LOWER-LOAD IS MORE EFFECTIVE THAN HIGHER-

LOAD RESISTANCE TRAINING IN INCREASING MUSCLE

MASS IN YOUNG WOMEN
CRISTIANE MARIA DE CASTRO FRANCO,1 MARCELO AUGUSTO DA SILVA CARNEIRO,1
LUCAS TATSUO HORINOUCHI ALVES,1 GERSIEL NASCIMENTO DE OLIVEIRA JÚNIOR,1
JAIRO DE FREITAS RODRIGUES DE SOUSA,1 AND FÁBIO LERA ORSATTI1,2
Downloaded from https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3YiN3qTGLcvIx52Ib7dWOPpn0/l9cUK8cxmmZnt6g9Eo= on 07/17/2019

1
Exercise Biology Research Group (BioEx), Federal University of Triangulo Mineiro (UFTM), Uberaba, Minas Gerais,
Brazil; and 2Department of Sport Sciences, Institute of Health Sciences, Federal University of Triangulo Mineiro (UFTM),
Uberaba, Minas Gerais, Brazil

ABSTRACT RT is more effective than higher-load RT in increasing FBFM,

Franco, CMdC, Carneiro, MAdS, Alves, LTH, Júnior, GNdO, de but not MS in novice young women.
Sousa, JdFR, and Orsatti, FL. Lower-load is more effective than
KEY WORDS hypertrophy, muscle strength, strength training
higher-load resistance training in increasing muscle mass in
young women. J Strength Cond Res 33(7S): S152–S158,
2019—This study was designed to investigate the impact of
INTRODUCTION

load (higher vs. lower) performed until or close to volitional
fatigue on muscle strength (MS) and fat and bone-free lean
mass (FBFM) in young women. To do this, 32 women per-
formed resistance training (RT) in 1 of 2 conditions: lower-
load RT (LL; n = 14, age = 24.3 6 4.8 years and body mass
index [BMI] = 23.3 6 2.8 kg$m22) and higher-load RT (HL; n =
18, age = 23.0 6 3.3 years and BMI = 22.4 6 3.3 kg$m22).
Leg FBFM (DXA) and MS (1 repetition maximum—unilateral leg
extension [LE]) were evaluated before and after 9 weeks (the
first week was used for familiarization) of RT. Both groups
performed 3 unilateral exercises (LE, leg curl, and leg press),
3 sets per exercise, 60–90 seconds of rest between sets, 2
days per week. In the LL group, the loads used in the exercises
were the loads necessary to perform 30–35 repetitions in the
first set. For the HL group, the loads used were the loads
necessary to perform 8–10 repetitions in the first set. The LL
group showed higher RT volume than the HL. Both groups
showed leg muscle mass gains (p , 0.05). However, the LL
group was better [p = 0.032 and effect size (eta2 = 0.14
[large]) than the HL group in leg FBFM gains (LL = 0.3 kg
[IC 95%: 0.4 kg; 0.2 kg] and HL = 0.1 kg [IC 95%: 0.2 kg;
0.0 kg]). Both groups showed MS gains, without any difference
between them (LL = 3.4 kg [IC 95%: 4.4 kg; 2.5 kg] and HL =
4.2 kg [IC 95%: 5.1 kg; 3.3 kg]; p = 0.239). Thus, lower-load
Address correspondence to Fábio Lera Orsatti, fabio.orsatti@uftm.edu.br.
33(7S)/S152–S158
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
I
ncreasing muscle mass may have a positive impact on
physical fitness, prevent the development of chronic
diseases, and significantly improve health (1,19).
Resistance training (RT) is well accepted as an exer-
cise type that efficiently increases muscle mass (1,18,19).
Variables of RT, such as load (% of 1 repetition maximum
[1RM]), amount of exercise (volume), frequency, and rest
interval, may be manipulated to maximize muscle mass
gains, regardless of the sex (1,18). However, there has been
a remarkable underrepresentation of women included in
sport and exercise research studies (8), such as RT studies.
As there is a relevant sexual dimorphism in psychological
and physiological responses to exercise (14–16,27,29,34),
inadequate inclusion of women in RT studies may contribute
to potentially misleading interpretations in responses to
manipulation of RT variables in women (7,8,20).
For novices undertaking RT, a higher load corresponding
to a repetition range of 8–12 ($70% of 1RM) is assumed to
be necessary to maximize muscle mass gains, regardless of
the sex (1,18). However, untrained women (13) and also
recreationally trained women self-select training loads
(,60% of 1RM) below the recommendations (9), indepen-
dently of a personal trainer (26). Although fear of developing
“bulky muscles” has been suggested as a potential barrier to
women not to comply with RT guideline recommendations
(26), the load recommended to maximize muscle mass is
considered “hard” (perceived effort) or “uncomfortable” by
women (9,26), possibly due to sex-related differences in mus-
cle size, motor-unit recruitment, and muscle fiber type (35).
Thus, a better understanding of how to manipulate loads to
optimize muscle mass gains in women is still lacking.

