Multi-joint vs. Single-joint Resistance Exercises Induce a Similar Strength Increase in Trained Men: A Randomized Longitudinal Crossover Study.

The type of exercise is a relevant resistance training-variable that might be manipulated in order to induce significant increases in muscle strength. The aim of this study was to analyze the influence of multi-joint vs single-joint resistance exercises on maximal strength. Sixteen resistance-trained men (age: 23.1 ± 4.4 years; body mass: 86.0 ± 12.8; height: 177.9 ± 6.4 cm; training experience: 4.2 ± 3.4 years) performed one of the following training protocols for six weeks: MULTI, consisting of only multi-joint exercises or SINGLE, consisting of only single-joint exercises. Subjects were then submitted to a three-week washout period, before being submitted to the other protocol for another six weeks. A linear periodization model was adopted in which external load was increased and the repetition range was decreased every two weeks. Maximal dynamic strength of bench press (1RMBENCH) and squat exercises (1RMSQUAT), a percentage variation of total load lifted (ΔTLL) and internal training load (ITL) were measured. Similar increases in 1RMBENCH (MULTI: 10.8%, p < 0.001; SINGLE: 5.5%, p < 0.001) and 1RMSQUAT (MULTI: 19.7%, p < 0.001; SINGLE: 19.0%, p < 0.001) were observed after the MULTI and SINGLE protocols. A decrease in TLL was detected for both exercise protocols; however, the SINGLE protocol induced a greater decrease, compared to the MULTI protocol (-35 ± 11% vs -42 ± 5%, respectively; p = 0.026). A greater ITL for the MULTI was observed when compared to the SINGLE (12.1%; p < 0.001). In conclusion, resistance training protocols with different exercise modalities seem to produce similar strength increases in resistance-trained men.

Effects of Adding Single Joint Exercises to a Resistance Training Programme in Trained Women.

BACKGROUND: The present study's aim was to compare the changes in muscle performance and anthropometric measures in trained women performing RT programs composed only of MJ exercises or programmes that involve the addition of SJ exercises. METHODS: Seventeen trained women were randomised to MJ or MJ+SJ. Both groups performed the same MJ exercises following a nonlinear periodisation model for 8 weeks. The only difference was that the MJ+SJ group also performed SJ exercises. The participants were tested for 10 repetition maximum (10 RM), flexed arm circumference, and both biceps and triceps skinfold. RESULTS: Both groups significantly increased 10 RM load for the bench press (12.6% MJ and 9.2% MJ+SJ), triceps (15.6% MJ and 17.9% MJ+SJ), pull down (9.8% MJ and 8.3% MJ+SJ), biceps (14.0% MJ and 13.0% MJ+SJ), leg press (15.2% MJ and 12.8% MJ+SJ) and knee extension (10.2% MJ and 9.1% MJ+SJ). The decreases in triceps (-5.1% MJ and -5.3% MJ+SJ) and biceps (-6.5% MJ and -5.7% MJ+SJ) skinfolds were also significant as were the increases in arm circumference (1.47% MJ and 1.58% MJ+SJ). In all tests there was nothing significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of SJ exercises as a complement to a RT programme containing MJ exercises brings no additional benefit to trained women.

Does the addition of single joint exercises to a resistance training program improve changes in performance and anthropometric measures in untrained men?

The present study compared changes in muscle performance and anthropometric measures in young men performing resistance training (RT) programs composed of only multi joint (MJ) exercises, or with the addition of single joint (SJ) exercises (MJ+SJ). Twenty untrained men were randomized to MJ or MJ+SJ groups for 8 weeks. Both groups performed the same MJ exercises. The difference was that the MJ+SJ group added SJ exercises for upper and lower limbs. Participants were tested for 10 repetitions maximum (10RM), flexed arm circumference, and biceps and triceps skinfolds. Both groups significantly increased 10RM load for the bench press (MJ 38.5%, MJ+SJ 40.1%), elbow extension (MJ 28.7%, MJ+SJ 31.9%), pull down (MJ 34.0% MJ+SJ 38.5%), elbow flexion (MJ 38.2%, MJ+SJ 45.3%), leg press (MJ 40.8%, MJ+SJ 46.8%) and knee extension (MJ 26.9%, MJ+SJ 32.9%), with no significant difference between them. The decreases in biceps (MJ -3.6%, MJ+SJ -3.9%) and triceps (MJ -3.4%, MJ+SJ -3.3%) skinfolds were significant for both groups, with no difference between them. However, the flexed arm circumference increased significantly more for MJ+SJ (5.2%), than for MJ (4.0%). The use of SJ exercises as a complement to a RT program containing MJ exercises brings no additional benefit to untrained men in terms of muscle performance and skinfold reduction, though it promoted higher increases in arm circumference.

The effects of adding single-joint exercises to a multi-joint exercise resistance training program on upper body muscle strength and size in trained men.

The aim of this study was compare changes in upper body muscle strength and size in trained men performing resistance training (RT) programs involving multi-joint plus single-joint (MJ+SJ) or only multi-joint (MJ) exercises. Twenty young men with at least 2 years of experience in RT were randomized in 2 groups: MJ+SJ (n = 10; age, 27.7 ± 6.6 years) and MJ (n = 10; age, 29.4 ± 4.6 years). Both groups trained for 8 weeks following a linear periodization model. Measures of elbow flexors and extensors 1-repetition maximum (1RM), flexed arm circumference (FAC), and arm muscle circumference (AMC) were taken pre- and post-training period. Both groups significantly increased 1RM for elbow flexion (4.99% and 6.42% for MJ and MJ+SJ, respectively), extension (10.60% vs 9.79%, for MJ and MJ+SJ, respectively), FAC (1.72% vs 1.45%, for MJ and MJ+SJ, respectively), and AMC (1.33% vs 3.17% for MJ and MJ+SJ, respectively). Comparison between groups revealed no significant difference in any variable. In conclusion, 8 weeks of RT involving MJ or MJ+SJ resulted in similar alterations in muscle strength and size in trained participants. Therefore, the addition of SJ exercises to a RT program involving MJ exercises does not seem to promote additional benefits to trained men, suggesting MJ-only RT to be a time-efficient approach.