Muscle Hypertrophy Is Affected by Volume Load Progression Models.

ABSTRACT: Nóbrega, SR, Scarpelli, MC, Barcelos, C, Chaves, TS, and Libardi, CA. Muscle hypertrophy is affected by volume load progression models. J Strength Cond Res 37(1): 62-67, 2023-This exploratory secondary data analysis compared the effects of a percentage of 1 repetition maximum (%1RM) and a repetition zone (RM Zone) progression model carried out to muscle failure on volume load progression (VLPro), muscle strength, and cross-sectional area (CSA). The sample comprised 24 untrained men separated in 2 groups: %1RM (n = 14) and RM Zone (n = 10). Muscle CSA and muscle strength (1RM) were assessed before and after 24 training sessions, and an analysis of covariance was used. Volume load progression and accumulated VL (VLAccu) were compared between groups. The relationships between VLProg, VLAccu, 1RM, and CSA increases were also investigated. A significance level of p ≤ 0.05 was adopted for all statistical procedures. Volume load progression was greater for RM Zone compared with %1RM (2.30 ± 0.58% per session vs. 1.01 ± 0.55% per session; p < 0.05). Significant relationships were found between 1RM and VLProg (p < 0.05) and CSA and VLProg (p < 0.05). No between-group differences were found for VLAccu (p > 0.05). Analysis of covariance revealed no between-group differences for 1RM absolute (p < 0.05) or relative changes (p < 0.05). However, post hoc testing revealed greater absolute and relative changes in CSA for the RM Zone group compared with the %1RM group (p < 0.001). In conclusion, RM Zone resulted in a greater VLPro rate and muscle CSA gains compared with %1RM, with no differences in VLAccu and muscle strength gains between progression models.

Individual Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength Responses to High vs. Low Resistance Training Frequencies.

Damas, F, Barcelos, C, Nóbrega, SR, Ugrinowitsch, C, Lixandrão, ME, Santos, LMEd, Conceição, MS, Vechin, FC, and Libardi, CA. Individual muscle hypertrophy and strength responses to high vs. low resistance training frequencies. J Strength Cond Res 33(4): 897-901, 2019-The aim of this short communication was to compare the individual muscle mass and strength gains with high (HF) vs. low (LF) resistance training (RT) frequencies using data from our previous study. We used a within-subject design in which 20 subjects had one leg randomly assigned to HF (5× per week) and the other to LF (2 or 3× per week). Muscle cross-sectional area and 1 repetition maximum were assessed at baseline and after 8 weeks of RT. HF showed a higher 8-week accumulated total training volume (TTV) (p < 0.0001) compared with LF. Muscle cross-sectional area and 1 repetition maximum values increased significantly and similarly for HF and LF protocols (p > 0.05). This short communication highlights that some individuals showed greater muscle mass and strength gains after HF (31.6 and 26.3% of individuals, respectively), other had greater gains with LF (36.8 and 15.8% of individuals, respectively), and even others showed similar responses between HF and LF, regardless of the consequent higher or lower TTV resulted from HF and LF, respectively. Importantly, individual manipulation of RT frequency can improve the intrasubject responsiveness to training, but the effect is limited to each individual's capacity to respond to RT. Finally, individual response to different frequencies and resulted TTV does not necessarily agree between muscle hypertrophy and strength gains.

High-frequency resistance training does not promote greater muscular adaptations compared to low frequencies in young untrained men.

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. 1 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). 1 RM increased similarly between protocols at W4 (RT5: 55 ± 9 Kg, effect size (ES): 1.18; RT3: 51 ± 11 Kg, ES: 0.80; RT2: 54 ± 7 Kg, ES: 1.13; P < .0001) and W8 (RT5: 62 ± 11 Kg, ES: 1.81; RT3: 57 ± 11 Kg, ES: 1.40; RT2: 60 ± 8 Kg, ES: 1.98; P < .0001) vs. baseline (RT5: 45 ± 9 Kg; RT3: 42 ± 11 Kg; RT2: 46 ± 7 Kg). CSA increased similarly between protocols at W4 (RT5: 24.6 ± 3.9 cm2, ES: 0.54; RT3: 22.0 ± 4.6 cm2, ES: 0.19; RT2: ES: 0.25; 23.8 ± 3.8 cm2; P < .001), and W8 (RT5: 25.3 ± 4.3 cm2; ES: 0.69; RT3: 23.6 ± 4.2 cm2, ES: 0.58; RT2: 25.5 ± 3.7 cm2; ES: 0.70; P < .0001) vs. baseline (RT5: 22.5 ± 3.8 cm2; RT3: 21.2 ± 4.0 cm2; RT2: 22.9 ± 3.8 cm2). Performing RT5, RT3 and RT2 a week result in similar muscle strength increase and hypertrophy, despite higher TTV for RT5.

