strength pdftraining for strength

TRAINING

FOR STRENGTH

Strength and Conditioning Research

STRENGTH & CONDITIONING RESEARCH TRAINING FOR STRENGTH

SUMMARYTOPIC SUMMARY OF FINDINGS PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Overall summary

Strength gains seem to be achieved most efectvely by: greater frequency leading to more volume, greater volume, moderate-to-heavy relatve loads, fast bar speeds, long rest periods, and greater proximity to muscular failure.

Training using a specifc ROM for the strength measure, being tested, using reducing rest periods, and incorporatng eccentric-only and concentric-only muscle actons in additon to standard stretch-shortening cycle training may also be helpful.

Strength training programs should default to making use of moderate-to-heavy relatve loads, fast bar speeds, a specifc ROM, and relatvely long rest periods.

Strength training programs can be progressed by increasing training frequency through the additon of more sessions per week, by increasing overall training volume through the additon of more sets of an exercise, and by incorporatng periods of training to failure where recovery is assured. Additonal variaton can be achieved by using eccentric-only and concentric-only exercises.

Frequency (volume not controlled)

The literature is confictng but there seems to be some evidence that a higher training frequency leading to more volume might lead to greater strength gains than a lower training frequency. Equally, there is much less evidence that higher training frequency will lead to inferior results. This implies that where athletes have the ability to recover from additonal sessions and are motvated to perform them, it seems unlikely that this will lead to diminished strength gains.

Individuals who are pressured for tme might expect to see signifcant strength gains by training just once or twice per week. However, additonal sessions leading to more volume may lead to slightly better gains in strength.

Where individuals have the ability to recover from additonal strength training sessions and are motvated to perform them, a higher training frequency leading to more volume may well lead to greater strength gains and it seems unlikely to lead to inferior strength gains.

Frequency (volume controlled)

There is a trend for a higher volume-matched frequency causing greater strength gains in trained subjects. However, there is very little evidence to build a case and further research is needed. Also, there is very limited evidence for the benefcial efects of either a higher volume-matched training frequency or a lower volume-matched training frequency on strength gains in untrained people. The research is very confictng and it is not possible to draw a defnitve conclusion at this stage.

For trained individuals, increasing frequency may be an efectve way of maximizing strength gains, even if this occurs simply by splitng out the same volume over a greater number of sessions.

For untrained individuals, increasing frequency may not be as efectve for strength gains as in trained subjects and the research is currently confictng. Therefore, stcking to a traditonal number of sessions (e.g. three tmes per week) may be the best course of acton.

Relatve load heavy vs. light loads

Training with both heavy and light loads can lead to strength gains. However, training with heavier loads (here defned as heavier than 15RM) leads to superior strength gains than training with lighter loads (here defned as lighter than 15RM).

Trainees can be assured that some strength gains will occur even with very light loads. However, for maximizing strength gains, heavier loads than 15RM are defnitely superior.

Relatve load heavy vs. moderate loads

The literature is very confictng and the picture is not as clear as the one that we see when we compare heavy and light loads. Thus, it is difcult to conclude on whether heavy loads are defnitvely better than moderate loads for increasing strength.

Individuals looking to improve strength may wish to make use of moderate (i.e. 5 15RM) loads rather than heavy (



SUMMARY CONTINUED...

TOPIC SUMMARY OF FINDINGS PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Bar speed (relatve load controlled)

When relatve load is controlled during isoinertal training, it seems that a faster repetton speed leads to superior strength gains than a slower repetton speed, although the literature is stll somewhat confictng.

Fast repetton speeds appears to be recommended for individuals training purely for strength.

Bar speed (relatve load not controlled)

Although the literature is slightly confictng, there is some evidence that where a faster repetton speed is performed in isoinertal training in order that a greater relatve load can be used, faster repetton speeds may lead to greater strength gains. However, whether this is simply because greater relatve loads are being used is unclear.

Deliberately using a slow bar speed that necessitates the use of lower relatve loads may be counter-productve for strength gains. Therefore, fast repetton speeds would seem to be the default opton for individuals training purely for strength.

Muscular failure

Although conclusions are made slightly difcult by the variaton between study protocols and outcome measures, it seems that most measures of strength are improved to a greater extent when training to failure (or greater fatgue) in comparison with training not-to-failure (or lesser fatgue). However, not all studies show this for all strength measures.

Incorporatng training to failure can lead to better strength gains. However, since training to failure can impact on recovery, it should be used carefully within sensible limits for athletes.

Rest periods While only a few studies have been performed assessing the efects of fxed-interval rest periods, it seems that strength gains are maximized by longer (>3 minutes) rest periods. This may be a functon of the greater volume of work performed when using longer rest periods. Reducing-rest-period studies have found that despite lower training volume being performed by the shortening rest periods group, the decreasing-rest period groups and the constant-rest period groups both achieved similar strength gains.

While the research is slightly limited and a little confictng, it seems that when using constant rest periods, longer rest periods (probably >3 minutes) are better for strength gains.

Reducing rest periods steadily over a period of tme may be a useful technique for gradually and practcally increasing the volume of individual workouts.

Range of moton (ROM)

Full ROM exercises lead to the greatest gains in full ROM strength while partal ROM exercises lead to the greatest gains in partal ROM strength.

Full ROM exercises should generally be used where individuals wish to maximize strength gains over the full ROM. Partal ROM exercises can be used to generate smaller gains in full ROM strength where variety in exercise selecton is needed, such as where athletes have already been using a full ROM movement for some tme (e.g. the competton lifts for power-lifters).

This document is copyright Strength and Conditoning Research Limited, 2014. Bret and Chris both work very hard to bring you this informaton. Please help us to contnue our work by not sharing it with your friends, however temptng it may be. Find more reviews at the website!

Page 3



SUMMARY CONTINUED...

TOPIC SUMMARY OF FINDINGS PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Eccentric vs. concentric modes

Isoinertal training involving eccentric-only muscle actons leads to greater increases in eccentric strength (isoinertal and isokinetc) than isoinertal training involving concentric-only muscle actons.

Isoinertal training with concentric-only muscle actons seems to lead to greater increases in isometric strength than training involving eccentric-only muscle actons.

The literature is confictng regarding whether training involving eccentric-only or concentric-only muscle actons leads to diferent improvements in isoinertal (eccentric-only or concentric-only) or isokinetc (eccentric-only or concentric-only) or concentric-only (isoinertal or isokinetc) strength.

Training using eccentric-only muscle actons seems to lead to greater increases in strength only when tested during eccentric-only muscle actons. Therefore, individuals may not beneft from using this type of training when focusing purely on increasing concentric or stretch-shortening cycle strength.

Training using concentric-only muscle actons seems to lead to greater increases in strength when tested isometrically. Therefore, individuals may beneft from training using concentric-only muscle actons for scenarios in which they are performing isometric or quasi-isometric muscle actons (e.g. the bottom of a squat or bench press for powerlifters).

Training using eccentric-only muscle actons seems to lead to greater increases in strength when tested during eccentric-only muscle actons. Therefore, where individuals need to enhance deceleraton abilites or the ability to control hard landings, training using eccentric-only muscle actons may be benefcial.

Volume Greater training volume seems very likely to produce superior strength gains, although the exact dose-response is not entrely clear. There is also some fairly good evidence that the lower-body is more responsive to a higher volume of training than the upper-body.

Training with multple sets to achieve a higher volume of training appears to lead to greater strength gains, irrespectve of training status, body part and age.

There appears to be a dose-response to volume of training to a degree, although it is not clear at what point increasing doses cease to be increasingly efectve. Volumes of up to 8 sets have been found superior in lower-body training programs.

