Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Asian J Sports Med. 2015 - Ejercicios Aislados o Compuestos
Asian J Sports Med. 2015 - Ejercicios Aislados o Compuestos
DOI: 10.5812/asjsm.24057
Published online 2015 June 22. Research Article
*Corresponding author: Paulo Gentil, Department of Physical Education, University of Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil, Tel: +55-6132024731, E-mail: paulogentil@hotmail.com
Background: Some authors suggest that single joint (SJ) exercises promote greater muscle hypertrophy because they are easier to be
learned and therefore have less reliance on neural factors. On the other hand, some authors recommend an emphasis on multi-joint (MJ)
exercises for maximizing muscle strength, assuming that MJ exercises are more effective than SJ exercises because they enable a greater
magnitude of weight to be lifted.
Objectives: The present study aimed to compare the effects of MJ vs. SJ exercises on muscle size and strength gains in untrained young
men.
Patients and Methods: Twenty-nine young men, without prior resistance training experience, were randomly divided into two groups.
One group performed (n = 14) only MJ exercises involving the elbow flexors (lat. pull downs), while the other (n = 15) trained the elbow
flexors muscles using only SJ exercises (biceps curls). Both groups trained twice a week for a period of ten weeks. The volunteers were
evaluated for peak torque of elbow flexors (PT) in an isokinetic dynamometer and for muscle thickness (MT) by ultrasonography.
Results: There were significant increases in MT of 6.10% and 5.83% for MJ and SJ, respectively; and there were also significant increases in PT
for MJ (10.40%) and SJ (11.87%). However, the results showed no difference between groups pre or post training for MT or PT.
Conclusions: In conclusion, the results of the present study suggest that MJ and SJ exercises are equally effective for promoting increases
in upper body muscle strength and size in untrained men. Therefore, the selection between SJ and MJ exercises should be based on
individual and practical aspects, such as, equipment availability, movement specificity, individual preferences and time commitment.
1. Background
Resistance training (RT) has been recommended by tude of weight to be lifted (1, 3). However, evidences for
many authors and scientists as an important compo- these claims are limited because of the lack of studies
nent of physical activity programs, specifically because comparing muscle hypertrophy and strength gains be-
of its capacity to promote increases in muscle size and tween SJ and MJ exercises, which make it difficult to cor-
strength (1-3). However, in order to ensure optimal re- rectly choose an exercise when designing a RT program.
sults, the design of RT programs should be based on sci- A study of Giannakopoulos et al. (7) compared the ef-
entific principles that consider the manipulation and fects of SJ and MJ exercises on shoulder cuff muscular
combination of several variables, such as rest interval, performance and reported greater increases in internal
movement velocity, training load, number of sets and ex- and external rotation peak torque for the MJ group. How-
ercise selection (3, 4). Although exercise selection is one ever, the SJ group performed a lower number of sets and
of the most questioned variables, it has received surpris- at a lower intensity, which may limit the comparisons.
ingly little attention by the scientific community. A previous study investigated the effects of adding SJ
In general, it is common to classify resistance exercises exercises to a MJ protocol on muscle size and strength
as multi-joint (MJ) or single-joint (SJ), depending on how of young men and reported no differences in changes
many joints are involved in the movement. Some authors of elbow flexors’ muscle strength and size between the
suggest that SJ exercises promote greater muscle hyper- groups that performed only MJ and the group that per-
trophy because they are easier to be learned and there- formed MJ + SJ (8). However, since there was not a group
fore have less reliance on neural factors than MJ exer- performing only SJ exercises, the study may be valuable
cises (5, 6). On the other hand, some authors recommend for analyzing training volume rather than exercise selec-
an emphasis on MJ exercises for maximizing muscle tion and the question remains whether an RT program
strength, assuming that MJ exercises are more effective with only SJ exercise would be as efficient as a program
than SJ exercises because they enable a greater magni- involving only MJ exercises.
Copyright © 2015, Sports Medicine Research Center. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommer-
cial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits copy and redistribute the material just in noncommercial usages,
provided the original work is properly cited.
Gentil P et al.
5. Discussion
training (17). Training was conducted two days a week,
with a minimum of 48 hours between sessions. Rest
interval between sets ranged from 1.5 to 2.5 minutes. The major find of the present study was that there is
Each participant filled a training log for each workout, no significant difference on elbow flexor strength gains
containing the loads used, the number of repetitions and hypertrophy between MJ and SJ exercise. Exercise
performed in each set and any relevant information (ill- selection is a crucial step when designing RT programs.
ness, pain, sleep deprivation), and all training logs were However, there are many controversies when choosing
verified by a supervisor following each exercise session. an exercise, especially when deciding between SJ or MJ
exercises. Some authors suggest that SJ exercises would
3.6. Statistical Analysis promote greater increases in muscle size, because they
All values were reported as means and standard devia- would have less reliance on neural factors (5, 6). On the
tions. Two way ANOVA 2 x 2 (group by time) with a be- other hand, some authors (1, 3) suggest that MJ exercises
tween-within design was used to compare means. When are more effective because they enable a greater mag-
necessary, multiple comparisons with confidence inter- nitude of weight to be lifted. This leads some people to
vals adjusted by the Bonferroni procedure were used for prefer SJ exercises while others give preference to MJ exer-
post hoc analysis. The significance level was established cises. However, the controversy remains because studies
as P ≤ 0.05. The statistical program SPSS version 16.0 comparing the chronic effects of MJ and SJ exercises on
was used for statistical analysis. strength gains and muscle hypertrophy are scarce.