S152 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Recently, several studies conducted with men have
supported that lower-load (LL) (20–50%) RT when per-
formed until or close to volitional fatigue (i.e., . 25 repeti-
tions) promotes an increase in muscle mass similar to those
observed after higher-load RT (HL, 8–12 repetitions)
(2,6,10,17,21,24,31). This finding has been attributed to an
additional recruitment of motor units necessary to sustain
muscle tension and also to a higher training volume when
submaximal contractions are sustained to failure in LL, pro-
moting similar muscular adaptations (i.e., muscle mass gains)
between LL and HL (4,11,21,22). The role of RT volume on
muscular adaptation indicates a dose-response relationship
between RT volume and muscle mass gains (30). Thus, as
women are more resistant to neuromuscular fatigue when
compared with men in response to exercise with a lower
load (LL) (15,16), LL performed until or close to volitional
fatigue may elicit a larger RT volume than HL in a program
with equated sets, frequency, and rest intervals in women.
Moreover, a greater muscle time under load during LL (22)
has been considered an optimal stimulus for maximizing the
anabolic response from resistance exercise (3), suggesting
that muscles that are more resistant to neuromuscular fatigue
may elicit better adaptations after training, such as muscle
mass gains. Thus, it would seem reasonable to assume that
LL performed until or close to volitional fatigue maximizes
muscular mass gains when compared with HL in women.
Acknowledging that RT volume and also muscle time
under load may be an important stimulus for promoting
muscular adaptation in women, the study was designed to
investigate the impact of load (higher vs. lower) performed
until or close to volitional fatigue on muscle strength (MS)
and fat and bone-free lean mass (FBFM) in novice young
women. We hypothesized that LL would result in greater
gains in FBFM when compared with HL.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
To determine the effect of LL on muscle mass and strength
in women, a randomized and controlled study (HL was
a positive control) was conducted over 9 weeks. The
participants were randomly assigned to the LL group (n =
17) or HL group (n = 18). However, 3 women discontinued
the study in the LL group (reasons: academic [n = 1] and
personal [n = 2]). All volunteers performed 3 dynamic resis-
tance exercises, with different maximal repetitions (LL = 30–
35 repetitions and HL = 8–10 repetitions), 2 training sessions
per week, over 9 weeks (the first week was used for famil-
iarization and load adjustments). Leg muscle mass and
strength were assessed before and after 9 weeks of training.
Subjects
Thirty-five undergraduate college women, who were
between the ages of 18 and 30 years and apparently healthy,
were volunteers in this study. The inclusion criteria were:
no experience with RT, nonpractice of periodic physical
Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
activity, nondrinker, nonsmoker, and nonuser of anabolic
steroids or nutritional supplements. All volunteers were clear
on the objectives and procedures for the study, and each
volunteer gave their written informed consent. This study
was approved by the Federal University of Triangulo
Mineiro Ethics Committee (no 38136814.3.0000.5154) and
was written in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
Procedures
Anthropometric and Body Composition Assessments. Body mass
(kg) and height (m) were measured using a platform balance
and stadiometer (Lider, Araçatuba, SP, Brazil). Body mass
index was calculated as body mass/height2.
Total body and regional FBFM and fat percent were
measured using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA)
(GE/Lunar iDXA Corp, Madison, WI, USA, EUA) and
quantified by Encore software (version 14.10). The DXA
measurements were performed at the same time of the day
(08:00 AM and 10:00 AM, after 8 hours of fasting). To stan-
dardize the level of body hydration, the subjects were in-
structed to consume 2 L of water during the 24-hour
period before the DXA assessments. The volunteers dressed
in light and comfortable clothes without the presence of
metal objects. All DXA measurements were performed by
the same experienced examiner. At the end of the study, the
DXA measurements were performed at least 48 hours after
the last training session. The FBFM of the right leg was used
to determine the muscle mass gains. The FBFM of the right
leg was determined using the Encore software tools.
Maximal Dynamic Strength (1 Repetition Maximum) Assess-
ment. Before the 1RM test, all the women participated in 2
sessions (separated by 48 hours) to make them familiar with
the exercise (equipment and technique). The 1RM test
consisted of a maximum load that a volunteer can lift with
a full range of movement (90–1808 of unilateral leg extension
[LE]). Initially, a local warm-up (LE exercise) was performed
using a subjective load determined during the familiarization.
First, 15 repetitions were performed with 20–30% of 1RM.
After 1 minute of rest, the load was increased (40–60% of
1RM) and 8–12 repetitions were performed. Again, after
1 minute of rest, the load was increased (70–90% of 1RM)
and 3–5 repetitions were performed. After a warm-up, the
volunteers rested for 3–5 minutes. Then, the load was
increased considerably, and the volunteers were encouraged
to overcome resistance using full motion. When the load was
overestimated or underestimated, the subjects rested
3–5 minutes and a new attempt was performed with a lower
or higher load, respectively. The load adopted as maximum
was the load used in the last execution of the exercise that was
performed with no more than 1 repetition by the subject (5).
The LE (right leg) 1RM was used to determine the MS gains.
Resistance Training Programs. The RT was conducted for 9
weeks. However, the first week was used for familiarization
VOLUME 33 | NUMBER 7 | SUPPLEMENT TO JULY 2019 | S153
 Lower-Load Resistance Training and Muscle Mass