The lower-body may be more responsive to volume than the upper-body. Increasing training volume therefore appears to be a key factor for maximizing strength gains for the lower-body while other factors may be as important or more important for the upper body.


Page 4



INTRODUCTION

Chris Beardsley says

Welcome!Welcome to the e-book, Training for Strength! This e-book is the culminaton of hundreds of hours of work dedicated to understanding the research that has been done into which training variables can be manipulated to enhance strength gains over a long-term period of tme.

If you are an experienced strength coach, personal trainer or physical therapist, it will hopefully enhance your work by providing access to all the informaton you need to integrate all of the currently relevant research into your strength-training program design.

What are training variables?Training variables are just those factors that we can alter in respect of either a single workout or in relaton to a sequence of workouts. They are the fundamental elements of program design. Training variables include whether we train to failure or not, whether we use 1 set or 3, whether we rest for 1 minute or 2 minutes, and whether we squat to full depth or use a partal range of moton.

These variables are often heatedly debated by many in the ftness industry. And not all of that debate is fruitul. Some people cherry-pick long-term studies to support opinions they have already formed, refer to acute studies with dubious relatonships to long-term adaptatons, or simply refer to anecdote and refuse to engage with research. Fortunately for us, a full review of all the long-term research can provide some good answers for the big questons.

Indeed, in comparison with the same literature in the area of hypertrophy, I have to say that I was really pleased to see how advanced the research is in respect of the efects of training variables on strength. Unlike hypertrophy, it is actually possible from the current literature to get a fairly good feel for the type of training that makes people really strong.

How is this e-book structured?The e-book is structured in sectons describing the following key training variables, which have been researched using long-term study methods:

Relatve load (proporton of 1RM) Volume Muscular failure Frequency Rest periods Range of moton Muscle acton (eccentric vs. concentric) Repetton speed

In each secton, I have collated all of the relevant studies that help us understand the long-term efects of changing one of these variables. I detail and explain the fndings of each study, notng whether they found a signifcant efect of changing the training variable or not. Then, at the end of each secton, I summarize exactly what all of the studies say and provide practcal implicatons. Sometmes, the studies all disagree with one another, which most likely means that the literature is confictng and the training variable probably isn't that important in comparison with other training variables. Sometmes, there is a good trend, with most studies showing the same thing and only a few showing no efect or the opposite efect. On rare occasions, most studies point in the same directon, which means that the training variable being studied is probably quite important.

Is this e-book right for you?If you are reading this e-book, it is assumed that you are an experienced chef in strength-training program design and not a cook who stll needs to follow a recipe book. If you are stll in the process of gaining that experience and do want a recipe book, there are a number of great strength coaches (including my colleague, Bret Contreras, and the writer of the foreword to this e-book, Greg Nuckols) who can provide of-the-peg strength-training programs.

Since you are a chef, this e-book is designed to support your own analysis of the research and help you integrate that analysis with your practcal experience to fnd what works when training athletes and clients for the best strength gains. Therefore, the details of each study are provided so you can analyze them further and the PubMed link is given in case you need to read the full-text of a given study. For your own circumstances, you may consider that certain studies are more or less relevant and therefore the e-book has been structured to allow you to collect only the relevant studies for your purposes and analyze those specifc results separately. Similarly, you will see that the practcal implicatons are limited to the big rocks that really matter and are given in clear recogniton of the level of confdence we can have in each one.

I hope that you enjoy reading this e-book and I very much hope that it helps you to integrate the current research into the strength-training programs that are a part of your evidence-based practce.

Yours in strength,

Chris Beardsley.


Page 5



FOREWORDGreg Nuckols is an up-and-coming strength coach who has already developed a great reputaton in the industry for his ability to blend an evidence-based approach with tremendous under-the-bar experience. Greg is himself an elite, drug-free powerlifter whose best lifts are a 755lbs squat, 475lbs bench press, and a 725lbs deadlift. So it is fair to say he knows a few things about what it takes to get you strong.

Greg Nuckols says This review contains vital informaton for anyone looking to get strong. As an elite powerlifter, I know how important it is to get the basics 100% perfect. You need to build your training knowledge on a sound understanding of the research and then add technique and under-the-bar expertse on top of that.

What are the problems in the literature?Two major problems in the literature are the training protocols used in studies, and how those studies quantfy increases in strength. To fulfll the scientfc ideal of isolatng as many variables as possible, many strength training studies, especially historically, have been performed with single joint exercises, and increases in strength are quantfed by measuring changes in maximal torque at a certain joint. While this approach may be the most scientfcally rigorous, results from such studies are often only useful for identfying mechanisms its hard to generalize the results to the normal training populaton using multple exercises, and more interested, for example, in a maximal squat rather than maximal knee extension torque.

In studies using relevant exercises and protocols, theres stll a dearth of studies on trained subjects, and even fewer on highly trained subjects, although this has been changing in the past few years. Studies on females are also substantally underrepresented in the literature as well. Finally, there are often large inter-individual variatons in responsiveness to various training protocols. Its not uncommon for a large percentage of partcipants in a study to be non-responders, while others see huge increases in strength. Two studies by Beaven in 2008 perhaps suggest that even for those who respond well to resistance exercise, variatons in training protocol can afect whether or not strength gains will occur in response to resistance training. Studies are, of necessity, dealing with averages, but individual responses to training can difer substantally based on genetc factors, training experience, and preparedness of the athlete for training. Recommendatons based on the literature should hold true for groups of people, but not necessarily for individuals.

Where should future research focus? There is a need for more studies on trained athletes, for longer periods of tme, and utlizing training protocols that more closely resemble day to day practce in weight rooms and S&C facilites. Additonally, there is a need for more studies investgatng the causes of divergent individual responses to training stmuli to narrow the gap between typical best practces and individual optmizaton.

What is the most important training variable? For a trained athlete, its volume of fairly heavy (70%+ 1RM) training. Heavy loads are necessary to maximize neural adaptatons to training, and volume of training is necessary to optmize hypertrophy. Strength literature is intrinsically ted to hypertrophy literature. While the potental for neural adaptatons to cause signifcant increases in strength cant be overlooked, degree of muscle hypertrophy is ultmately of tremendous importance.

What is the most important uncontrollable variable?Genetcs. Genetc makeup can afect the force producton characteristcs of the muscle fbers themselves (ACTN3 gene, for example), responsiveness to training stmuli (gene expression and satellite cell actvity in response to training), and phenotypic factors that afect force producton (fber types and number, tendon lengths and insertons).

How should we move forward?I think research needs to focus more on individual responses to training, how much they difer from average responses, and how to predict what sorts of training protocols individuals will respond best to given their individual context including age, gender, training history, genotype, and phenotype.


Page 6



CONTENTS

1. TRAINING FOR STRENGTH..............................................................................................................................................8

1. Frequency (not volume-matched).................................................................................................................................................................. 9

2. Frequency (volume-matched)...................................................................................................................................................................... 12

3. Relative load (heavy loads versus light loads)............................................................................................................................................. 15

4. Relative load (heavy versus moderate loads).............................................................................................................................................. 18

5. Bar speed (relative load controlled).............................................................................................................................................................20

6. Bar speed (relative load not controlled).......................................................................................................................................................23

7. Muscular failure........................................................................................................................................................................................... 25

8. Rest periods..................................................................................................................................................................................................27

9. Range of motion...........................................................................................................................................................................................30

10. Eccentric versus concentric training.............................................................................................................................................................33

11. Volume......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 37




1. TRAINING FOR STRENGTH




Frequency (not volume-matched)The efect of training frequency on strength is difcult to assess. There are strong proponents of both infrequent (once per week) and very frequent (6+ tmes per week) training approaches, both on a body-part and on a full-body basis. In the literature, there many relevant studies. Some of them control for the efect of increased volume while others do not. This review sets out what we currently know about how frequency afects strength gains, where volume is NOT maintained the same, since this is the way that most people use frequency as a variable (i.e. to increase volume).