In a previous study, Chilibeck et al. (6) reported that
4. Results the lean mass in the upper-body of women performing
RT increases more than in the lower-body. The authors
The characteristics of participants are presented in suggested that the more prolonged neural adaptation re-
Table 1. Table 2 presents the values of MT and PT pre and lated to the more complex leg press exercise may have de-
post training. The ANOVA found no statistically signifi- layed muscle hypertrophy in the legs, while the arm curl
cant difference (P > 0.05) between groups pre or post exercise promoted higher muscle hypertrophy due to
training for MT or PT. However, with respect to time (pre faster neural adaptation. However, the training program
vs. post), there were significant increases in MT of 6.10% also contained SJ exercises for the legs (knee extension
and 5.83% for MJ and SJ, respectively (P ≤ 0.05). PT also and knee flexion), as well as, MJ exercises that involved
significantly increases for MJ (10.40%, P ≤ 0.05) and SJ the arms (bench press and lat. pull downs). Therefore, it
(11.87%, P ≤ 0.05). is not possible to make a direct comparison between SJ
and MJ exercises.
Recently, Gentil et al. (8) examined the effect of add-
Table 1. Characteristics of the Subjects a ing SJ exercises to a MJ exercise program on upper body
Variable Multi Joint Group Single Joint Group muscle size and strength of young men. In the study, one
(n = 14) (n = 15) group performed only upper body MJ exercises (lat. pull
Age, y 23.4 ± 2.6 22.4 ± 2.1 down and bench press) while the other performed the
same MJ exercises plus SJ exercises (elbow flexion and el-
Body weight, kg 73.1 ± 13.6 69.3 ± 5.8
bow extension). According to the results, there were no
Height, cm 171.9 ± 8.2 175.8 ± 5.9 differences in muscle size and strength gains between
a Data are presented as Mean ± SD.
groups. However, since there was not a group that per-
formed only SJ exercises, the question remains whether metabolic changes (18, 19, 24-26) and it seems that these
an RT program with only SJ exercise would be as efficient responses will not differ if the movement is performed
as a program involving only MJ exercises. alone (biceps curl, which involves only elbow flexion) or
We did not find studies comparing muscle hypertro- accompanied by the movement of another joints (lat.
phy responses between SJ and MJ exercises. One of the pull down, which involves elbow flexion and shoulder ex-
few studies to compare the chronic effects of MJ and SJ tension). Based on the present results, it can be suggested
exercises on muscle performance was the study of Gi- that the selection between SJ and MJ exercises should be
annakopoulos et al. (7) that analyzed the effects of two based on individual and practical aspects, such as equip-
training modes on shoulder cuff muscular performance. ment availability, individual preferences, movement
The participants of the study were divided into 3 groups: specificity, time commitment etc. Further studies are
one group performed SJ exercises (internal and external required to test if the results will be the same in trained
shoulder rotation using 2 kg dumbbells); one trained people and other muscle groups.
with MJ exercises (lat. pull down, overhead press, reverse
pull up and push-up exercises); and the other had no References
training. According to the results, the group that trained
1. Kraemer WJ, Adams K, Cafarelli E, Dudley GA, Dooly C, Feigen-
with MJ exercises achieved greater increases in internal baum MS, et al. American College of Sports Medicine position
and external rotation peak torque than the groups that stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy
trained with SJ exercises. adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002;34(2):364–80.
2. Kraemer WJ, Ratamess NA. Fundamentals of resistance train-
Comparison between our study and the study of Gi- ing: progression and exercise prescription. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
annakopoulos et al. (7) are limited due to methodologi- 2004;36(4):674–88.
cal differences, and the difference between the results is 3. American College of Sports M. American College of Sports Medi-
probably due to the differences in training volume and cine position stand. Progression models in resistance training
for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41(3):687–708.
intensity between protocols. In the study of Giannako- 4. Tan B. Manipulating Resistance Training Program Variables
poulos et al. (7) the SJ group performed a lower number of to Optimize Maximum Strength in Men. J Strength Cond Res.
sets compared to the MJ group. Additionally, the SJ group 1999;13(3):289–304.
5. Rutherford OM, Jones DA. The role of learning and coordi-
trained at a constant load, with no load progression,
nation in strength training. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol.
which may have limited the results. In the present study 1986;55(1):100–5.
the SJ and MJ groups performed an equal number of sets 6. Chilibeck PD, Calder AW, Sale DG, Webber CE. A comparison of
of progressive resistance training and both trained with strength and muscle mass increases during resistance train-
ing in young women. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1998;77(1-
maximal repetitions. 2):170–5.