TABLE 1. Characteristics of volunteers.*†

LL (n = 14), mean 6 SD HL (n = 18), mean 6 SD p

Age (y) 24.3 6 4.8 23.0 6 3.0 0.355

Height (m) 1.6 6 0.1 1.6 6 0.1 0.347
Body mass (kg) 59.6 6 8.8 58.7 6 8.9 0.780
BMI (kg$m22) 23.3 6 2.8 22.4 6 3.3 0.411
Fat mass (%) 36.5 6 3.7 35.9 6 5.3 0.716
FBFM (kg) 35.2 6 3.9 35.1 6 3.9 0.956
FBFM (%) 59.4 6 3.6 60.4 6 5.6 0.593

*LL = lower-load resistance training; HL = higher-load resistance training; BMI = body mass index; FBFM = fat and bone-free lean
mass.
†The Student t unpaired test.

and load adjustments (for RM). In the LL group, the loads
used in RT were the loads necessary to perform 30–35
repetitions in the first set of each exercise, whereas for
the HL the loads used were the loads necessary to perform
8–10 repetitions in the first set of each exercise. All volun-
teers performed 3 dynamic resistance exercises (Moldmac,
Franca, SP, Brazil): unilateral LE, unilateral leg press 458
(LP), and bilateral leg curl (LC). The LC exercise was per-
formed bilaterally because the volunteers were unable to
perform the required maximum repetitions with
the minimum load of equipment with one leg. Each group
performed 2 training sessions per week. Both groups
performed 3 sets, 60–90 seconds of rest between sets,
2–3 minutes of rest between exercise, and 1 second for
each muscle action (concentric and eccentric). All volun-
teers were instructed to perform the maximal of repetitions
until the concentric failure in each set. If the volunteer was
able to perform more than 10 repetitions in the HL group
and more than 35 repetitions in the LL group in the first set
of each exercise (during RT intervention), the loads were
adjusted to ensure the zone repetitions in each group (LL =
30–35 repetitions and HL = 8–10 repetitions). All repeti-
tions and loads were recorded in all the sessions, and the
volume (repetitions 3 load) was calculated. To calculate
a unilateral volume of bilateral LC, the bilateral LC’s load
was divided by 2.