What is the background?Training frequency is considered important for strength gains. However, training frequency is sometmes increased for the purposes of spreading the same training load over a larger number of weekly sessions and sometmes for indirectly increasing total weekly training volume. Therefore, it is important to consider what happens in both scenarios (maintaining weekly volume constant and allowing weekly volume to increase). This review considers the latter scenario.

What are the selection criteria?The purpose of this short review is to assess the efects of training frequency on strength gains measured by any metric in non-volume-matched studies of resistance-training-only interventons in both trained and untrained populatons, where training frequency is >1 session per week. This involves the following selecton criteria:

Including any interventon assessing the efects of training frequency on strength gains.

Measurement of strength gains by any metric (e.g. dynamic/isoinertal, isometric or isokinetc).

Excluding interventons that control for total weekly training volume.

Excluding interventons with aerobic exercise or other components that are not resistance-training.

Excluding interventons where resistance-training was performed for



Frequency (not volume-matched), continued...Dynamic training load increased signifcantly more in the groups training 2 and 3 tmes per week than in the group that trained 1 tme per week.

Farinat (2013) the researchers assessed the efect of training frequency on strength gains in 48 elderly women aged >60 years over a 16-week training program. The subjects performed 1 set of 10RM for several exercises either 1, 2, or 3 days per week. The exercises comprised the bench press, seated dumbbell curl, knee extension and standing calf raise. The researchers found that all groups increased 10RM strength in all exercise. However, they found that for the seated dumbbell curl and knee extension was greater in the higher frequencies.

DiFrancisco-Donoghue (2007) the researchers assessed the efects of training frequency in 18 elderly subjects aged 65 79 years. The subjects were randomly assigned to 1 or 2 groups who trained either 1 or 2 tmes per week. Both groups performed 1 set of 6 exercises at 75% of 1RM with 10 15 repettons to failure for 9 weeks. The exercises comprised the leg press, leg extension, leg curl, chest fy, arm curl and seated dip. The researchers observed no diference in strength gains between the two groups. However, there was a non-signifcant trend for the group training 2 tmes per week to increase strength by more on average across the 6 exercises than the group training 1 tme per week (40.0% vs. 30.8%).

Kim (2010) the researchers assessed the efects of frequency of lumbar extension exercise on strength gains after 12 weeks in 40 patents undergoing lumbar discectomy surgery. The subjects trained 1 or 2 tmes per week or once every 2 weeks. The researchers found that groups training 1 and 2 tmes per week increased strength by 11.8% and 3.3% while the group training once every 2 weeks displayed a 8.2% reducton in strength. Despite the large numerical diferences between groups, they were not signifcant.

Carroll (1998) the researchers assessed the efects of frequency on strength gains following leg extensor and fexor resistance-training in 17 relatvely untrained students. The subjects performed 4 upper-body and 3 lower-body exercises for 3 sets of 4 6 RM to 15 20RM, depending on the exercise, training either 2 or 3 tmes per week for 6 weeks. The researchers found that increases in 1RM strength were not signifcantly diferent in the groups that trained 2 and 3 tmes per week, although there was a non-signifcant trend in favor of the group training 3 tmes per week (32% vs. 22%). However, increases in isokinetc and isometric strength were signifcantly greater in the group that trained 2 tmes per week than the group that trained 3 tmes per week (22 50% vs. -5 9%). Thus, there

were benefts to diferent strength measures from each type of training frequency.

Graves (1988) the researchers assessed the efects of reducing frequency during variable resistance-training in 50 lightly-trained subjects (24 males and 26 females) following 10-week (23 subjects) and 18-week (27 subjects) phases of training. In this reduced phase, the subjects performed 1 set of 7 10 bilateral knee extension exercise to failure, either 1 day or 2 days per week. Prior to this phase, one group of the subjects had trained either 2 or 3 days per week. The subjects who had trained 2 days reduced their training to 1 day per week and the subjects who had trained 3 days reduced their training to 2 days per week. In the inital training phase, the researchers found that the group training 3 tmes per week increased isometric strength to a signifcantly greater extent than those who only trained 2 tmes per week (26% vs. 17%). There was no signifcant efect of training frequency in the detraining period.

Graves (1990) the researchers assessed the efects of frequency of isolated lumbar extension resistance-training in 72 males and 42 females following a 12-weeks resistance-training interventon. The subjects were allocated to training every other week, once per week, twice per week or 3 tmes per week. The researchers reported that all training groups improved isometric lumbar extension torque signifcantly with no diferences between groups. In respect of the groups training once per week, twice per week or 3 tmes per week, dynamic strength increased by 38.9%, 41.4% and 37.2%, respectvely, but these improvements were not signifcantly diferent from one another.

Taafe (1989) the researchers performed a randomized controlled trial to compare the efects of resistance-training 1, 2 or 3 tmes per week for 24 weeks in 46 elderly people aged 65 79 years. The training interventon comprised 3 sets of 8 repettons at 80% of 1RM for 8 exercises for the upper and lower body. The researchers reported that strength increased signifcantly in each training group in all of the 8 exercises. However, there was no signifcant diference between groups. The average increase in strength across the 8 exercises in the groups training 1, 2 and 3 tmes per week was 37.0 15.2%, 41.9 18.2% and 39.7 9.8%.

Carpenter (2001) the researchers assessed the efect of frequency on the development of isometric lumbar extension torque over 12- and 20-week training periods in 56 subjects. The subjects trained either once every other week, or 1, 2 or 3 tmes per week. The training comprised 1 set of 8 12 repettons of a variable-resistance lumbar extension exercise to failure. Before and after the interventon, he researchers measured isolated isometric lumbar extension torque at 7 diferent angles.


Page 10



Frequency (not volume-matched), continued...The researchers reported that all training groups signifcantly increased lumbar extension torque at both 12 and 20 weeks with no signifcant diferences between groups training >1 tme per week. Moreover, there was no trend of increasing or decreasing strength gains with frequency.

Berger (1965) the researchers assessed the efects of training frequency in 79 male subjects divided into 6 groups. In 3 of these groups, the subjects trained 2 tmes per week with 66%, 80%, or 90% of 1RM in additon to a weekly 1RM efort. A fourth group trained 3 tmes per week with the 1RM, a ffth group trained 3 tmes per week with 66% of the 1RM and a sixth group with the 1RM once per week. The researchers found that the group training with 66% of 1RM three tmes per week displayed a smaller increase in strength than the other groups. Therefore, training with 1RM once per week was as efectve as training with the 1RM three tmes per week.

Rozier and Schafer (1981) the researchers assessed the efects of frequency of isokinetc unilateral knee extension exercise in 23 young, female subjects over a 6-week interventon. One group trained with 3 sets of 8 repettons daily for 5 tmes per week while the other performed the same protocol 3 tmes per week. The researchers found that both groups increased isometric and isokinetc strength gains signifcantly but there were no signifcant diferences between the two groups. Moreover, the trends were for a greater increase in isometric (17% vs. 12%) and isokinetc (15% vs. 12%) strength for the lower frequency group over the higher frequency group.

