Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Does varying resistance exercises for the same muscle group promote greater strength
gains?
--Manuscript Draft--

Manuscript Number: JSCR-08-16304R2

Full Title: Does varying resistance exercises for the same muscle group promote greater
strength gains?

Short Title: Exercise variation and muscle strength

Article Type: Original Research

Keywords: resistance training; strength training; exercise variation; training progression

Corresponding Author: Bruna Daniella de Vasconcelos Costa, Master

Universidade Estadual de Londrina
Londrina, PR BRAZIL

Corresponding Author Secondary

Information:

Corresponding Author's Institution: Universidade Estadual de Londrina

Corresponding Author's Secondary

Institution:

First Author: Bruna Daniella de Vasconcelos Costa, MsC

First Author Secondary Information:

Order of Authors: Bruna Daniella de Vasconcelos Costa, MsC

Witalo Kassiano

João Pedro Nunes, MSc

Gabriel Kunevaliki

Pâmela Castro-E-Souza

Paulo Sugihara-Junior, MSc

Rodrigo R. Fernandes, MSc

Edilson Serpeloni Cyrino, PhD

Leonardo de Sousa Fortes, PhD

Order of Authors Secondary Information:

Manuscript Region of Origin: BRAZIL

Abstract: Two of the foremost principles of progression are progressive overload and variation. A
way to vary within a resistance training (RT) program is to perform different exercises
for the same muscle group; however, this strategy is still overlooked. The purpose of
the present study was to compare strength adaptations between an RT routine that
maintained the exercises fixed (N-VAR) and another that varied the exercises for the
same muscle group during the weekly sessions (VAR). Twenty-three young men (23.3
± 4.1 years) were randomly allocated to N-VAR (n = 11) or VAR (n = 12) conditions.
The RT was performed three times a week for nine weeks and consisted of a whole-
body routine (3 sets of 8–12 repetitions). Maximum dynamic strength was assessed
using the one-repetition maximum test (1RM), and the isometric strength using an
isokinetic dynamometer, before and after training. Following the training period, both
groups increased the 1RM values in all exercises ( P ≤ 0.002), without significant
differences between them ( P ≥ 0.20). In contrast, a greater increase ( P = 0.02) in
isometric knee extension strength was showed to N-VAR (+12%) compared to VAR
(+7%). There was no significant increase in both groups for isometric knee flexion
strength (N-VAR, P = 0.10; VAR, P = 0.18). Our findings indicate that maintaining or
varying the exercises for the same muscle group promotes similar adaptations in the

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
 maximum dynamic strength. In contrast, for the isometric strength in knee extension,
maintaining the fixed exercises seems to be more interesting.

Response to Reviewers: Revision Sheet - J Strength Cond Res

Manuscript#: JSCR-08-16304

Title: Does varying resistance exercises for the same muscle group promote greater
strength gains?

We would like to thank both reviewer and editor for the time and expertise invested in
reviewing and improving our manuscript. We do appreciate the comment as it helps to
improve the readability, and precision of our manuscript. We addressed the reviewer’s
comment, and below is our response. The change was highlighted in the text.

Reviewer #1

Point raised by the reviewer

Comment 1: Thank you for clarifying all my questions and making corrections. I really
like the paper. I have one more request and that is to add the knee joint angle for the
isometric testing. You mention the hip angle but what is the knee joint? I didn't pick this
up originally as I was not sure if the mode was isometric or isokinetic.
Great paper, thanks.

R: Thank you for your kind words, dear reviewer. We add the information in the text:

“the hip was positioned at 85° of flexion, while the knee flexed at 60° (considering 0° as
full knee extension).”

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
Title Page (Showing Author Information)

Does varying resistance exercises for the same muscle group promote greater

strength gains?

Running head: Exercise variation and muscle strength.

Authors: Bruna Daniella de Vasconcelos Costa1*, Witalo Kassiano1, João Pedro Nunes1,

Gabriel Kunevaliki1, Pâmela Castro-E-Souza1, Paulo Sugihara Junior1, Rodrigo R.

Fernandes1, Edilson Serpeloni Cyrino1, Leonardo de Sousa Fortes2.

Affiliations:

1
GEPEMENE — Metabolism, Nutrition, and Exercise Laboratory. Londrina State

University. Londrina, PR, Brazil;

2
Department of Physical Education Federal University of Paraíba, João Pessoa, Brazil.

*Corresponding author: Bruna Daniella de Vasconcelos Costa. Metabolism, Nutrition,

and Exercise Laboratory. Londrina State University. Zip Code: 86057-970, Londrina, PR,

Brazil. e-mail: daniellavasccosta@hotmail.com; Phone: +55 81 995047010. ORCID:

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1651-4175
Manuscript ( NO AUTHOR INFORMATION - Manuscript Text
Pages, including References and Figure Legends)