TABLE 2. Training variables for the unilateral leg extension (LE), leg curl (LC), and leg press 458 (LP) exercises in the
LL and HL.*†

LL (n = 14), mean 6 SD HL (n = 18), mean 6 SD D D% p

LE
Repetition (n) 130 6 7 47 6 4 83 178 ,0.001
Load (kg) 561 15 6 5 29 264 ,0.001
Volume (n$kg21) 692 6 181 684 6 251 7 1 0.928
Leg curl
Repetition (n) 144 6 9 51 6 8 93 193 ,0.001
Load (kg) 461 862 24 253 ,0.001
Volume (n$kg21) 514 6 163 374 6 86 139 37 0.004
Leg press 458
Repetition (n) 151 6 4 49 6 3 103 211 ,0.001
Load (kg) 26 6 3 40 6 4 213 234 ,0.001
Volume (n$kg21) 3,973 6 531 1,931 6 298 2042 106 ,0.001
Total
Repetition (n) 428 6 19 150 6 17 227 151 ,0.001
Load (kg) 35 6 5 61 6 9 226 242 ,0.001
Volume (n$kg21) 5,190 6 731 2,993 6 561 2,197 73 ,0.001

*LL = lower-load resistance training; HL = higher-load resistance training; D = difference between groups.
†The Student t unpaired test.

the TM

S154 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

to determine associations
between RT volume and mus-
cle mass and strength gains
and also between loads used
in training (% of 1RM) and
MS gain. The data are pre-
sented as the mean and SD.
The deltas are presented as
mean and 95% confidence
interval (95% CI) of mean.
Effect size (ES) was measured
by partial eta-squared (h2p ).
The statistical significance was
considered at p # 0.05.

RESULTS
Table 1 shows the baseline sub-
ject characteristics. There were
no differences between the
groups for all baseline
variables.
Table 2 shows the training
variables for the LE, LC, and
LP exercises in both groups.
The loads per week used dur-
ing the study were 64, 53, and
34% lower in the LL than HL
for LE, LC, and LP, respec-
tively. The maximum repeti-
tions per week performed
during the study were 178,
193, and 212% higher in the
Figure 1. Effect of the LL and HL on the leg FBFM. A) Values of the leg FBFM at pre- and post-training (mean 6 LL than HL for LE, LC, and
SD) in the LL (n = 14) and HL (n = 18). LL = lower-load resistance training; HL = higher-load resistance training. LP, respectively. However,
Mixed-model ANOVA: Group [F(1.30) = 0.109; p = 0.744], Time [F(1.30) = 24.647; p , 0.001]; ES (eta2) = 0.45
(large), and Interaction (group vs. time) [F(1.30) = 5.038; p = 0.032]; ES (eta2) = 0.14 (large). *p , 0.05 although the volume (repeti-
(difference of prevalue, Sidak). B) Leg FBFM difference (mean 6 IC 95%) between pre- and post-training in the LL tion 3 load) per week was
and HL. **(difference of the LL group) = ANCOVA [F(1.29) = 5.048; p = 0.032]; ES (eta2) = 0.15 (large). The higher in the LL than HL for
values of difference were adjusted to the prevalues. FBFM = fat and bone-free lean mass; ES = effect size;
ANCOVA = analysis of covariance. LC (37%) and LP (106%), there
was no difference between
groups for the LE volume.
When the training variables of
Statistical Analyses the 3 exercises were summed, the load was 42% lower, the
The data were tested for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk repetition was 151% higher, and the volume was 73% higher
test. The Levene test was used to verify the homogeneity of in the LL than HL.
variances. To determine training variable and baseline differ- At baseline, the leg FBFM was 6.5 kg 6 0.9 kg and 6.5 kg
ences between groups, the Student t unpaired test was used. 6 1.0 kg in the LL and HL, respectively. After RT, the leg
A mixed-model analysis of variance [ANOVA] was used in FBFM was 6.8 kg 6 0.9 kg and 6.6 kg 6 1.0 kg in the LL and
the current study, one factor was a within-subjects factor HL, respectively. Both groups increased the FBFM [mixed-
(time) and the other factor was a between-subjects factor model ANOVA time: F(1.30) = 24.647; p , 0.001; ES (eta2)
(groups) on FBFM and MS. The Sidak procedure was used = 0.45 (large)]. These increases were confirmed by the post
as a post hoc test (pairwise). Moreover, the total volume was hoc test (Sidak: p , 0.05, difference of prevalue). However,
used as covariance in mixed ANOVA. Then, an analysis of a higher magnitude of increase in the FBFM was observed in
covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare FBFM and MS the LL group when compared with the HL group [ANOVA
gains (deltas = pre 2 post values) between groups, adjusting interaction (group vs. time): F(1.30) = 5.038; p = 0.032; ES
for prevalues. The Pearson correlation coefficient was used (eta2) = 0.14 (large)] (Figure 1A).