How can we summarize the literature?The literature is confictng but there seems to be some evidence that a higher training frequency might lead to greater strength gains than a lower training frequency. Equally, there is much less evidence that higher training frequency will lead to inferior results. This implies that where athletes have the ability to recover from additonal sessions and are motvated to perform them, it seems unlikely that this will lead to diminished strength gains.

What are the practical implications?Individuals who are pressured for tme might expect to see signifcant strength gains by training just once or twice per week. However, additonal sessions leading to more volume may lead to slightly better gains in strength.

Where individuals have the ability to recover from additonal strength training sessions and are motvated to perform them, a higher training frequency leading to more volume may well lead to greater strength gains and it seems unlikely to lead to inferior strength gains.


Page 11



Frequency (volume-matched)The efect of training frequency on strength is difcult to assess. In the ftness industry, there are strong proponents of both infrequent (once per week) and very frequent (6+ tmes per week) training approaches, both on a body-part and on a full-body basis. In the literature, there are a number of studies but many of them do not control for the efect of increased volume. This review sets out what we currently know about how frequency afects strength gains, where volume is maintained the same across the week.

What is the background?Training frequency has traditonally been considered important for strength gains. However, training frequency is often (but not always) manipulated for the purposes of indirectly altering total weekly training volume. Indeed, in many research studies investgatng frequency, total weekly training volume is often not equated between the groups. This leads to a greater total volume of training being performed by the high-frequency group. Since volume may also be a key factor, this is a confounding factor. Therefore, it is important to consider what happens to strength gains when frequency is altered while maintaining total weekly training volume the same. This will provide informaton about whether splitng the same total weekly workload into more sessions would be superior to performing fewer but longer training sessions.

What are the selection criteria?The purpose of this short review is to assess the efects of training frequency on strength gains measured by any metric in volume-matched studies of resistance-training-only interventons in both trained and untrained populatons, where training frequency is >1 session per week. This involves the following selecton criteria:

Including any interventon assessing the efects of training frequency on strength gains.

Measurement of strength gains by any metric (e.g. dynamic/isoinertal, isometric or isokinetc).

Excluding interventons that do not control for total weekly training volume.

Excluding interventons with aerobic exercise or other components that are not resistance-training.

Excluding interventons where resistance-training was performed for



Frequency (volume-matched), continued...However, they did note signifcant increases in maximal isometric strength of the leg extensors of 5.1% from 2493 553 to 2620 598N in the 3-week period involving training two tmes per day. The researchers reported that this increase was much greater than that achieved in the 3-week period involving training once per day, which was an increase of just 0.1%. However, as Carpinelli (2004) has noted, these data do not match the data in the table, which report an increase of 13.2% from 2258 652 to 2555 555N in the 3-week period involving training once per day. It seems likely that there is an error in the data presented in the table.

Hartmann (2007) performed a 3-week investgaton into the efects of twice- and once-daily training sessions with similar training volumes in 10 natonally compettve male weightlifters on isometric knee-extension strength, vertcal-jump peak power and weightlifting performance. The researchers did not observe any signifcant diferences between the two groups. However, they did fnd that there was a greater non-signifcant percentage increase in isometric knee-extension strength (5.1% vs. 3.2%) in the twice-daily training group than in the once-daily training group. It is important to note that the duraton of the study very short and the training status of the subjects very high and this might have led to a greater chance of type II error occurring.

How can we summarize the literature?There is a trend for a higher volume-matched frequency causing greater strength gains in trained subjects. However, there is very little evidence to build a case and further research is needed.

What is the effect of frequency on strength gains in untrained subjects?The following long-term training studies have explored the efects of diferent volume-matched frequencies of training on strength gains in untrained subjects:

Calder (1994) performed a 20-week investgaton in 30 young women in 3 groups who performed either whole-body training, upper-lower split training or no training (a control). The whole-body group performed 4 upper (5 sets of 6 10RM) and 3 lower body (5 sets of 10 12RM) resistance exercises in single sessions twice a week. The upper-lower split group did the upper body exercises on 2 days a week and the lower body exercises on 2 other days of the week. The researchers reported that 1RM increased signifcantly in the arm curl, bench press and leg press exercises in both the whole-body training and upper-lower split training groups by 54% vs. 69%, 33% vs. 32%, and 21% vs. 22%. There was therefore no diference between the improvements attained by the two groups.

Benton (2011) investgated the efects of 8 weeks of 3 versus 4 days per week of volume-matched resistance-training on body compositon in middle-aged women. The 3-day group completed 3 sets of 8 exercises arranged as a whole-body routne and the 4-day group completed 3 sets of 6 upper body exercises or 6 sets of 3 lower body exercises, arranged as an upper-lower split routne. Both groups of subjects performed 72 sets per week of 8 12 repettons at 50 80% of 1RM. The researchers reported no signifcant diferences in strength gains between the two groups. They found that chest press 1RM increased 34% in both groups while leg press 1RM increased 29% in the 3-day group and 49% in the 4-day group. There was therefore a trend for greater lower body strength gains in the higher frequency group.

Candow and Burke (2007) investgated the efects of 6 weeks of 2 versus 3 days per week of volume-matched resistance-training on strength gains in 29 untrained subjects, who performed either 3 sets of 10 repettons to fatgue twice a week or 2 sets of 10 repettons 3 tmes per week of the squat and bench press. The researchers reported that both groups signifcantly improved both squat and bench press strength. They found that the relatve increases in squat 1RM for the 2-day and 3-day groups were similar (29% vs. 28%) while the relatve increase in bench press 1RM was slightly higher in the higher frequency group (22% vs. 30%). However, there were no signifcant diferences between groups.

Arazi and Asadi (2011) divided 39 healthy but untrained males into four groups: one group performing 1 session of total-body resistance training (12 exercises, once a week), another group performing total-body resistance training divided into 2 sessions (6 exercises, twice a week), an upper-lower split group performing 3 sessions per week (4 exercises, three tmes a week), and a control group (hereafter called 1-day, 2-day, 3-day and control groups). All groups performed the same volume and number of exercises, which comprised the leg press, leg curl, leg extension, calf raise, lat pull-down, lat pull-row, bench press, pec fy, arm curl, dumbbell arm curl, triceps push-down, and dumbbell triceps extension. Before and after the interventon, the researchers estmated bench press and leg press 1RM based on the performance of an 8RM. The researchers reported that each of the 1-day, 2-day, 3-day groups signifcantly increased both bench press 1RM and leg press 1RM following the interventon. However, they did not observe any signifcant diferences between any of the training groups. The researchers did not provide numerical fgures for the improvements so it is difcult to assess whether there were any non-signifcant changes. However, based on the charts provided it does not appear that there were any frequency-related trends.


Page 13



Frequency (volume-matched), continued...Hunter (1985) compared the efects of either 3-days or 4-days per week of training frequency in 46 untrained males and females. The subjects all performed 9 sets each of 7 exercises (bench press, squat, power clean, behind-the-neck press, biceps curl, behind-the-neck pull-down, and thigh curls) with a 7 10RM for a 7-week period. The researchers found that the 3-day and 4-day groups both signifcantly improved bench press strength (14.1% vs. 21.9 %) and there was no signifcant diference between the groups. However, the 4-day group did display a non-signifcantly greater improvement.

Andersen (2012) compared how distributng 1 hour per week of strength training for the neck and shoulder muscles would afect neck pain, disability and strength gains in 447 ofce workers with and without neck and/or shoulder pain. The subjects were randomly allocated into 1 of 4 strength training groups: 1 session of 60 minutes, 3 sessions of 20 minutes, or 9 sessions of 7 minutes, or to a non-training control group. The researchers assessed self-reported neck and shoulder pain, work disability, and strength improvements in the lateral raise exercise. The researchers reported that 10RM lateral raise performance increased by 0.16kg per week in the 1 x 60-minute group, which was signifcantly faster than the 9 x 7-minute group, which displayed an average increase of 0.07kg per week. The increase in the 3 x 20-minute group was 0.12kg per week but this was not signifcantly diferent from either of the other two training groups.