1 1
2
3
4 Does varying resistance exercises for the same muscle group promote greater strength gains?
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1 2
2
3
4 ABSTRACT
5
6
7
8
Two of the foremost principles of progression are progressive overload and variation. A way to
9
10 vary within a resistance training (RT) program is to perform different exercises for the same
11
12 muscle group; however, this strategy is still overlooked. The purpose of the present study was to
13
14
15 compare strength adaptations between an RT routine that maintained the exercises fixed (N-VAR)
16
17 and another that varied the exercises for the same muscle group during the weekly sessions (VAR).
18
19
20 Twenty-three young men (23.3 ± 4.1 years) were randomly allocated to N-VAR (n = 11) or VAR
21
22 (n = 12) conditions. The RT was performed three times a week for nine weeks and consisted of a
23
24
25 whole-body routine (3 sets of 8–12 repetitions). Maximum dynamic strength was assessed using
26
27 the one-repetition maximum test (1RM), and the isometric strength using an isokinetic
28
29
dynamometer, before and after training. Following the training period, both groups increased the
30
31
32 1RM values in all exercises (P ≤ 0.002), without significant differences between them (P ≥ 0.20).
33
34 In contrast, a greater increase (P = 0.02) in isometric knee extension strength was showed to N-
35
36
37 VAR (+12%) compared to VAR (+7%). There was no significant increase in both groups for
38
39 isometric knee flexion strength (N-VAR, P = 0.10; VAR, P = 0.18). Our findings indicate that
40
41
42 maintaining or varying the exercises for the same muscle group promotes similar adaptations in
43
44 the maximum dynamic strength. In contrast, for the isometric strength in knee extension,
45
46
47
maintaining the fixed exercises seems to be more interesting.
48
49
50 KEYWORDS: resistance training, strength training, exercise variation, training progression
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1 3
2
3
4 INTRODUCTION
5
6
7 One of the main recommendations within resistance training (RT) to increase
8
9 neuromuscular response is to comply with the principle of training progression (1, 17). The
10
11
12 American College of Sports Medicine (1) conceptualizes RT progression as a way to advance
13
14 within a training program to avoid stagnation of the adaptative responses over time. Two of the
15
16
17 foremost principles of progression are progressive overload and variation. Considering that
18
19 changes related to RT can occur in the first weeks after the beginning of the training program (9,
20
21 24), it is important to adopt strategies that minimize the plateau effect over time (15, 21).
22
23
24
25 The variation is considered as the change in one or more variables that make up RT programs (1).
26
27 One way to vary within the RT program is to perform different exercises for the same muscle
28
29
group. However, this strategy is still overlooked and the data available in the current literature is
30
31
32 inconclusive (10). For example, Fonseca et al. (12) pointed out an advantage in muscle strength
33
34 gains when exercise variation was adopted, compared to a fixed exercise routine; however, Rauch
35
36
37 et al. (25) and Baz-Valle et al. (3) showed no difference between the two routines. Exercise
38
39 variation may optimize the activation of distinct pools of motor units of the target muscle (8); on
40
41
42 the other hand, as individuals perform the same exercise fewer times per week, the load adjustment
43
44 may be impaired, as well as the gains in strength, which is highly influenced by the loads used (23,
45
46
47
28).
48
49
50 Considering that the intensity adjustment can be a strategy to gradually increase the stress applied
51
52 to a musculature (1, 17), a training routine that allows for a higher frequency of performing the
53
54
55
same exercises may lead to a more efficient progression (ie., progression/time). In other words,
56
57 performing the same exercises during the RT program allows the adjustment of the other acute
58
59 prescription variables, such as intensity and volume, besides providing a faster and more
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1 4
2
3
4 pronounced workload (eg., volume-load) progression. However, the influence of volume-load on
5
6
7 the muscle strength response is still not completely elucidated, as some studies show similar results
8
9 for this capacity even with different volume-load (13, 14, 29). Given all the information mentioned
10
11
12 above, it is not yet known whether there is a difference between a routine RT that maintains the
13
14 exercises fixed or varied on muscle strength, as both strategies have possible advantages and
15
16
17 disadvantages.
18
19
20 Therefore, the present study aimed to compare the strength adaptations between 9-week RT
21
22 programs that maintained the exercises fixed and another that varied the exercises, in young men.
23
24
25 Whereas the relative intensity (% one maximum repetition) over an RT program plays a key role
26
27 in muscle strength (23, 28), we hypothesized that maintaining the exercises fixed would promote
28
29
greater increases in muscle strength when compared to the varied-exercise routine.
30
31
32
33 MATERIAL AND METHODS
34
35 Experimental Approach to the problem
36
37
This was an experimental study, composed of parallel groups who underwent RT program over 15
38
39
40 weeks (8). The first and last three weeks (weeks 1–3 and 13–15) were aimed at evaluating
41
42 participants. Anthropometric assessment, maximum dynamic strength (one repetition maximum),
43
44
45 and isometric strength (isokinetic dynamometer) were performed. The pre- and post-training
46
47 measurements were performed with at least 72 hours of the interval before the first and after the
48
49
50 last RT session. After baseline assessments, all participants were randomized using block
51
52 randomization, based on relative strength (sum of all 1RM tests divided by fat-free mass) (26), in
53
54
55
one of the two groups: N-VAR (the group that performed a constant exercise routine throughout
56
57 the experiment) or VAR (the group that varied the exercises throughout the week). RT program
58
59 lasted 9 weeks (from 4 to 12 weeks).
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1 5
2
3
4 Subjects
5
6
7 Initially, 41 subjects volunteered to participate in the study and were submitted to interviews (8).
8
9 Recruitment was carried out using a non-probabilistic method, through dissemination on social
10
11
12 media, distribution of pamphlets, and visits in the classrooms of the local Universities. After the
13
14 interviews, 30 volunteers met the following inclusion criteria: (a) young men aged between 18 and
15
16
17 35 years old; (b): previous experience with RT of at least six months, however not being practicing
18
19 this modality (RT) in the last four months before the beginning of the study; (c): no history of
20
21 muscle or joint injury that could prevent them from performing any test or exercise, and (d): not
22
23
24 using any ergogenic substance capable of maximizing muscle strength, eg., anabolic steroids,
25
26 creatine, protein supplement in the last year. Participants who did not attend all pre- and post-
27
28
29 experiment evaluations, as well as those who did not reach a minimum frequency of 80% of the
30
31 training sessions, were excluded from the investigation. During baseline assessments, one subject
32
33
34 was excluded for failing to attend all assessment sessions. Thus, 29 participants started the RT