Self-selected vs. Fixed Repetition Duration: Effects on Number of Repetitions and Muscle Activation in Resistance-Trained Men.

Nóbrega, SR, Barroso, R, Ugrinowitsch, C, da Costa, JLF, Alvarez, IF, Barcelos, C, and Libardi, CA. Self-selected vs. fixed repetition duration: effects on number of repetitions and muscle activation in resistance-trained men. J Strength Cond Res 32(9): 2419-2424, 2018-The aim of this study was to compare the effects of self-selected and fixed repetition duration (RD) on resistance exercise (RE) volume, muscle activation, and time under tension (TUT) per repetition and per session. Twelve resistance-trained men participated in the study. A randomized cross-over design was used and each participant performed 2 high-intensity RE protocols in a balanced order: (a) 3 sets of RE with self-selected RD (SELF); and (b) 3 sets of RE with fixed RD (2-second concentric and 2-second eccentric [FIX]). Muscle activation was assessed through surface electromyography (EMG) of the vastus lateralis and vastus medialis throughout RE sessions. Overall, RE volume was significantly greater for SELF (p = 0.01), whereas TUT per repetition was significantly greater for FIX (p = 0.0001). No significant differences between protocols were detected for TUT per session. Between-protocol comparisons revealed significantly greater EMG amplitude for SELF compared with FIX at S1 (p = 0.01), S2 (p = 0.03), and S3 (p = 0.03). Both SELF and FIX protocols produced significant increases in EMG amplitude from 25 to 100% (p < 0.001) of set completion. Between-protocol comparisons revealed significantly greater EMG amplitude for SELF compared with FIX at 75% (p = 0.03) and 100% (p = 0.01). In conclusion, self-selected RD resulted in greater volume and muscle activation compared with fixed RD in an RE session.

Effect of Resistance Training to Muscle Failure vs. Volitional Interruption at High- and Low-Intensities on Muscle Mass and Strength.

Nóbrega, SR, Ugrinowitsch, C, Pintanel, L, Barcelos, C, and Libardi, CA. Effect of resistance training to muscle failure vs. volitional interruption at high- and low-intensities on muscle mass and strength. J Strength Cond Res 32(1): 162-169, 2018-The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of resistance training (RT) at high- and low-intensities performed to muscle failure or volitional interruption on muscle strength, cross-sectional area (CSA), pennation angle (PA), and muscle activation. Thirty-two untrained men participated in the study. Each leg was allocated in 1 of 4 unilateral RT protocols: RT to failure at high and low intensities, and RT to volitional interruption (repetitions performed to the point in which participants voluntarily interrupted the exercise) at high (HIRT-V) and low (LIRT-V) intensities. Muscle strength (1 repetition maximum [1RM]), CSA, PA, and muscle activation by amplitude of the electromyography (EMG) signal were assessed before (Pre), after 6 (6W), and 12 (12W) weeks. 1RM increased similarly after 6W (range: 15.8-18.9%, effective size [ES]: 0.41-0.58) and 12W (range: 25.6-33.6%, ES: 0.64-0.98) for all protocols. All protocols were similarly effective in increasing CSA after 6W (range: 3.0-4.6%, ES: 0.10-0.24) and 12W (range: 6.1-7.5%, ES: 0.22-0.26). PA increased after 6W (∼3.5) and 12W (∼9%; main time effect, p < 0.0001), with no differences between protocols. EMG values were significantly higher for the high-intensity protocols at all times (main intensity effect, p < 0.0001). In conclusion, both HIRT-V and LIRT-V are equally effective in increasing muscle mass, strength, and PA when compared with RT performed to muscle failure.