VOLUME 33 | NUMBER 7 | SUPPLEMENT TO JULY 2019 | S155

Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Lower-Load Resistance Training and Muscle Mass

kg 6 4.8 kg in the LL and HL,

respectively. Both groups
increased the LE strengths
[mixed-model ANOVA time:
F(1.30) = 143.009; p , 0.001;
ES (eta2) = 0.83 (large)].
These increases were con-
firmed by the post hoc test (Si-
dak: p , 0.001, difference of
prevalue). There was no signif-
icant difference (mixed-model
ANOVA interaction (group vs.
time): F(1.30) = 1.444; p =
0.239) between groups
(Figure 2A).
There were increases in the
MS of 3.4 kg (IC 95%: 4.4 kg;
2.5 kg) and 4.2 kg (IC 95%: 5.1
kg; 3.3 kg) in the LL and HL,
respectively. There was no sig-
nificant difference (ANCOVA
adjusted to prevalues: F(1.29) =
1.305; p = 0.263) between
groups (Figure 2B).
The LE loads used during
RT were 26.6 6 5.5% and 70.5
6 12.3% of 1RM for the LL
and HL, respectively. Only 2
women achieved values of
80% of 1RM in the HL group.
There were no correlations of
Figure 2. Effect of the LL and HL on the muscle strength. A) Values of the muscle strength in leg extension at pre- MS gains with RT total volume
and post-training (mean 6 SD) in the LL (n = 14) and HL (n = 18). LL = lower-load resistance training; HL = (r = 20.03; p = 0.870, n = 32).
higher-load resistance training. Group [F(1.30) = 0.444; p = 0.510], time [F(1.30) = 143.009; p , 0.001]; ES However, there was correla-
(eta2) = 0.83 (large), and interaction (group vs. time) [F(1.30) = 1.444; p = 0.239]. *p , 0.05 (difference of
prevalue). B) Muscle strength difference (mean 6 IC 95%) between pre- and post-training in the LL and HL. tion between % of 1RM (train-
ANCOVA [F(1.29) = 1.305; p = 0.263]. The values of the differences between the groups were adjusted to the ing load) of LE used in training
prevalues. ANCOVA = analysis of covariance; ES = effect size. and strength gains (r = 0.51,
p = 0.003, n = 32).

There were increases in the leg FBFM of 0.3 kg (IC DISCUSSION

95%: 0.4 kg; 0.2 kg) and 0.1 kg (IC 95%: 0.2 kg; 0.0 kg) in
the LL and HL, respectively. The difference (0.2 kg)
observed between groups was significantly (p = 0.032)
higher (1.2 fold) in the LL than the HL [ANCOVA
adjusted to prevalues: F(1.29) = 5.048; p = 0.032].
The ES of this difference was large (eta2 = 0.15)
(Figure 1B).
As we observed a significant positive correlation (r = 0.44;
p = 0.012) between total volume and leg FBFM gains, we
adjusted the statistical model for the total volume. After ad-
justing, the difference between the groups in the FBFM
gains disappeared (p = 0.987).
At baseline, the LE strengths (1RM) were 20.6 kg 6 5.3
kg and 21.4 kg 6 4.0 kg in the LL and HL, respectively.
After RT, the LE strengths were 24.0 kg 6 5.5 kg and 25.6
the
The results of this study showed that the LL is more effective
than HL in increasing FBFM, but not MS in novice young
women. To the best of our knowledge, this was the first study
to compare the effects of the LL and HL on muscle mass gains
in undergraduate college women. The findings of the current
study do not support the RT guidelines stating that higher loads
corresponding to a repetition range of 8–12 repetitions are
necessary to maximize mass gains in novices, regardless of
sex (1,18). Alternatively, our study supports evidence from pre-
vious observations that inadequate inclusion of women in RT
studies may contribute to potentially misleading interpretations
on manipulation of RT variables to maximize muscle adapta-
tions in women (7,8,20). Thus, our study may help to under-
stand how the manipulation of RT variables (i.e., load) may
maximize hypertrophy in women.
TM