35
36 program (N-VAR: n = 14 and VAR: n = 15). A total of 23 participants completed the experiment
37
38
39
(N-VAR, n = 11, VAR, n = 12) and were included in analyses. The reasons for dropout were
40
41 reported in Figure 1. After a detailed description of the study procedures, all participants signed a
42
43 consent form. The procedures of the study were approved by the institutional Ethics and Research
44
45
46 Committee and followed the ethical principles contained in the Declaration of Helsinki (2008).
47
48
49
50
51 *** INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE ***
52
53
54
55
56 Procedures
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1 6
2
3
4 Anthropometry. Body mass was measured using a scale calibrated to an accuracy of 0.1kg
5
6
7 (Filizola, model ID 110, São Paulo, SP, Brazil). Stature was assessed using a stadiometer attached
8
9 to the scale, with an accuracy of 0.1cm. The body mass index (BMI) was calculated as body mass
10
11
12 (in kg) divided by the height (in meter) squared. All measurements were performed with the
13
14 subjects wearing light clothes and without shoes.
15
16
17 One repetition maximum (1RM). The maximum dynamic strength was assessed using the 1RM
18
19
20 test in the following exercises: Barbell bench press (BP), lat pull down front (LPD), arm curl (AC),
21
22 triceps extension (TE), leg press 45° (LP45°), right leg curl (RLC), and left leg curl (LLC),
23
24
25 performed in this order. All tests were preceded by a warm-up set (6-10 repetitions), with 50% of
26
27 the estimated load for the first attempt of the 1RM. The test started 2 minutes after the warm-up.
28
29
All subjects were instructed to perform 3 attempts of 2 repetitions with the imposed load with a
30
31
32 rest interval between attempts of 3–5 minutes. If the subject was able to perform two or none
33
34 repetitions, the load was increased or decreased for the next attempt, respectively. The value of
35
36
37 1RM was recorded as the largest load lifted, in which the subject was able to perform only 1-
38
39 maximum repetition, in other words, to perform the concentric and eccentric actions correctly (20).
40
41
42 The 1RM assessments were supervised by physical education professionals with extensive
43
44 experience in this type of test to ensure the safety and physical integrity of the subjects, moreover,
45
46
47
verbal encouragement was given throughout the test. The subjects were submitted to three 1RM
48
49 sessions. In the first session, all were familiarized with the test and the exercises. In the second
50
51 and third sessions, they were tested and retested to analyze the reliability of the measurements.
52
53
54 The highest load lifted was adopted as the value of 1RM. The sessions were separated by an
55
56 interval of 48 hours.
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1 7
2
3
4 Isometric strength. The isometric strength was measured in the dominant leg using a Biodex
5
6
7 dynamometer (System 3, Shirley, NY, USA). We measured the isometric strength of knee
8
9 extension and flexion. Subjects were positioned in the sitting position on the dynamometer chair
10
11
12 according to the manufacturer's instructions; the hip was positioned at 85° of flexion, while the
13
14 knee flexed at 60° (considering 0° as full knee extension). The lever arm of the dynamometer was
15
16
17 aligned at the height of the lateral epicondyle of the femur and the leg was secured with a velcro
18
19 tape just above the lateral malleoli. The thigh of the dominant leg was secured with a strap to
20
21 prevent any movement with the hip during the test. Three more straps were used, two crossing the
22
23
24 trunk and the last was placed across the pelvis to stabilize the upper body segment. During the
25
26 evaluation, subjects kept their hands on their shoulders with their arms crossed. All underwent 2
27
28
29 sets of 5 seconds of knee extension and isometric flexion with a rest interval of one minute between
30
31 sets and two minutes between muscle actions. Moreover, subjects were instructed to perform the
32
33
34 maximum effort through verbal encouragement throughout the test. Peak torque for each muscle
35
36 action was obtained in newton/meter (Nm) (22). The isometric strength test was performed 48
37
38
39
hours apart from the dynamic tests (ie., 1RM). The subjects visited our laboratory on two occasions
40
41 in the pre-training to obtain the reliability measures — these visits were also spaced for 48 hours.
42
43
44 Resistance training program. The RT program was conducted in the afternoon (from 1:30 to 5:30
45
46
47
PM), 3 times a week (Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays) over 9 weeks. RT program included
48
49 exercises for upper limbs, trunk, and lower limbs. The N-VAR group underwent the same exercises
50
51 throughout the study, whereas the VAR group varied the exercises throughout the weekly sessions.
52
53
54 Both groups performed the same number of sets per muscle group per week. The details of the RT
55
56 program are shown in Table 1. The subjects performed 3 sets of 8–12 repetitions in each exercise,
57
58
59 with a rest interval of 90–120 seconds between sets and exercises. All were instructed to inhale
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1 8
2
3
4 and exhale in the eccentric and concentric action, respectively, in a 2:1 ratio. The load-intensity
5
6
7 was adjusted whenever the individual was able to perform 12 repetitions in three consecutive sets
8
9 of an exercise within the same RT session. The adjustment was 2–5% for upper limbs and 5–10%
10
11
12 for lower limbs in the next session. The volume-load was calculated as the number of sets x number
13
14 of repetitions x load lifted in all sets, exercises, and days during the experiment. Finally, the total
15
16
17 training volume (TTV) was calculated as the sum of all the volume-load of the weeks.
18
19
20
21
22
23 *** INSERT TABLE 1 HERE ***
24
25
26
27
28
29 Dietary intake. Food consumption was assessed by the 24-h dietary recall method applied on three
30
31
32 nonconsecutive days (two weekdays and one weekend day) pre and post-intervention. Participants
33
34 were given specific instructions regarding the recording of portion sizes and quantities to identify
35
36 all food and fluid intake with the aid of a photographic record taken during an interview by a
37
38
39 dietitian. Energy and macronutrients (carbohydrate, protein, and lipid) were quantified. The
40
41 homemade measurements of the nutritional values of food were converted into grams and
42
43
44 milliliters by the software (Avanutri Processor Nutrition, versão 3.1.0, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil)
45
46 for diet analysis. The subjects were advised to maintain nutritional habits until the end of the study
47
48
49 (26).
50
51
52 Statistical analyses
53
54 The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to analyze the distribution of data. Data are presented as mean,
55
56
57 standard deviation (SD), and 95% confidence interval (CI95%). The weekly progression of TTV
58
59 was compared between N-VAR and VAR using slopes and elevation comparisons from linear
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1 9
2
3
4 regression. The t-test was used to compare the general characteristics of the variables in the
5
6
7 baseline and the TTV between the groups. To analyze the homogeneity of the variances, the
8
9 Levene was used. Two-analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the effect of dietary