How can we summarize the literature?There is very limited evidence for the benefcial efects of either a higher volume-matched training frequency or a lower volume-matched training frequency on strength gains for untrained individuals. The research is very confictng and it is not possible to draw a defnitve conclusion at this stage.

What are the practical implications?

For trained individualsIncreasing frequency may be an efectve way of maximizing strength gains, even if this occurs simply by redistributng the same volume over a greater number of sessions.

For untrained individualsIncreasing frequency may not be as efectve for strength gains as in trained subjects and the research is currently confictng. Therefore, stcking to a traditonal number of sessions (e.g. three tmes per week) may be the most conservatve course of acton.


Page 14



Relative load (heavy loads versus light loads)Most strength and conditoning professionals believe that training with heavier relatve loads leads to improved strength gains in comparison with lighter relatve loads. But how good is the evidence for this contenton? Does training with heavier relatve loads in fact lead to greater strength gains than training with lighter relatve loads?

What is the background?When developing guidance for resistance-training programs, strength and conditoning coaches and sports science researchers generally refer to three diferent bands of relatve load, typically described as heavy (1 5RM), moderate (6 15RM) and light (15RM+, which corresponds with



Relative load (heavy loads versus light loads), continued...However, the heavy-load group increased isometric strength by signifcantly more than the light groups.

Mitchell (2012) the researchers recruited 18 healthy but untrained young males for a 10-week study in which they performed single-leg resistance-training 3 tmes per week. The researchers randomly allocated each of the subjects legs to 1 of 3 diferent training protocols that difered by volume and by relatve load, as follows: 30% of 1RM x 3 sets, 80% of 1RM x 1 set, and 80% of 1RM x 3 sets. The researchers found that all training protocols led to signifcant increases in 1RM but the increase in 1RM was greater in the 80% of 1RM x 1 set and 80% of 1RM x 3 set conditons than in the 30% of 1RM x 3 sets conditon. The researchers also reported that isometric strength increased in all conditons but there were no signifcant diferences between conditons.

Ogasawara (2013) the researchers recruited 9 young, untrained males for a 6-week, high-load-resistance-training program for the bench press using 75% of 1RM for 3 sets, 3 tmes per week, followed by a 12-month detraining period, followed by a 6-week, low-load-resistance-training program using 30% of 1RM for 4 sets, 3 tmes per week. The researchers found that post-interventon, 1RM and isometric strength both increased signifcantly in both groups. However, they found that the increase in the heavy-load group was signifcantly greater than that in the light-load group for both (1RM 21.0 5.9% vs. 8.6 2.9%) and isometric (13.9 7.5% vs. 6.5 4.9%) strength measures.

Moss (1997) the researchers recruited 30 physical educaton students and randomly allocated them into 1 of 3 groups, who trained with loads of either 90%, 35%, or 15% of IRM. The groups trained using 3 5 sets, 3 tmes per week for 9 weeks. The 90% group trained using 2 reps, the 35% group using 7 reps and the 15% group using 10 reps. The researchers reported that 1RM increased by 15.2 4.5%, 10.1 5.9% and 6.6% in each of the 90%, 35% and 15% groups, respectvely. The researchers found that the increase in the 90% group was signifcantly greater than the increase in the 15% group.

Anderson (1982) the researchers assessed the efects on strength gains of 3 diferent resistance training programs: high resistance-low repetton, medium resistance-medium repetton, and low resistance-high repetton. The researchers found that the high resistance-low repetton training conditon led to signifcantly greater strength gains than the other two conditons.

Aagaard (1996) the researchers compared the efects of strength training using high loads and slow speeds (4 sets of 8 reps with 8RM loading) and low loads and high speeds (4 sets of 24 reps with 24RM loading) in 22 elite soccer players. Before and after the trial, the researchers tested

isokinetc concentric and eccentric knee extension and fexion torques at 30, 120, 240 degrees/s. The researchers found that isokinetc knee strength did not increase signifcantly in the low load group. On the other hand, concentric torque increased signifcantly in the high load group for both knee extension and fexion at 30 degrees/s and eccentric torque increased signifcantly at 30, 120 and 240 degrees/s.

Weiss (1999) the researchers compared the efects of three resistance-training protocols with either high, moderate or low loads in 38 untrained males. The subjects trained 3 tmes per week for 7 weeks with 4 sets of squats using a 3 5RM, 13 15RM, or 23 25RM load, respectvely. The researchers found that squat strength and knee extension peak torque at 60 degrees/s signifcantly increased in all groups. However, squat strength improved signifcantly more in the high-load group than in the low-load group.

Bemben (2000) the researchers compared the efects of two volume-matched, high-load (80% of 1RM) and low-load (40% of 1RM) resistance-training protocols on strength gains in 25 early postmenopausal, estrogen-defcient women. The protocols were performed for 3 sets, 3 days per week for 6 months. The researchers found that while both training groups displayed similar increases measures of lower body strength and hip strength, the high-load group displayed signifcantly greater improvements in upper body strength (25% vs. 16%).

Rana (2008) the researchers assessed the efects of relatve load on strength gains in 34 healthy adult females who performed a 6-week resistance-training program comprising the leg press, back squat and knee extension. The researchers allocated the subjects into various diferent groups, including a control, a traditonal strength (heavy) group, a traditonal endurance (light) group, and a slow-velocity group. The heavy group trained at 6 10 RM, the light group trained at 20 30RM, both with 1 2 second concentric and eccentric phases, and the slow-velocity group trained using a 6 10RM with a 10-second concentric and 4-second eccentric phase. Comparing just the traditonal strength and traditonal endurance groups, the researchers found that the traditonal strength group displayed signifcantly greater 1RM strength gains in the leg press and knee extension exercises than the endurance group. The traditonal strength group also showed a non-signifcant trend to display greater increases in strength for the squat.

Popov (2006) the researchers recruited 18 young, physically actve males for an 8-week interventon, in which they trained their leg extensor muscles 3 tmes per week using the leg press exercise. A heavy group worked at 80% of MVC and a light group worked at 50% of MVC.


Page 16



Relative load (heavy loads versus light loads), continued...The researchers reported that strength increased signifcantly in both the heavy and light groups. While there was a non-signifcant trend for the heavy group to increase strength (measured as maximum force developed during the leg press exercise) to a greater extent (35% vs. 21%), there was no signifcant diference between the groups.

Hisaeda (1996) the researchers compared the efects of two resistance-training protocols using the knee extension exercise in 11 untrained female subjects. In a light-load protocol, the subjects used 4 5 sets of 15 20RM with sufcient inter-set rest periods. In a heavy-load protocol, the subjects used 8 9 sets of 4 6RM with a 90-second inter-set rest period. Before and after the interventon, the researchers measured isokinetc knee extension torque at 0, 60, 180, and 300 degrees/s. The researchers found that isokinetc torque increased signifcantly in both groups but there was a non-signifcant trend for the light-load protocol to lead to greater strength gains (43.4 47.5% vs. 27.4 31.3%).

Stone (1994) the researchers compared the efects of three resistance-training protocols with either high, moderate and low loads in 50 untrained females. The protocols involved 9 weeks of training either involving 3 sets of 6 8RM, 2 sets of 15 20RM, or 1 set of 30 40RM, respectvely. The researchers found that in all groups there were signifcant strength gains as measured by 1RM but there were no signifcant diferences between groups. There was a non-signifcant trend for the high-load group to display the greatest gains in strength.