S156 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

In the current study, the LL group promoted greater
hypertrophy than the HL group (Figure 1). This finding
might be attributed to the combination of 2 factors: (a) an
additional recruitment of motor units necessary to sustain
muscle tension and (b) a higher training volume when sub-
maximal contractions are sustained to failure in the LL. (a) In
the current study, the repetitions were sustained until or close
to failure in both groups. This strategy was adopted because it
has been suggested that when submaximal contractions are
sustained to failure, especially in the LL, the recruitment of
additional motor units is necessary to sustain muscle tension
(4,11,21–23). Traditionally, it has been reported that higher
muscle fiber recruitment is necessary to maximize muscle
mass gains (33). (b) Added to this factor, it is clear that there
is a relevant sexual dimorphism in psychological and physio-
logical responses to exercise (14–16,27,29,34,35). As women
are resistant to neuromuscular fatigue (15,16), higher RT vol-
ume and time under load were achieved in the LL (performed
until or close to volitional fatigue) than HL (Table 2). Higher
volume and time under load may culminate in higher hyper-
trophy (3,30). Indeed, there was no difference between groups
when the values of muscle mass gains were adjusted to vol-
ume (see the results). Nevertheless, despite these promising
results, questions remain because the adjustment for the vol-
ume does not allow for an interpretation of cause and effect
between volume/time under load and hypertrophy.
In the current study, MS increased in both groups
(Figure 2). It has been assumed that in the initial weeks of
RT, the increases in MS levels are mainly attributed to neural
adaptations instead of muscle adaptations, such as reduced
antagonist coactivation, increased motor-unit recruitment,
and/or increased motor-unit firing rates (1,28). Indeed, in
the current study, the MS gains (LL = 16.5% and HL =
19.6%) were higher than the muscle mass gains (LL =
4.4% and HL = 1.7%) (Figure 2 and Figure 1, respectively).
This is in accordance with earlier observations, which
showed that both RT programs (LL and HL) produce MS
gains after 8 weeks of RT (2,6,10,17,21,24,28,31). However,
previous studies have demonstrated the superiority of HL on
MS gains in men (21). Surprisingly, no difference was found
in the magnitude of MS gain between the groups (Figure 2).
A possible explanation for this conflicting result may be the
lack of adequate loads in the HL group. In the current study,
the HL group used ;70% of 1RM in 8–10 repetitions. Only
2 women achieved ;80% of 1RM in 8–10 repetitions in the
HL group. It is clear that women (13) self-select training
loads below (9,26) the recommendations to maximize mus-
cular strength (e.g., at least 80% of 1RM) (17,21,24,31). Prob-
ably because women consider the load recommended to
maximize muscular strength “hard” (perceived effort) or
“uncomfortable” (9,26). Interestingly, we observed a positive
correlation between the % of 1RM (training load) of LE used
in training and strength gains and strength gains (r = 0.51
and p = 0.003), supporting the work of other studies linking
MS gains with higher loads (17,21,24,31).
Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
One possible limitation of this study is the short duration
of RT. Although it has been accepted that neural adaptations
increase MS during the early stages and muscle growth
occurs after 4 weeks of RT (1,25,28,32), this does not guar-
antee that the LL will sustain the superiority in muscle mass
gain after 8 weeks of RT in women. This is an important
issue for future research. Second, we did not quantify the
protein intake, which may have influenced the results
between groups. However, the inclusion criteria (nonused
nutritional supplements) and the randomized design used