10
11
12 intake between groups in the first and last week of intervention. When the F value was significant,
13
14 Bonferroni post hoc was used to identify the differences. A covariance univariate analysis
15
16
17 (ANCOVA) was used to compared the magnitude of effects dependent variables [absolute delta
18
19 (∆ = post-pre)] between groups (N-VAR vs. VAR), with baseline scores as covariates. To analyze
20
21 the relative changes between pre and post-training, the percentage delta (∆%) was calculated as:
22
23
24 [(post-pre)/pre]*100. Cohen's d effect size (ES) was calculated as the mean pre-to-post difference
25
26 divided by the pooled SD (7), considering the following criteria: < 0.20 = trivial, 0.20 – 0.49 =
27
28
29 small, 0.50 – 0.79 = moderate, and ≥ 0.80 = large. Finally, we calculated the intraclass correlation
30
31 coefficient (ICC) and the coefficient of variation (CV) to analyze the reliability of the
32
33
34 measurements. The significance adopted was P < 0.05. Data were analyzed using the JASP
35
36 software version 0.13.1 (Amsterdam, NLD).
37
38
39 RESULTS
40
41
42 For 1RM strength tests, the reliability values of the measure were: ICC ≥ 0.99 and CV ≤
43
44 3.25%. For the isometric strength measurements in knee extension and flexion, the values were:
45
46
47
ICC ≥ 0.94 and CV ≤ 3.60%.
48
49
50 Regarding baseline characteristics, no difference was found for age (N-VAR: 23.6 ± 4.7 years vs.
51
52 VAR: 22.9 ± 3.5 years; P = 0.64), stature (N-VAR: 176.6 ± 7.5 cm vs. VAR: 174.2 ± 4.0 cm; P =
53
54
55
0.31), body mass (N-VAR: 82.2 ± 12.7 kg vs. VAR: 77.4 ± 15.7 kg; P = 0.37) and BMI (N-VAR:
56
57 26.2 ± 3.0 kg/m2 vs. VAR: 25.4 ± 5.0 kg/m2; P = 0.61) between the groups.
58
59
60 Volume-load and TTV
61
62
63
64
65
 1 10
2
3
4 Group analyses showed that the progression of volume-load throughout the weeks was similar
5
6
7 between N-VAR and VAR (slopes comparison, P = 0.59), however, the elevation (intercepts) of
8
9 the linear regression was significantly greater in N-VAR (P < 0.001, See Figure 2A). Furthermore,
10
11
12 N-VAR presented a higher accumulated TTV than VAR (P < 0.001, See Figure 2B).
13
14
15
16
17 *** INSERT FIGURE 2 HERE ***
18
19
20
21
Dietary intake
22
23
24 Table 2 presents the data on the dietary intake of both groups in the first and last week of the RT
25
26 program. There was no interaction effect (group vs. time), nor the main effect of time and group
27
28
29 (P > 0.05). These findings show that there was no change in the dietary intake of participants
30
31 throughout the experiment.
32
33
34
35
36 *** INSERT TABLE 2 HERE ***
37
38
39
40
41 One-repetition maximum (1RM)
42
43 The values for the 1RM tests in the BP, LPD, AC, TE, LP45°, RLC, and LLC exercises, before
44
45
46 and after of the RT program are shown in Table 3. Both groups showed significant increases in
47
48 all exercises (P ≤ 0.002), with no difference between them (P ≥ 0.20). In the BP, the N-VAR
49
50
51 increased 22.9% (CI95% = 17.9 to 27.8; ES = 0.75), while the VAR showed an increase of 20.4%
52
53 (CI95% = 16.3 to 24.4; ES = 0.70). In the LPD, the increase in N-VAR was 7.0% (CI95% = 3.2 to
54
55
56
10.8; ES = 0.30) while the increase in VAR was 9.7% (CI95% = 4.8 to 14.6; ES = 0.33). In the AC,
57
58 groups presented increases of 18.0% (CI95% = 7.4 to 28.7; ES = 0.67) and 14.4% (CI95% = 9.5 to
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1 11
2
3
4 19.4; ES = 0.57) for N-VAR and VAR respectively. The N-VAR increased 16.5% (CI95% = 11.4
5
6
7 to 21.6; ES = 0.79) in the TE, while the VAR showed an increase of 17.0% (CI95% = 13.6 to 20.5;
8
9 ES = 0.79). In the LP45°, the N-VAR showed relative increase of 42.8% (CI95% = 32.7 to 52.9; ES
10
11
12 = 1.03), on the other hand, the VAR increased 44.9% (CI95% = 21.9 to 67.9; ES = 1.02). The relative
13
14 changes for RLC were of 17.4% (CI95% = 10.4 to 24.5; ES = 0.87) for N-VAR and 22.3% (CI95%
15
16
17 = 13.6 to 31.0; ES = 1.12) for the VAR. Finally, in the LLC, the N-VAR increased 22.7% (CI95%
18
19 = -0.9 to 46.3; ES = 0.67), while the VAR presented an increase of 28.1% (CI95% = 16.0 to 40.2;
20
21 ES = 1.21). Individuals relative changes of all 1RM tests are shown in Figure 3.
22
23
24
25
26 *** INSERT TABLE 3 HERE***
27
28
29
30
31 *** INSERT FIGURE 3 HERE ***
32
33
34
35
36 Isometric strength (ISOM)
37
38
39
Data for isometric strength in knee extension and flexion, before and after the RT program are
40
41 described in Table 3. For the ISOMext, there was a main effect of the group (P = 0.02). More
42
43 precisely, only the N-VAR showed a significant increase in isometric strength when compared to
44
45
46 the pre-experiment (P < 0.001; ∆% = 11.9; CI95% = 4.5 to 19.4; ES = 0.40). Although the VAR
47
48 showed a relative increase of 7.1% (CI95% = 0.5 to 13.7; ES = 0.24), this change was not significant
49
50
51 (P = 0.16). For ISOMflex both groups showed no significant increase when compared to the pre-
52
53 experiment (N-VAR: P = 0.10; VAR: P = 0.18). Individuals relative changes of the isometric
54
55
56
strength for knee flexion and extension are shown in Figure 4.
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1 12
2
3
4 *** INSERT FIGURE 4 HERE ***
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 DISCUSSION
12
13
14 The main findings of the present study were that: performing different exercises for the same
15
16 muscle group, as well as maintain the exercises fixed, promoted significant increases in maximum
17
18
19 dynamic strength, albeit N-VAR induced slightly greater gains in isometric knee extension
20
21 strength. Moreover, none of the groups significantly increased the maximum isometric strength in
22
23
24 knee flexion after 9 weeks of RT. Yet, the N-VAR showed a significantly higher volume-load
25
26 throughout the weeks. Initially, we hypothesized that maintaining the exercises constant would
27
28 promote greater increases in muscle strength when compared to the varied-exercise routine,
29
30
31 because the load progression over an RT program plays a key role in muscle strength. In this
32
33 regard, the results found partially confirm our initial hypothesis, as for maximum isometric
34
35
36 strength only the N-VAR increased.
37
38
39 Despite the groups were significantly different regarding TTV, it is important to note that
40
41 the progression of the training load was similar between them. According to the American College
42
43
44 of Sports Medicine (1), progressive overload is one of the foremost principles of training for
45
46 improving neuromuscular adaptations. In fact, Aube et al. (2) found that for greater increases in
47
48
49 maximum strength, a ~30% progression in training load based on the participants' previous
50
51 experience is more important than the volume per se. In our study, as both groups progressed the
52
53
54
training load over time, this behavior could also be seen at maximum strength, regardless of the
55
56 exercise variation.
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1 13
2
3
4 Maximum strength, assessed using the 1RM test, has been identified as a specific skill,
5
6
7 dependent on the load and movement performed, which increases from the repeated experience
8
9 (5). Although the amount of practice required to increase strength may be dependent on the
10
11
12 complexity of the exercise (eg., multi- and single-joint) (19), a possible explanation for similarity
13
14 in maximum strength gains between groups is that the VAR group performed the same training
15
16