Leger (2006) the researchers recruited 25 healthy but untrained males for an 8-week interventon of resistance training followed by de-training. The subjects were allocated into one of two training groups (low reps or high reps) that were matched for age, height, weight, VO2-max and muscular strength and endurance. The subjects performed the same training protocol as described in Campos (2002) above. The researchers found that resistance training led to 50% and 15% strength gains in the leg extension and squat, respectvely, but there was no strength gain for the leg press exercise. The researchers found no signifcant diferences in strength gains between the two groups and did not provide data for the two groups separately. Therefore, it was not possible to ascertain whether there was any non-signifcant trend.

Pruit (1995) the researchers compared the efects of two resistance-training protocols with either high or low loads in 26 older females (65 82 years). The high-load group performed 7 repettons at 80% of 1RM and the low-load group performed 14 repettons at 40% of 1RM) for 3 sets each in 10 exercises, 3 tmes per week for 1 year. The researchers found that arm strength increased signifcantly more in the low-load group than in the high-load group

(65.5% vs. 27.4%). However, both high- and low-load groups displayed signifcant increases in 1RM for chest (10.1% vs. 15.4 %), shoulders (18.5% vs. 27.4 %), upper back (41.4% vs. 21.0 %), lower back (35.8% vs. 35.4 %), hips (50.9% vs. 66.4 %), and legs (47.6% vs. 42.4%) with no signifcant diferences between these increases.

How can we summarize the results of these studies?In 13 out of the 18 studies presented above, there was a signifcantly superior strength gain in the heavier load conditon in comparison with the lighter load conditon. In 3 further studies, there were no signifcant diferences between conditons albeit there was a non-signifcant trend in favor of a bigger strength gain in the heavier load conditon in comparison with the lighter load conditon. In 1 further study, there was no signifcant diference between conditons and no data were presented to allow the determinaton of non-signifcant trends. In 1 fnal study, the lighter load conditon achieved greater strength gains than the higher load conditon. Thus, it seems clear that while training with both heavy and light loads can lead to strength gains, training with heavier loads (here defned as heavier than 15RM) leads to superior strength gains than training with lighter loads (here defned as lighter than 15RM).

What are the practical implications?Trainees can be assured that some strength gains will occur even with very light loads. However, for maximizing strength gains, heavier loads than 15RM are defnitely superior.


Page 17



Relative load (heavy versus moderate loads)Most ftness professionals believe that training with heavier relatve loads leads to improved strength gains in comparison with training with any lighter relatve loads. But how precise can we be about the relatve load that leads to the greatest strength gains? In the previous review, we looked at the diferences in strength gains following from high versus low loads. But what are the diferences in strength gains following from high versus moderate loads?

What is the background?When developing guidance for resistance-training programs, strength and conditoning coaches and sports science researchers generally refer to three diferent bands of relatve load, typically described as heavy (1 5RM), moderate (6 15RM) and light (15RM+, which corresponds with



Relative load (heavy versus moderate loads), continued...

How can we summarize these studies?In 2 of the 6 studies presented, there was a signifcantly greater strength gain following training with heavy (less than 5RM) than with moderate (5 15RM) loads. In 1 further study, there was a non-signifcant trend in favor of heavy loads over moderate loads. In another study, there was no non-signifcant diference between the strength gains. And in 2 fnal studies, there was a non-signifcant trend in favor of moderate loads over heavier loads. In summary, the literature is very confictng. The picture is not as clear as the one that we see when we compare heavy and light loads. Thus, it is difcult to conclude on whether heavy loads are defnitvely better than moderate loads for increasing strength.

What are the practical implications?Individuals looking to improve strength may wish to make use of moderate (i.e. 5 15RM) loads rather than heavy (



Bar speed (relative load controlled)The efect of repetton speed on strength is difcult to assess. There are proponents of both fast and slow bar speeds. Advocates of fast bar speeds suggest that this allows a greater recruitment of high-threshold muscle fbers. Supporters of slow bar speeds call attenton to the greater potental for tme-under-tension. Researchers are plagued by difcultes associated with controlling other variables. Because of the force-velocity relatonship, the most problematc variable is relatve load. This review sets out what we currently know about how repetton speed afects strength gains during isoinertal training when relatve load is controlled.

What is the background?Various researchers as well as strength and conditoning coaches have proposed that repetton speed may be important for strength. There are two basic ways in which a weight can be lifted: (1) with maximal velocity, and (2) with a controlled, sub-maximal tempo. Within this second category, a variety of diferent lifting tempos could be used, ranging from very slow to very fast (but not maximal). Some researchers and strength and conditoning coaches have suggested that a better term for repettons speed or bar speed would be repetton duraton. This places an emphasis on the importance of the tme-under-tension aspect. However, such consideratons of terminology likely pale in comparison with the more serious problems of isolatng variables and measuring outcomes.

Problems with isolating variablesChanging repetton speed is practcally impossible to perform in complete isolaton of all other relevant training variables (i.e. relatve load, volume, muscular failure, tme-under-tension, etc.). This is largely because of the force-velocity relatonship. Where larger forces are required in order to move greater loads, muscle contracton velocity must be lower. This means that comparisons between fast and slow repetton speed conditons often inherently compare diferent relatve loads as the force produced must be diferent. A corollary of this point is that where relatve load is maintained the same and sets are performed to muscular failure in all cases, it is highly unlikely that two workout protocols with diferent repetton speeds will be performed with the same overall volume (load x sets x reps). Indeed, it is usually the case that a faster repetton speed leads to more repettons being performed with the same relatve load. Thus, volume often difers between conditons. Equally, where volume is artfcially equated, then this would likely require taking only one of the conditons to muscular failure. This means that researchers need to choose which training variable is least likely to confound their results, which means making decisions about what training variables are most important before actually completng the study.

All of this discussion simply shows that it is hard to isolate repetton speed as a training variable. When it is altered, other training variables such as relatve load, volume, and proximity to muscular failure tend to be altered simultaneously, depending on the other parameters that are fxed.

Problems with measuring strengthThe other major problem with assessing the efect of training programs involving diferent repetton speeds is the queston of how to measure strength. Broadly speaking, we can measure strength isometrically, isokinetcally and isoinertally (i.e. 1RM for an exercise). Within those categories, we can measure strength isometrically at diferent joint angles and we can measure strength isokinetcally at diferent velocites. In the case of repetton speed, it is most problematc when measuring strength isokinetcally at diferent speeds, as many of the training programs tested often involve training at the same speeds. Therefore, there is a training specifcity issue, and it is not partcularly surprising when we fnd that training at slow isokinetc speeds leads to increases in slow isokinetc strength while training at fast isokinetc speeds leads to increases in fast isokinetc strength. Unfortunately, other than simply ignoring isokinetc measurement methods, there isnt really an easy way of dealing with this problem.

What are the selection criteria?For this partcular review, the following selecton criteria were applied:

Interventons investgatng the deliberate (not incidental) efect of repetton speed on strength gains.

Interventons using conventonal resistance-training methods (i.e. not isokinetc or isometric) only.

Measurement of strength by dynamic/isoinertal, isometric or isokinetc methods.

Studies with matched relatve loads.