in the current study would have attenuated a possible differ-
ence in protein intake between the groups.
In conclusion, this study has identified that the LL
performed until or close to volitional fatigue is better than
the HL on gains in muscle mass, but not in MS gains in
novice young women after 9 weeks of RT (a short duration
of RT). The findings reported here shed new light on
manipulation of RT variables to maximize muscle mass
gains in novice women in early stages of RT.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Our results showed that the LL (performed until or close to
volitional fatigue) elicits a greater hypertrophy in novice
young women after a RT of short duration. Higher muscle
mass at the beginning of RT may serve as an appropriate
support to elicit optimal MS and power gains in classic
(linear) models of periodization (12).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This investigation was supported by the Fundação de Am-
paro à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais—FAPEMIG and
by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nı́-
vel Superior—CAPES.
REFERENCES
1. ACSM. American College of Sports Medicine position stand.
Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 41: 687–708, 2009.
2. Barcelos, LC, Nunes, PR, de Souza, LR, de Oliveira, AA, Furlanetto,
R, Marocolo, M, et al. Low-load resistance training promotes
muscular adaptation regardless of vascular occlusion, load, or
volume. Eur J Appl Physiol 115: 1559–1568, 2015.
3. Burd, NA, Andrews, RJ, West, DW, Little, JP, Cochran, AJ, Hector,
AJ, et al. Muscle time under tension during resistance exercise
stimulates differential muscle protein sub-fractional synthetic
responses in men. J Physiol 590: 351–362, 2012.
4. Burd, NA, Mitchell, CJ, Churchward-Venne, TA, and Phillips, SM.
Bigger weights may not beget bigger muscles: Evidence from acute
muscle protein synthetic responses after resistance exercise. Appl
Physiol Nutr Metab 37: 551–554, 2012.
5. Carneiro, M, de Oliveira, A, Martins, F, Souza, A, Nunes, P, and
Orsatti, F. High-intensity interval body weight training promotes
different adaptations to combined training in body composition and
muscle strength in young women. Sci Sports 33: e105–e113, 2018.
6. Cholewa, JM, Rossi, FE, MacDonald, C, Hewins, A, Gallo, S,
Micenski, A, et al. The effects of moderate- versus high-load
resistance training on muscle growth, body composition, and
performance in collegiate women. J Strength Cond Res 32: 1511–
1524, 2018.
VOLUME 33 | NUMBER 7 | SUPPLEMENT TO JULY 2019 | S157
 Lower-Load Resistance Training and Muscle Mass
7. Collins, FS and Tabak, LA. Policy: NIH plans to enhance
reproducibility. Nature 505: 612–613, 2014.
8. Costello, JT, Bieuzen, F, and Bleakley, CM. Where are all the female
participants in sports and exercise medicine research? Eur J Sport Sci
14: 847–851, 2014.
9. Cotter, JA, Garver, MJ, Dinyer, TK, Fairman, CM, and Focht, BC.
Ratings of perceived exertion during acute resistance exercise
performed at imposed and self-selected loads in recreationally
trained women. J Strength Cond Res 31: 2313–2318, 2017.
10. Counts, BR, Buckner, SL, Dankel, SJ, Jessee, MB, Mattocks, KT,
Mouser, JG, et al. The acute and chronic effects of “NO LOAD”
resistance training. Physiol Behav 164: 345–352, 2016.
11. Fallentin, N, Jørgensen, K, and Simonsen, EB. Motor unit
recruitment during prolonged isometric contractions. Eur J Appl
Physiol Occup Physiol 67: 335–341, 1993.
12. Fleck, SJ. Periodized strength training: A critical review. J Strength
Cond Res 13: 82–89, 1999.
13. Focht, BC. Perceived exertion and training load during self-selected
and imposed-intensity resistance exercise in untrained women.
J Strength Cond Res 21: 183–187, 2007.
14. Granito, VJ Jr. Psychological response to athletic injury: Gender
differences. J Sport Behav 25: 243, 2002.
15. Hunter, SK. Sex differences in human fatigability: Mechanisms and