17 program as the N-VAR group once a week. Although N-VAR performed this protocol three times
18
19 more when compared to VAR, the weekly dose seems to have been enough to reduce possible
20
21 differences between groups, since volume tends to not perform a large role in strength gains (27).
22
23
24 Furthermore, if we consider that the relationship between maximum strength gains and intensity
25
26 in RT (28), both groups trained in the same intensity zone (ie., 8–12 repetitions) throughout the
27
28
29 RT program.
30
31
32 Studies that investigated the effects of exercise variation are scarce in the literature (3, 12,
33
34 25). Furthermore, the results from these studies are quite controversial, mainly due to the
35
36
37 discrepancy in the experimental designs. For example, Rauch et al. (25) and Baz-Valle et al. (3)
38
39 found maximum dynamic strength responses similar to our study, that is, individuals who
40
41
42 underwent an exercise variation routine increased the values of 1RM in the same proportion as
43
44 individuals who underwent fixed exercises. On the other hand, Fonseca et al. (12) revealed that
45
46
47
subjects who varied the exercises and maintained constant intensity throughout the RT program
48
49 increased the maximum strength more when compared to those who did not vary. Although these
50
51 studies have analyzed the phenomenon of exercise variation, they differ widely from the design
52
53
54 used in our study (training frequency, experimental design, exercise choice, and total duration).
55
56
57 The evaluation of the different types of strength (eg., using isotonic, isometric, and
58
59 isokinetic tests) may represent a general parameter of the adaptations obtained in an RT program,
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1 14
2
3
4 however, these non-specific increases may present lower magnitudes (6). In our study, the
5
6
7 isometric strength showed a significant increase only for the N-VAR after the RT program, that is,
8
9 there seems to have been a transfer from the dynamic RT to the increase in the isometric strength.
10
11
12 Previous studies have revealed that there is an effect of transferring the isometric RT to increase
13
14 the dynamic strength (11, 30), however little is known about the reverse path. A possible
15
16
17 explanation for our finding may have been the use of a greater absolute load for the quadriceps
18
19 femoris in the N-VAR group, which may have generated an increase in patellar tendon stiffness in
20
21 individuals undergoing this strategy of training (4). In this regard, Kongsgaard et al. (16) revealed
22
23
24 that dynamic RT with high-load promotes significant increases in isometric strength, the cross-
25
26 sectional area of the patellar tendon, accompanied by increased tendon stiffness, with no change
27
28
29 in material properties, even with the volume-equalized. However, it is important to highlight that
30
31 these mechanisms were not evaluated in the present study, which makes our statement only
32
33
34 speculative.
35
36
37 To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that analyzed the effects of resistance
38
39 exercise variation throughout the week on different types of muscle strength in detrained young
40
41
42 men. Moreover, our study has other strengths that need to be highlighted. All RT sessions were
43
44 directly supervised by physical education professionals with extensive experience in RT. Given
45
46
47
that supervised training promotes greater magnitudes of neuromuscular adaptations when
48
49 compared to non-supervised (18), supervision is essential to obtain accurate results. This made it
50
51 possible to accurately adjust the progressive overload, allowing the intensity zone to be maintained
52
53
54 throughout the entire intervention. Another important point was the evaluation of different types
55
56 of muscle strength, since analyzing only the maximum dynamic strength does not allow us to make
57
58
59 any extrapolation for different manifestations of this capacity, such as isometric strength (5, 22).
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1 15
2
3
4 In contrast, our study has some limitations to be analyzed carefully. First, the results found
5
6
7 are applied only to young men with experience in RT, who have not been practicing this modality
8
9 for at least four months before the beginning of the intervention. Thus, it is not possible to
10
11
12 extrapolate our findings to other populations or other levels of trainability, such as women, older,
13
14 novice, and trained. Second, the 1RM tests were only evaluated in the exercises that comprised the
15
16
17 RT program, which does not allow us to infer whether varying the exercises or not may increase
18
19 the maximum dynamic strength in non-specific exercises (ie., transfer effect). Third, the findings
20
21 are limited to the nine-week training period. Considering the aforementioned information, further
22
23
24 studies are required to answer the possible limitations of the current study. Finally, our data
25
26 revealed that maintaining a fixed exercise routine, while allowing the use of higher absolute loads
27
28
29 within an RT program, does not show superiority over a varied exercise routine on gains of
30
31 maximum dynamic strength, as long as the overload progressive principle is attended.
32
33
34 Practical Applications
35
36
37
From a practical point of view, our results suggest that maintaining or varying the exercises for
38
39
40 the same muscle group throughout an RT program promotes similar adaptations in the maximum
41
42 dynamic strength. However, if the goal is to increase the isometric strength of the knee extensors,
43
44
45 perform a RT routine with constant exercises seems to be more effective. On the other hand, if we
46
47 take into account that the adaptative responses to RT are influenced by continuity (i.e., adherence),
48
49
50 varying the exercises over the week may be an excellent alternative to reduce the monotony of
51
52 training without impairing the adaptations of maximum strength.
53
54
55 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
56
57
58 The authors thank all participants for their engagement in the study. The Pernambuco Science and
59
60 Technology Foundation (FACEPE) for the scholarship conferred to BDVC, and the Coordination
61
62
63
64
65
 1 16
2
3
4 of Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES/ Brazil) for the scholarship conferred to
5
6
7 WK, JPN, GK, PCS, PSJ, and RRF. The National Council of Technological and Scientific
8
9 Development (CNPq/Brazil) for the grants conceded to ESC and LSF. The authors report no
10
11
12 conflicts of interest.
13
14
15
16
17
18 REFERENCES
19
20
21 1. American College of Sports Medicine. American College of Sports Medicine position
22 stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc
23
24 41: 687-708, 2009.
25 2. Aube D, Wadhi T, Rauch J, Anand A, Barakat C, Pearson J, Bradshaw J, Zazzo S,
26 Ugrinowitsch C, and De Souza EO. Progressive resistance training volume: effects on
27 muscle thickness, mass, and strength adaptations in resistance-trained individuals. J
28 Strength Cond Res Publish Ahead of Print: 1-8, 2020.
29
30 3. Baz-Valle E, Schoenfeld BJ, Torres-Unda J, Santos-Concejero J, and Balsalobre-
31 Fernandez C. The effects of exercise variation in muscle thickness, maximal strength and
32 motivation in resistance trained men. PLoS One 14: e0226989, 2019.
33 4. Bohm S, Mersmann F, and Arampatzis A. Human tendon adaptation in response to
34
35