While this is not an ideal approach, this seems to be the limitatons of the literature at present. It is intended to be one way of exploring the diference between the efects that arise from training with a specifc bar speed or tempo rather than simply trying to move the bar as fast as possible. It is fully accepted that there are other (probably equally valid) ways of analyzing the literature. The eagle-eyed will notce that it wasn't actually necessary to specify that isokinetc or isometric training interventons were excluded because matched relatve loads were already specifed. Diferent isokinetc speeds inherently involve diferent relatve loads because they are performed with maximal efort and therefore the force-velocity relatonship means that slower isokinetc speeds involve higher relatve loads than faster isokinetc speeds.


Page 20



Bar speed (relative load controlled), continued...

How does repetition speed affect strength gains when relative load is controlled?A small number of studies have been performed that have compared the efect of repetton velocity on strength gains following isoinertal training in (mostly) untrained subjects where relatve load is controlled, as follows:

Munn (2005) compared the efect of repetton speed on strength gains in a 6-week trial in 115 healthy, untrained subjects. The subjects performed either 1 set fast (c. 140 degrees/s), 3 sets fast, 1 set slow (50 degrees/s), or 3 sets slow of elbow fexion with a 6 8RM, 3 tmes per week. Before and after the interventon, the researchers measured 1RM. The researchers reported that the fast group displayed a signifcantly greater increase in strength than the slow group (by 11%).

Morrissey (1998) explored the efect of repetton speed in a 7-week trial in which two groups of untrained female subjects performed squats in one of two conditons, being either slow (2 seconds up and 2 seconds) or fast (1 second up and 1 second down) for 3 sets of 8 repettons to muscular failure, 3 tmes per week. Before and after the interventon, the researchers measured 1RM squat and isometric and isokinetc knee extensor strength between 25 125 degrees/s.

Rana (2008) compared the efects of repetton speed in 34 healthy adult females who performed a 6-week resistance-training program comprising the leg press, back squat and knee extension. The researchers allocated the subjects into various diferent groups. A fast-heavy group trained at 6 10 RM with 1 2 second concentric and eccentric phases and a slow-heavy group trained at 6 10RM but with a 10-second concentric and a 4-second eccentric phase. The researchers found that the slow-heavy group did signifcantly increase leg press and knee extension 1RM (30% and 27%) but this increase was smaller than that of the fast-heavy group (62% and 54%). The fast-heavy group increased squat 1RM signifcantly but the slow-heavy group did not (46% vs. 27%).

Liow and Hopkins (2003) compared the efects of slow and explosive resistance-training in 27 male and 11 female experienced sprint kayakers. The resistance-training was performed 2 tmes per week for 6 weeks and involved 3 4 sets of the bench press and dumbbell pull exercises with 80% of 1RM. The slow group performed the exercise with a tempo such that the duraton of the exercise was 1.7s while the duraton of the exercise in the explosive group was



Bar speed (relative load controlled), continued...

How can we summarize these studies?Of the 7 studies, 4 displayed signifcantly superior results as a result of fast repetton velocites when controlling for relatve load. One additonal study found confictng results and two further studies found a non-signifcant trend in favor of a slower repetton velocity. In summary, when relatve load is controlled during isoinertal training, it seems that a faster repetton speed leads to superior strength gains than a slower repetton speed, although the literature is stll somewhat confictng.

What are the practical implications?When the repetton speed does not afect the relatve load selected, fast repetton speeds seem to be better for strength gains. Fast repetton speeds would therefore seem to be recommended for individuals training purely for strength.


Page 22



Bar speed (relative load not controlled)The efect of repetton speed on strength is hard to assess. Researchers are plagued by difcultes associated with controlling other training variables when repetton speed is varied. The force-velocity relatonship makes relatve load the most signifcant confounding factor for assessing repetton velocity. The previous review sets out the literature where relatve load is controlled. On face value, this may appear a better method of investgaton. In fact, not controlling for other training variables can provide greater insight into what happens in real life when repetton speed is deliberately altered. This review sets out what we currently know about how repetton speed afects strength gains after isoinertal training when relatve load is NOT controlled.

What is the background?There are two basic ways in which a weight can be lifted: (1) with maximal velocity, and (2) with a controlled, sub-maximal tempo. Within this second category, a variety of diferent lifting tempos can be used, ranging from very slow to very fast (but not maximal). Some researchers and strength and conditoning coaches have suggested that a better term for repettons speed or bar speed would be repetton duraton. This places an emphasis on the importance of the tme-under-tension aspect. However, such consideratons of terminology likely pale in comparison with the much bigger problems of isolatng variables and measuring outcomes, which I discussed in a previous post about repetton speed.

What are the selection criteria?For this review, the following specifc selecton criteria were applied:

Interventons investgatng the deliberate (not incidental) efect of repetton speed on strength gains.

Interventons using conventonal resistance-training methods (i.e. not isokinetc or isometric) only.

Measurement of strength by dynamic/isoinertal, isometric or isokinetc methods.

Studies with un-matched relatve loads.

While this is not an ideal approach, this seems to be a limitaton of the literature at present, partcularly as there are a great number of studies that have explored the efects of isokinetc training interventons.

How does repetition speed affect strength gains when relative load is not controlled?Several studies have been performed that have compared the efect of repetton velocity on strength gains following isoinertal training in untrained subjects where relatve load is not controlled, as follows:

Tanimoto and Ishii (2006) compared slow and fast repettons in a 12-week knee extension exercise study comprising 3 sets, 3 tmes a week. They analyzed the efects of three diferent groups, which included a fast group and a slow group. The slow group lifted with a 3-second eccentric and concentric acton and a 1-second pause but no relaxaton using a 50% of 1RM load. The fast group lifted with a 1-second eccentric and concentric acton and a 1-second relaxaton but no pause, using an 80% of 1RM load. The researchers found that the gain in isometric strength was signifcantly larger in the fast group than in the slow group. However, there were no signifcant diferences in the gains in isokinetc or in 1RM strength between groups.

Tanimoto (2008) performed a similar study to Tanimoto and Ishii (2006) but with 5 exercises (squat, chest press, latssimus dorsi pull-down, abdominal bend, and back extension). However, rather than measure isometric, isokinetc and 1RM strength values, they only studied 1RM. It is noted that the previous study did not fnd any diferences in respect of either 1RM or isokinetc strength measures. This therefore increases the risk of type II error in the present study. Indeed, the researchers found no diferences between the groups in respect of 1RM percentage changes. However, it is also important to note that the slow group increased the sum of 1RM lifts by a non-signifcantly smaller amount (33.0 8.8%) than the fast group (41.2 7.8%). In respect of individual exercise 1RM changes, the back extension 1RM increased by signifcantly more in the fast group than in the slow group.

Keeler (2001) compared the efects on 1RM strength of training with 8 traditonal Nautlus-type resistance-training (2-second concentric and 4-second eccentric contractons) or 8 similar exercises using a SuperSlow resistance-training technique (10-second concentric and 5-second eccentric contractons). The traditonal group used 80% of 1RM and the SuperSlow group used 50% of 1RM. For the study, they recruited 14 sedentary women, who trained 3 tmes per week for 10 weeks. The researchers reported that while both groups signifcantly increased 1RM strength on all 8 exercises, the Nautlus group increased signifcantly more than the SuperSlow group in bench press (34% vs. 11%), anterior lateral pull-down (27% vs. 12%), leg press (33% vs. 7%), leg extension (56% vs. 24%), and leg curl (40% vs. 15%) strength as well as total of all exercise 1RM strength (39% vs. 15%).

Neils (2005) compared conventonal (2-second concentric and 4-second eccentric contractons) and SuperSlow (10-second concentric and 5-second eccentric contractons) resistance-training over an 8-week interventon, training 3 days per week, using the bench press and squat exercises.


