Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/336855244
CITATIONS READS
2 1,099
6 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Metabolic and inflammatory profile evaluation in different resistance training protocols View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Felipe Brigatto on 22 April 2020.
Abstract
Brigatto, FA, Lima, LEdM, Germano, MD, Aoki, MS, Braz, TV, and Lopes, CR. High resistance-training volume enhances muscle
thickness in resistance-trained men. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000–000, 2019—This study investigated the effects of different
volumes of resistance training (RT) (8 weeks of 16, 24, and 32 weekly sets per muscle group) on muscular strength and hypertrophy.
Subjects were pair-matched according to baseline strength and then randomly assigned to 1 of 3 experimental groups: 16 weekly
sets per muscle group (G16, n 5 9), 24 weekly sets per muscle group (G24, n 5 9), or 32 weekly sets per muscle group (G32, n 5 9).
All other RT variables (e.g., exercise performed, exercise order, weekly frequency, range of repetitions, rest interval between sets
and exercises, etc.) were maintained constant. The total load lifted was calculated for every RT session to compare the accu-
mulated external training load among experimental groups across the intervention period. Testing was conducted before in-
tervention (pre) and after 8-week (post-8) periods for maximal voluntary muscle strength (1 repetition maximum [1RM] test for bench
press and parallel back squat exercises) and muscle thickness (MT) of the biceps brachii, triceps brachii, and vastus lateralis. The
major findings were as follows: (a) all RT volumes increased bench press and parallel back squat 1RM and (b) all RT volumes
increased the biceps brachii, triceps brachii, and vastus lateralis MT. The magnitude of increase in 1RM and MT of the lower body
when training with 32 weekly sets per muscle group was higher than for 16 weekly sets per muscle group. The magnitude of the
increase in MTTB was higher when training with 32 weekly sets than for 16 weekly sets.
Key Words: dose-response relationship, hypertrophy, muscle strength
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Resistance-Training Volume (2019) 00:00
24, and 32 sets per muscle group per week on neuromuscular (pain, “giving-away” sensations) in the trunk, upper limbs, and
performance and morphological adaptations in resistance- lower limbs within the last year and stated that they had not taken
trained men. The authors used high RT volumes, typically asso- anabolic steroids or any other illegal agents known to increase
ciated with bodybuilding training systems (9), and the use of muscle size at the time or during the previous year. Thus, par-
validated diagnostic imaging methods to directly assess changes ticipation in the study required that the subjects answered nega-
in muscle thickness (MT) (e.g., ultrasound). Based on previous tively to all questions on the Physical Activity Readiness
meta-analyses, the authors hypothesized that there would be Questionnaire and had a minimum 1RM parallel back squat of
a graded outcome response, with an increasing gain in muscular 1.25 3 total body mass and a 1RM bench press of at least equal to
strength and hypertrophy seen for 16, 24, and 32 weekly sets per total body mass (13). All subjects read and signed an informed
muscle group programs, respectively. consent document approved by the Methodist University of
Piracicaba research ethics committee (protocol 1.749.141).
Methods
Experimental Approach to the Problem Procedures
This study followed a randomized, longitudinal design (33). Resistance-Training Program. The RT protocol consisted of 9
Subjects were pair-matched according to baseline strength and exercises targeting each of the major muscle groups. Subjects were
then randomly assigned to 1 of the 3 experimental groups: 16 instructed to refrain from any additional resistance-type training
weekly sets per muscle group (G16, n 5 9), 24 weekly sets per for the duration of the study. The specific protocols for experi-
muscle group (G24, n 5 9), or 32 weekly sets per muscle group mental groups are outlined in Table 2. The exercises were chosen
(G32, n 5 9). All other RT variables (e.g., exercise performed, based on their common inclusion in bodybuilding and strength-
exercise order, weekly frequency, range of repetitions, rest in- type RT programs (18). The weekly training protocol for all
terval between sets and exercises, etc.) were maintained constant. groups consisted of 2 split routines targeting specific muscle
The experimental period lasted 11 weeks: 1st week— groups: split routine A (Arout) and split routine B (Brout).