mechanical loading: a systematic review and meta-analysis of exercise intervention studies
36 on healthy adults. Sports Med Open 1: 7, 2015.
37 5. Buckner SL, Jessee MB, Mattocks KT, Mouser JG, Counts BR, Dankel SJ, and Loenneke
38 JP. Determining strength: a case for multiple methods of measurement. Sports Med 47:
39 193-195, 2017.
40
41 6. Buckner SL, Kuehne TE, Yitzchaki N, Zhu WG, Humphries MN, and Loenneke JP. The
42 generality of strength adaptation. J Trainol 8: 5-8, 2019.
43 7. Cohen J. A power primer. Washington: Psychol Bull, 1992.
44 8. Costa BDV, Kassiano W, Nunes JP, Kunevaliki G, Castro-e-Souza P, Rodacki ALF,
45
46
Cyrino LT, Cyrino ES, and Fortes LS. Does performing different resistance exercises for
47 the same muscle group induce non-homogeneous hypertrophy? Int J Sports Med Ahead of
48 Print, 2021.
49 9. Damas F, Phillips SM, Lixandrao ME, Vechin FC, Libardi CA, Roschel H, Tricoli V, and
50 Ugrinowitsch C. Early resistance training-induced increases in muscle cross-sectional area
51
52 are concomitant with edema-induced muscle swelling. Eur J Appl Physiol 116: 49-56,
53 2016.
54 10. Fisher JP, Steele J, Smith D, and Gentil P. Periodization for optimizing strength and
55 hypertrophy; the forgotten variables. J Trainol 7: 10-15, 2018.
56
11. Folland JP, Hawker K, Leach B, Little T, and Jones DA. Strength training: isometric
57
58 training at a range of joint angles versus dynamic training. J Sports Sci 23: 817-824, 2005.
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1 17
2
3
4 12. Fonseca RM, Roschel H, Tricoli V, Souza EO, M. WJ, Laurentino GC, Aihara AY, Leão
5
6 ARS, and Ugrinowitsch C. Changes in exercises are more effective than in loading schemes
7 to improve muscle strength. J Strength Cond Res 28: 3085–3092, 2014.
8 13. Franco CMC, Carneiro MAS, de Sousa JFR, Gomes GK, and Orsatti FL. Influence of high-
9 and low-frequency resistance training on lean body mass and muscle strength gains in
10
11
untrained men. J Strength Cond Res Publish Ahead of Print, 2019.
12 14. Ikezoe T, Kobayashi T, Nakamura M, and Ichihashi N. Effects of low-load, higher-
13 repetition versus high-load, lower-repetition resistance training not performed to failure on
14 muscle strength, mass, and echo intensity in healthy young men: a time-course study. J
15 Strength Cond Res Publish Ahead of Print, 2017.
16
17 15. Kassiano W, Costa BDV, Nunes JP, Aguiar AF, De Salles BF, and Ribeiro AS. Are we
18 exploring the potential role of specialized techniques in muscle hypertrophy? Int J Sports
19 Med Ahead of Print, 2021.
20 16. Kongsgaard M, Reitelseder S, Pedersen TG, Holm L, Aagaard P, Kjaer M, and Magnusson
21 SP. Region specific patellar tendon hypertrophy in humans following resistance training.
22
23 Acta Physiol (Oxf) 191: 111-121, 2007.
24 17. Kraemer WJ and Ratamess NA. Fundamentals of resistance training: progression and
25 exercise prescription. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: 674-688, 2004.
26 18. Mazzetti SA, Kraemer WJ, Volek JS, Duncan ND, Ratamess NA, Gómez AL, Newton RU,
27
28
Häkkinen K, and Fleck SJ. The influence of direct supervision of resistance training on
29 strength performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 32: 1175-1184, 2000.
30 19. Morton RW, Oikawa SY, Wavell CG, Mazara N, McGlory C, Quadrilatero J, Baechler BL,
31 Baker SK, and Phillips SM. Neither load nor systemic hormones determine resistance
32 training-mediated hypertrophy or strength gains in resistance-trained young men. J Appl
33
34 Physiol 121: 129–138, 2016.
35 20. Nascimento MA, Januário RSB, Gerage AM, Mayhew JL, Pina FL, and Cyrino ES.
36 Familiarization and reliability of one repetition maximum strength testing in older women.
37 J Strength Cond Res 27: 1636–1642, 2013.
38
39
21. Nunes JP, Costa BDV, Kassiano W, Kunevaliki G, Castro-e-Souza P, Rodacki ALF, Fortes
40 LS, and Cyrino ES. Different foot positioning during calf training to induce portion-
41 specific gastrocnemius muscle hypertrophy. J Strength Cond Res 34: 2347-2351, 2020.
42 22. Nunes JP, Cunha PM, Mayhew JL, Ribeiro AS, Junior PS, Fernandes RR, and Cyrino ES.
43 Influence of handgrip stabilization during isokinetic knee strength assessment in older
44
45 women. Percept Mot Skills 127: 671-683, 2020.
46 23. Nunes JP, Ribeiro AS, Schoenfeld BJ, and Cyrino ES. Comment on: "Comparison of
47 periodized and non-periodized resistance training on maximal strength: a meta-analysis".
48 Sports Med 48: 491-494, 2018.
49
24. Phillips SM. Short-term training: when do repeated bouts of resistance exercise become
50
51 training? Can J Appl Physiol 25: 185-193, 2000.
52 25. Rauch JT, Ugrinowitsch C, Barakat CI, Alvarez MR, Brummert DL, Aube DW, Barsuhn
53 AS, Hayes D, Tricoli V, and De Souza EO. Auto-regulated exercise selection training
54 regimen produces small increases in lean body Mass and maximal strength adaptations in
55
56
strength-trained individuals. J Strength Cond Res 34: 1133-1140, 2020.
57 26. Ribeiro AS, Aguiar AF, Schoenfeld BJ, Nunes JP, Cavalcante EF, Cadore EL, and Cyrino
58 ES. Effects of different resistance training systems on muscular strength and hypertrophy
59 in resistance-trained older women. J Strength Cond Res 32: 545-553, 2018.
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1 18
2
3
4 27. Schoenfeld BJ, Contreras B, Krieger J, Grgic J, Delcastillo K, Belliard R, and Alto A.
5
6 Resistance training volume enhances muscle hypertrophy but not strength in trained men.
7 Med Sci Sports Exerc 51: 94-103, 2019.
8 28. Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J, Ogborn D, and Krieger JW. Strength and hypertrophy adaptations
9 between low- vs. high-load resistance training: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J
10
11
Strength Cond Res 31: 3508-3523, 2017.
12 29. Stefanaki DGA, Dzulkarnain A, and Gray SR. Comparing the effects of low and high load
13 resistance exercise to failure on adaptive responses to resistance exercise in young women.
14 J Sports Sci: 1-6, 2019.
15 30. Ullrich B, Kleinöder H, and Brüggemann GP. Influence of length-restricted strength
16
17 training on athlete's power-load curves of knee extensors and flexors. J Strength Cond Res
18 24: 668-678, 2010.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1 19
2
3
4 Figure captions
5
6
7
8
Figure. 1 Flowchart of the study.
9
10
11 Figure 2. Weekly training volume [means (SD)] throughout every week of resistance training
12
13 following N-VAR and VAR protocols with slopes (continuous straight lines) and 95% confidence
14
15
16
intervals (shadowed bands) (A) and the accumulated TTV for N-VAR and VAR protocols (B).
17
18 Data are presented as box and whisker plots with the median (line), mean (cross), inter-quartile
19
20 range (box), and minimum and maximum values (tails). † = significant difference between groups
21
22
23 (P < 0.001).
24
25
26 Figure 3. Relative changes in maximum dynamic strength (1RM) observed in the N-VAR and
27
28 VAR for the different exercises. The means and the confidence interval are represented by the
29
30
31 error bars and the circles represent each individual. * = Significant difference pre-to-post (P <
32
33 0.05)
34
35
36 Figure 4. Relative changes in isometric strength of the knee extension and flexion observed in the
37
38
39 N-VAR and VAR. The means and the confidence interval are represented by the error bars and
40
41 the circles represent each individual. * = Significant difference within group pre-to-post; † =
42
43
44 Significant difference between groups (P = 0.02).
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
Figure 1