The results of the present study on muscle hypertro- 7. Giannakopoulos K, Beneka A, Malliou P, Godolias G. Isolated
phy are unique and important for practical purposes. vs. complex exercise in strengthening the rotator cuff muscle
group. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18(1):144–8.
Increase or maintaining muscle mass is an important
8. Gentil P, Soares SR, Pereira MC, Cunha RR, Martorelli SS, Martorel-
goal for health, fitness and performance. It has been li AS, et al. Effect of adding single-joint exercises to a multi-joint
shown that muscle hypertrophy is dependent on the me- exercise resistance-training program on strength and hypertro-
chanical tension, muscle damage and metabolic stress phy in untrained subjects. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2013;38(3):341–
4.
produced by the strength exercise (18, 19). Thus, accord- 9. Gentil P, Bottaro M. Effects of training attendance on muscle
ing to the results of the present study we may presume strength of young men after 11 weeks of resistance training.
that muscle strain and muscle damage caused by the MJ Asian J Sports Med. 2013;4(2):101–6.
and SJ exercise for the EF muscles was somewhat similar. 10. Bemben MG. Use of diagnostic ultrasound for assessing muscle
size. J Strength Cond Res. 2002;16(1):103–8.
However, one of the limitations of the present study was 11. Reeves ND, Maganaris CN, Narici MV. Ultrasonographic as-
that the mechanisms involved in muscle hypertrophy sessment of human skeletal muscle size. Eur J Appl Physiol.
between MJ and SJ exercise were not evaluated. Further- 2004;91(1):116–8.
12. Chilibeck PD, Stride D, Farthing JP, Burke DG. Effect of creatine in-
more, the finding that MJ exercises are as efficient as SJ in
gestion after exercise on muscle thickness in males and females.
muscle hypertrophy and strength may be valuable when Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36(10):1781–8.
designing an RT program. In order to save time, strength 13. Abe T, DeHoyos DV, Pollock ML, Garzarella L. Time course for
and conditioning, specialists can choose exercises that strength and muscle thickness changes following upper and
lower body resistance training in men and women. Eur J Appl
target a higher number of muscle groups at a time. This Physiol. 2000;81(3):174–80.
strategy can increase training volume and reduce the 14. Sanada K, Kearns CF, Midorikawa T, Abe T. Prediction and valida-
time commitment, which, in turn, may improve exercise tion of total and regional skeletal muscle mass by ultrasound in
Japanese adults. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006;96(1):24–31.
adherence since lack of time is the most cited barrier for
15. Feiereisen P, Vaillant M, Eischen D, Delagardelle C. Isokinetic ver-
an individual engaging in any exercise program (20-23). sus one-repetition maximum strength assessment in chronic
The results of the present study shows that MJ and SJ heart failure. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010;42(12):2156–63.
exercises are equally effective for promoting increases 16. Lusk SJ, Hale BD, Russell DM. Grip width and forearm orientation
effects on muscle activity during the lat pull-down. J Strength
in muscle strength and size in untrained men, confirm- Cond Res. 2010;24(7):1895–900.
ing our hypothesis. It is well established that muscles in- 17. Gentil P, Bottaro M. Influence of supervision ratio on muscle ad-
terpret environmental stimuli through mechanical and aptations to resistance training in nontrained subjects. J Strength
Cond Res. 2010;24(3):639–43. 22. Schutzer KA, Graves BS. Barriers and motivations to exercise in
18. Schoenfeld BJ. The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and older adults. Prev Med. 2004;39(5):1056–61.
their application to resistance training. J Strength Cond Res. 23. Silliman K, Rodas-Fortier K, Neyman M. A survey of dietary and
2010;24(10):2857–72. exercise habits and perceived barriers to following a healthy
19. Schoenfeld BJ. Does exercise-induced muscle damage play lifestyle in a college population. Cal J Health Promot. 2004;18:281.
a role in skeletal muscle hypertrophy? J Strength Cond Res. 24. Takada S, Okita K, Suga T, Omokawa M, Kadoguchi T, Sato T, et al.
2012;26(5):1441–53. Low-intensity exercise can increase muscle mass and strength
20. Eyler AA, Matson-Koffman D, Vest JR, Evenson KR, Sanderson B, proportionally to enhanced metabolic stress under ischemic
Thompson JL, et al. Environmental, policy, and cultural factors conditions. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2012;113(2):199–205.
related to physical activity in a diverse sample of women: The 25. Schott J, McCully K, Rutherford OM. The role of metabolites in
Women's Cardiovascular Health Network Project--summary and strength training. II. Short versus long isometric contractions.
discussion. Women Health. 2002;36(2):123–34. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1995;71(4):337–41.
21. Trost SG, Owen N, Bauman AE, Sallis JF, Brown W. Correlates of 26. Hornberger TA, Esser KA. Mechanotransduction and the regu-
adults' participation in physical activity: review and update. Med lation of protein synthesis in skeletal muscle. Proc Nutr Soc.
Sci Sports Exerc. 2002;34(12):1996–2001. 2004;63(2):331–5.