insight to physiological responses. Acta Physiol (oxf) 210: 768–789, 2014.
16. Hunter, SK. Sex differences in fatigability of dynamic contractions.
Exp Physiol 101: 250–255, 2016.
17. Jenkins, ND, Miramonti, AA, Hill, EC, Smith, CM, Cochrane-
Snyman, KC, Housh, TJ, et al. Greater neural adaptations following
high-vs. low-load resistance training. Front Physiol 8: 331, 2017.
18. Kraemer, WJ, Adams, K, Cafarelli, E, Dudley, GA, Dooly, C,
Feigenbaum, MS, et al. American College of Sports Medicine
position stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy
adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 34: 364–380, 2002.
19. Kraemer, WJ, Ratamess, NA, Flanagan, SD, Shurley, JP, Todd, JS,
and Todd, TC. Understanding the science of resistance training: An
evolutionary perspective. Sports Med 47: 2415–2435, 2017.
20. Landis, SC, Amara, SG, Asadullah, K, Austin, CP, Blumenstein, R,
Bradley, EW, et al. A call for transparent reporting to optimize the
predictive value of preclinical research. Nature 490: 187–191, 2012.
21. Mitchell, CJ, Churchward-Venne, TA, West, DW, Burd, NA, Breen,
L, Baker, SK, et al. Resistance exercise load does not determine
training-mediated hypertrophic gains in young men. J Appl Physiol
113: 71–77, 2012.
the TM
S158 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
22. Muddle, TW, Colquhoun, RJ, Magrini, MA, Luera, MJ, DeFreitas,
JM, and Jenkins, ND. Effects of fatiguing, submaximal high- versus
low- torque isometric exercise on motor unit recruitment and firing
behavior. Physiol Rep 6: e13675, 2018.
23. Nobrega, SR and Libardi, CA. Is resistance training to muscular
failure necessary? Front Physiol 7: 10, 2016.
24. Ogasawara, R, Loenneke, JP, Thiebaud, RS, and Abe, T. Low-load
bench press training to fatigue results in muscle hypertrophy similar
to high-load bench press training. Int J Clin Med 4: 114, 2013.
25. Ogasawara, R, Yasuda, T, Ishii, N, and Abe, T. Comparison of
muscle hypertrophy following 6-month of continuous and periodic
strength training. Eur J Appl Physiol 113: 975–985, 2013.
26. Ratamess, NA, Faigenbaum, AD, Hoffman, JR, and Kang, J. Self-
selected resistance training intensity in healthy women: The
influence of a personal trainer. J Strength Cond Res 22: 103–111,
2008.
27. Reider, B. Sex in sports medicine. Am J Sports Med 40: 1231–1233,
2012.
28. Sale, DG. Neural adaptation to strength training. In: Strength and
power in sport (2nd ed.). P. Komi, ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons, 2008. pp. 281–314.
29. Sandbakk, O, Solli, GS, and Holmberg, HC. Sex differences in
world-record performance: The influence of sport discipline and
competition duration. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 1: 2–8, 2018.
30. Schoenfeld, BJ, Ogborn, D, and Krieger, JW. Dose-response
relationship between weekly resistance training volume and
increases in muscle mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
J Sports Sci 35: 1073–1082, 2017.
31. Schoenfeld, BJ, Peterson, MD, Ogborn, D, Contreras, B, and
Sonmez, GT. Effects of low-vs. high-load resistance training on
muscle strength and hypertrophy in well-trained men. J Strength
Cond Res 29: 2954–2963, 2015.
32. Seynnes, OR, de Boer, M, and Narici, MV. Early skeletal muscle
hypertrophy and architectural changes in response to high-intensity
resistance training. J Appl Physiol 102: 368–373, 2007.
33. Suchomel, TJ, Nimphius, S, Bellon, CR, and Stone, MH. The
importance of muscular strength: Training considerations. Sports
Med 48: 765–785, 2018.
34. Tarnopolsky, MA. Sex differences in exercise metabolism and the
role of 17-beta estradiol. Med Sci Sports Exerc 40: 648–654, 2008.
35. Trevino, MA, Sterczala, AJ, Miller, JD, Wray, ME, Dimmick, HL,
Ciccone, AB, et al. Sex-related differences in muscle size explained
by amplitudes of higher-threshold motor unit action potentials and
muscle fiber typing. Acta Physiol: e13151, 2018. Epub Ahead of Print.