Assessed for eligibility (n = 41)

Excluded (n = 12)
 Not meeting inclusion criteria (n
= 11)
 Did not attend baseline
assessment (n = 1)

Randomized (n = 29)

Allocation
Allocated to intervention A (n = 14) Allocated to intervention B (n = 15)
 3x a week  3x a week
 9 weeks of RT  9 weeks of RT
 Same exercises in all sessions  Varied exercises between the
throughout the intervention (N- sessions (VAR)
VAR)

Dropout
2
2

Dropout throughout the experiment (n = 3) Dropout throughout the experiment (n = 3)

Reasons for dropout  Health problems (n = 2)
 Health problems (n = 2)  Personal reasons (n = 1)
 Adherence < 80% of training
sessions (n = 1)

Analysis
Analyzed (n = 11) Analyzed (n = 12)
 Excluded from analysis (n = 0)  Excluded from analysis (n = 0)

Figure 1. Flowchart of the study.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Weekly training volume [means (SD)] throughout every week of resistance training following N-VAR and VAR protocols with slopes

(continuous straight lines) and 95% confidence intervals (shadowed bands) (A) and the accumulated TTV for N-VAR and VAR protocols (B). Data are

presented as box and whisker plots with the median (line), mean (cross), inter-quartile range (box), and minimum and maximum values (tails). † =

significant difference between groups (P < 0.001).