Page 23



Bar speed (relative load not controlled), continued...The SuperSlow group used 50% of 1RM and the conventonal group used 80% of 1RM. The total tme-under-tension was around 90 120 seconds per set for the SuperSlow group and around 20 45 seconds per set for the conventonal group. The researchers reported that while both groups increased bench press 1RM and squat 1RM signifcantly, the conventonal group improved strength by non-signifcantly more than the SuperSlow group in the squat (6.8% vs. 3.6%) but not in the bench press (8.6% vs. 9.1%).

Westcot (2001) performed two separate trials, both of which compared conventonal (2-second concentric, 1-second pause and 4-second eccentric contractons) and SuperSlow (10-second concentric and 4-second eccentric contractons) resistance-training for 2 3 days per week for 8 10 weeks. In both trials, conventonal training was performed for 8 12 repettons per set with 10RM and SuperSlow training was performed for 4 6 repettons per set with 5RM. The frst trial involved 13 Nautlus-type exercises in 74 untrained males and females. The second trial involved performing only the Nautlus chest press in 73 untrained males and females. The researchers reported that in the frst trial, SuperSlow training led to a signifcantly greater increase in strength than the conventonal training, (59% vs. 39%) although it is noted that both groups increased strength substantally. In the second trial, SuperSlow training also led to a signifcantly greater increase in strength than the conventonal training, (44% vs. 27%) although it is noted that both groups increased strength substantally.

How can we summarize these studies?In summary, 3 of the 6 trials (in 5 studies) displayed signifcantly superior results in favor of higher repetton velocites and a fourth study displayed a non-signifcant trend in the same directon. Two trials (in 1 study) displayed signifcantly superior results in favor of slower repetton velocites. To conclude, although the literature is somewhat confictng, there is some evidence that where a faster repetton speed is performed in isoinertal training in order that a greater relatve load can be used, faster repetton speeds may lead to greater strength gains. However, whether this is simply because greater relatve loads are being used is unclear.

What are the practical implications?Deliberately using a slow bar speed that necessitates the use of lower relatve loads may be counter-productve for strength gains. Therefore, fast repetton speeds would seem to be the default opton for individuals training purely for strength.


Page 24



Muscular failureWhether we should go to muscular failure during strength training is a source of signifcant controversy in the ftness industry. Strangely, despite a high degree of interest in the lay press, researchers have not studied this area in a lot of detail. To that end, volume-matched, long-term training studies are few and far between. Consequently, it is hard to know whether training to failure is helpful for maximizing strength gains.

What is the background?The whole training to failure debate is fraught with difcult issues. Firstly, there is a lack of consensus among coaches. Although training to momentary muscular failure is a common topic of debate in the ftness industry, there is no good consensus among strength coaches, powerlifting coaches and personal trainers regarding whether it is necessary to maximize strength gains. Consequently, while a signifcant proporton of strength trainees do train to muscular failure regularly, a good proporton also rarely go to failure in a given workout. Secondly, study protocols generally always go to failure. In the research literature exploring strength gains during a period of training, it is most common for all sets to be performed to failure. There is therefore an important discrepancy between what the research literature tells us and what a given trainee might be doing. This could limit the applicability of the research informaton to many individuals. Thirdly, defnitons of failure are tricky. While it may seem obvious to some partes that their defniton of training failure is quite straightorward, not everyone agrees on the meaning of the phrase. In general, there are two main defnitons, one being momentary muscular failure of the muscles involved (acceptng that this may be a complex matter in a mult-joint exercise), and the other being technical exercise failure, being the point at which the exercise could no longer be performed to a strict set of requirements. Finally, failure may not be needed to recruit all motor units While some researchers and proponents of training to muscular failure have suggested that training to failure is necessary in order to recruit all motor units, the research does not completely support this view. Sundstrup (2012) explored the EMG actvity of lateral raises during individual reps of 15RM loads performed to failure. They found that a plateau muscle actvity was reached at 10 12 reps of the 15RM load, which they interpreted to mean that training to complete failure is not necessary to fully recruit the entre motor unit pool, at least in untrained individuals. In summary, the important thing to remember is that the research into the efect of muscular failure (and exactly what muscular failure should be taken to mean) is surprisingly thin on the ground to say how often studies are performed involving protocols that have sets of exercises performed to failure!

What is the effect of training to failure on strength?The following training studies have explored the efect on strength of groups performing exercises to muscular failure (or simply greater degrees of fatgue) in comparison with other volume-matched groups performing the same exercises not to muscular failure (or to lesser degrees of fatgue), using various diferent approaches:

Izquierdo (2006) the researchers assessed the efects of training to failure or not-to-failure during 11 weeks of resistance-training, followed by an identcal 5-week period of maximal strength and power training in 42 physically-actve males. In the frst 11-week phase, the researchers found that both groups displayed similar gains in 1RM bench press and squat and while both groups displayed similar gains in maximum repettons during the squat, the failure group displayed larger gains in maximum repettons performed during the bench press. However, in the 5-week peaking phase, the not-to-failure group displayed larger gains in lower-body muscular power output of the lower extremites and not-to-failure group again displayed larger gains in maximum repettons performed during the bench press. The researchers suggested that not-to-failure training may beneft maximal strength and power while training to failure may enhance muscular endurance.

Drinkwater (2006) the researchers assessed the efect of training to repetton failure on 6RM bench press and 40kg bench throw power in elite junior athletes. The subjects performed bench press training for 3 workouts per week for 6 weeks, using equal volume in one of two groups. One group trained to repetton failure by using 4 sets of 6 repettons every 260 seconds while the other group trained using the same number of total repettons but not to failure, using 8 sets of 3 repettons every 113 seconds. The researchers found that the failure group displayed greater increases in both repetton strength and bench throw power.

Lawton (2004) the researchers compared the efects of two training protocols in 26 elite junior male basketball and soccer players. In two groups, the subjects performed either 4 sets of 6 repettons or 8 sets of 3 repettons of the bench press for 6-weeks. The 4 sets of 6 repettons group, which experienced greater levels of fatgue, signifcantly increased 6RM strength (9.7%) compared with the 8 sets of 3 repettons group (4.9%) but there was no signifcant diference in power gains between groups.

Folland (2002) the researchers compared the efects of two training protocols in 23 healthy adults with one group performing 4 sets of 10 repettons with 30 seconds inter-set rest (greater fatgue group) and the other group performing 40 repettons with 30 seconds rest between each repetton (lesser fatgue group), using on average 73% of 1RM on the bilateral knee extension machine, 3 tmes a week.


Page 25



Muscular failure, continued...After 9 weeks of training, the researchers found that maximal isometric knee extension strength measurements showed similar improvements for both groups.

Rooney (1994) the researchers assessed the efect of intra-set rest periods on strength in 42 healthy subjects within the context of a volume-matched program. The subjects were allocated to either a no-rest group, a rest group, or a control group. The two training groups trained their biceps by curling a 6RM weight 6 10 tmes, 3 tmes per week for 6 weeks. The no-rest group performed all repettons without restng, while subjects in the rest group rested for 30 seconds between each repetton. The researchers found that the group who trained to failure displayed signifcantly greater increases in strength. However, both training groups increased strength in comparison with the control.

Schot (1995) the researchers compared the adaptatons following two types of isometric strength training: short, intermittent contractons (lesser fatgue group) vs. longer, contnuous contractons (greater fatgue group) at 70% of MVIC in which 7 subjects trained 3 tmes per week for 14 weeks. The right leg was trained using 4 sets of 10 bouts of 3-second contractons with a 2-second rest period between each contracton and 2 minutes inter-set rest periods. The left leg was trained using 4 sets of 30-second cont

strength pdftraining for strength

Documents