design in which 20 volunteers (age: 24.7 ± 2.9 years) had one leg randomly assigned to CON (i.e., 2 s concentric, 2 s eccentric) and the other to SELF or to self-selected repetition duration with equalized volume load (SELF-EV). One repetition maximum (1-RM) and muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) were measured at baseline (Pre) and after (Post) resistance training (RT; 2×/wk for 8 weeks). For the main study variables (1-RM and muscle CSA), a mixed-model analysis was performed, assuming repetition duration (SELF, SELF-EV and CON), and time (Pre and Post) as fixed factors and the subjects as random factor for each dependent variable (1-RM and CSA). All RT protocols showed significant increases in values of 1-RM from Pre (CON: 73.7 ± 17.6 kg; SELF: 75.9 ± 17.7 kg; and SELF-EV: 72.6 ± 16.9 kg) to Post (CON: 83.4 ± 19.9 kg, effect size (ES): 0.47; SELF: 84 ± 19.1 kg, ES: 0.43; and SELF-EV: 83.2 ± 19.9 kg, ES: 0.57, P < 0.0001). Muscle CSA values increased for all protocols from Pre (CON: 12.09 ± 3.14 cm2; SELF: 11.91 ± 3.71 cm2; and SELF-EV: 11.93 ± 2.32 cm2) to Post (CON: 13.03 ± 3.25 cm2, ES: 0.29; SELF: 13.2 ± 4.16 cm2, ES: 0.32; and SELF-EV: 13.2 ± 2.35 cm2, ES: 0.53, P < 0.0001). No significant differences between protocols were found for both 1-RM and CSA (P > 0.05). Performing RT with SELF, regardless of VL, was equally effective in inducing increases in muscle strength and hypertrophy compared to CON in untrained men.
RESUMO
The aim of the study was to compare the effect of resistance training (RT) frequencies of five times (RT5), thrice- (RT3) or twice- (RT2) weekly in muscle strength and hypertrophy in young men. Were used a within-subjects design in which 20 participants had one leg randomly assigned to RT5 and the other to RT3 or to RT2. 1â RM and muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) were assessed at baseline, after four (W4) and eight (W8) RT weeks. RT5 resulted in greater total training volume (TTV) than RT3 and RT2 (P = .001). 1â RM increased similarly between protocols at W4 (RT5: 55 ± 9â Kg, effect size (ES): 1.18; RT3: 51 ± 11â Kg, ES: 0.80; RT2: 54 ± 7â Kg, ES: 1.13; P < .0001) and W8 (RT5: 62 ± 11â Kg, ES: 1.81; RT3: 57 ± 11â Kg, ES: 1.40; RT2: 60 ± 8â Kg, ES: 1.98; P < .0001) vs. baseline (RT5: 45 ± 9â Kg; RT3: 42 ± 11â Kg; RT2: 46 ± 7â Kg). CSA increased similarly between protocols at W4 (RT5: 24.6 ± 3.9â cm2, ES: 0.54; RT3: 22.0 ± 4.6â cm2, ES: 0.19; RT2: ES: 0.25; 23.8 ± 3.8â cm2; P < .001), and W8 (RT5: 25.3 ± 4.3â cm2; ES: 0.69; RT3: 23.6 ± 4.2â cm2, ES: 0.58; RT2: 25.5 ± 3.7â cm2; ES: 0.70; P < .0001) vs. baseline (RT5: 22.5 ± 3.8â cm2; RT3: 21.2 ± 4.0â cm2; RT2: 22.9 ± 3.8â cm2). Performing RT5, RT3 and RT2 a week result in similar muscle strength increase and hypertrophy, despite higher TTV for RT5.