Figure 3

Figure 3. Relative changes in maximum dynamic strength (1RM) observed in the N-VAR and VAR for the different exercises. The means and the

confidence interval are represented by the error bars and the circles represent each individual. * = Significant difference pre-to-post (P < 0.05).
Figure 4

Figure 4. Relative changes in isometric strength of the knee extension and flexion observed in

the N-VAR and VAR. The means and the confidence interval are represented by the error bars

and the circles represent each individual. * = Significant difference within group pre-to-post; †

= Significant difference between groups (P = 0.02).

Table 1

Table 1. Resistance training programs.

Group Monday Wednesday Friday
N-VAR Bench press Bench press Bench press
Lat pulldown front Lat pulldown front Lat pulldown front
Arm curl Arm curl Arm curl
Triceps extension Triceps extension Triceps extension
Leg press Leg press Leg press
Lying leg curl Lying leg curl Lying leg curl

VAR Bench press Incline bench press Decline bench press

Lat pulldown front Lat pulldown neck Lat pulldown narrow grip
Arm curl Preacher curl Inclined dumbbell curl
Triceps extension Cable seated triceps extension Triceps kickback pulley
Leg press Half squat Hack machine
Lying leg curl Seated leg curl Seated unilateral leg curl
Note: N-VAR = Group that performed the same exercises in all sessions throughout the intervention; VAR = Group that
varied the exercises between sessions.
Table 2

Table 2. Total energy and macronutrient intake in first (M1) and last (M2) week of resistance training.
Effects
N-VAR (n = 11) VAR (n = 11)
ANOVA F P
Carbohydrate (g/kg/d) Group 0.449 0.51
M1 2.3 ± 0.4 2.6 ± 1.5 Time 2.271 0.15
M2 2.7 ± 0.8 3.1 ± 1.4 Interaction 0.023 0.88

Protein (g/kg/d) Group 1.537 0.23

M1 1.0 ± 0.3 1.2 ± 0.3 Time 0.000 0.99
M2 1.0 ± 0.2 1.2 ± 0.5 Interaction 0.010 0.92

Fat (g/kg/d) Group 1.237 0.28

M1 0.5 ± 0.2 0.7 ± 0.2 Time 0.246 0.62
M2 0.6 ± 0.1 0.7 ± 0.2 Interaction 0.375 0.54

Energy intake (kcal/kg/d) Group 0.873 0.36

M1 18.8 ± 4.2 22.3 ± 8.5 Time 4.587 0.05
M2 21.2 ± 4.2 24.2 ± 8.8 Interaction 0.077 0.78
Note: N-VAR = Group that performed the same exercises in all sessions throughout the intervention; VAR = Group that
varied the exercises between sessions. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD)
Table 3

Table 3. Neuromuscular adaptations pre and post nine weeks in each resistance training group.

N-VAR (n = 11) VAR (n = 12)

Pre Post ∆ (95% CI) Pre Post ∆ (95% CI)

1RM BP (kg) 60.9 ± 16.5 73.7 ± 17.5* 12.8 (9.8;15.4) 58.1 ± 15.0 70.2 ± 18.9* 12.0 (9.5;14.9)

1RM LPD (kg) 60.2 ± 12.9 64.1 ± 12.6* 3.9 (1.3;6.3) 55.8 ± 14.9 61.0 ± 16.3* 5.2 (2.9;7.6)

1RM AC (kg) 34.2 ± 8.4 39.5 ± 7.4* 5.2 (3.6;7.3) 31.3 ± 7.4 35.5 ± 7.2* 4.2 (2.3;5.8)

1RM TE (kg) 69.4 ± 13.0 80.0 ± 13.8* 10.5 (7.3;13.3) 60.6 ± 12.1 70.8 ± 13.4* 10.1 (7.4;13.1)

1RM LP45° (kg) 257.8 ± 84.8 354.3 ± 100.6* 96.5 (72.8;120.8) 230.8 ± 83.7 312.6 ± 75.3* 81.8 (58.5;104.5)

1RM RLC (kg) 33.6 ± 5.8 38.6 ± 5.6* 5.0 (3.4;7.5) 29.1 ± 5.7 35.1 ± 4.9* 6.0 (3.6;7.4)

1RM LLC (kg) 31.7 ± 8.0 36.5 ± 6.2* 4.8 (2.6;8.5) 27.1 ± 5.8 34.2 ± 5.9* 7.0 (3.5;9.2)

ISOMext (Nm) 296.7 ± 78.4 327.2 ± 71.4*† 30.5 (17.3;50.5) 261.7 ± 63.8 276.0 ± 52.4 14.2 (-3.6;26.5)

ISOMflex (Nm) 152.6 ± 24.9 160.8 ± 24.5 8.2 (-2.3;29.8) 135.5 ± 28.5 150.8 ± 20.8 15.3 (-3.9;25.2)

Note: N-VAR = Group that performed the same exercises in all sessions throughout the intervention; VAR = Group that varied the exercises between sessions;
1RM = one maximum repetition; BP = bench press; LPD = lat pulldown; AC = arm barbell curl; TE = triceps extension; LP45° = leg press 45°; RLC = right leg
curl; LLC = left leg curl; kg = kilograms; Nm = newtons/meter. * P < 0.05 vs. pre. † P < 0.05 vs. VAR. Data are presented as mean ± SD, and 95% confidence
interval