familiarization period; 2nd week—preintervention period (base- The weekly training for all groups consisted of 4 training sessions
line); 3rd-10th week—training intervention period; and 11th (Arout 1 Brout 1 Arout 1 Brout). Thus, G16, G24, and G32 performed
week—postintervention period. The training intervention period 16, 24, and 32 weekly sets for the major muscle groups, respectively,
lasted 8 weeks, and the TLL was calculated for every RT session comprising 8, 12, and 16 sets of multijoint exercises and 8, 12, and
to compare the accumulated external training load among ex- 16 sets of single-joint exercises, respectively, except for the hamstring
perimental groups, across the intervention period. muscles, which were stimulated with 16, 24, and 32 weekly sets of
Testing was conducted before intervention (pre) and after the single-joint exercise (machine-seated leg curl). Each set involved
8-week (post-8) period for maximal voluntary muscle strength 8–10 maximum repetitions (RM) with 60 seconds of rest afforded
(1 repetition maximum [1RM] test for bench press and parallel between sets and 120-second rest between exercises. All sets were
back squat exercises) and MT of the biceps brachii, triceps bra- conducted to the point of momentary concentric muscular failure,
chii, and vastus lateralis. In the first week, volunteers attended operationally defined as the inability to perform another concentric
2 familiarization sessions in the laboratory. The subjects refrained repetition while maintaining adequate form. The external load (kg)
from all physical exercises other than activities of daily living for was adjusted for each exercise, as needed, on successive sets to ensure
at least 48 hours before the first familiarization session. In the first that subjects achieved failure in the target repetition range. The ca-
session, volunteers were familiarized with the 1RM test. The dence of repetitions was conducted in a controlled fashion, with
following day (24 hours after), volunteers were familiarized with concentric and eccentric actions of approximately 1.5 seconds, for
standard procedures adopted in all RT exercises, such as body total repetition duration of approximately 3 seconds. All RT sessions
position, cadence, range of motion, rest, etc. In addition, subjects were preceded by a specific warm-up consisting of 2 sets of 10
were trained and instructed to record their dietary intake. repetitions with 50% of the load used in the first set of all exercises of
the session. All subjects reported a rating of perception exertion
(RPE) based on the RPE/repetitions in reserve scale (11) of 9.5–10
Subjects for all sets and exercises in RT sessions.
Twenty-seven healthy men (27.2 6 7.1 years [range 19–31 years]; All routines were directly supervised by the research assistants
height 5 176 6 6.1 cm; total body mass 5 80.6 6 6.5 kg; RT to ensure the correct performance of the respective routines. Be-
experience 5 40.2 6 13.2 months [mean 6 SD; range 24–120 fore the training intervention period, all subjects underwent
months]; RT frequency 5 4.9 6 0.9 session per week) volunteered 10RM testing (according to guidelines established by the Na-
to participate in this study. The sample size was justified by tional Strength and Conditioning Association, NSCA (18)) to
a priori power analysis based on a pilot study, where the vastus determine individual initial training loads for each exercise.
lateralis MT was assessed as the outcome measure with a target Attempts were made to progressively increase the load lifted each
effect size (ES) difference of 0.75, an alpha level of 0.05, and week while maintaining the target repetition range. No injuries
a power (12b) of 0.80 (7). All subjects were resistance-trained; were reported, and the adherence to the program was 100% for
performing RT on a minimum of 3 days per week for at least 1 all groups.
year at the university’s RT gym. All subjects regularly performed
(minimum frequency of once a week) all exercises used in the Estimate of Food Intake. To avoid potential dietary confounding
training intervention and in the strength tests for at least 1 year of results, subjects were advised to maintain their customary
before entering the study. The number of sets per muscle group nutritional regimen and to avoid taking any supplements during
that the subjects usually performed before the study is outlined in the study period. Dietary nutrient intake was assessed by a 24-
Table 1. Moreover, subjects were free from any existing muscu- hour food diary on 2 nonconsecutive weekdays and 1 day of the
loskeletal disorders; history of injury with residual symptoms weekend. The subjects were instructed to record in detail the time
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Resistance-Training Volume (2019) 00:00 | www.nsca.com
Table 1
Baseline descriptive statistics (mean 6 SD).*
Variables G16 (n 5 9) G24 (n 5 9) G32 (n 5 9) ANOVA 3 3 1 (p)
Age (y) 27.9 6 8.2 26.4 6 6.3 27.1 6 6.6 0.422
Total body mass (kg) 81.6 6 6.9 80.2 6 5.6 80.0 6 7.5 0.869
Height (cm) 179 6 6 176 6 7 174 6 6 0.325
RT experience (mo) 51 6 40 32 6 7 34 6 8 0.217
RT frequency (sessions·wk21) 4.8 6 0.9 5.2 6 1.1 4.9 6 0.8 0.396
Total no. of sets (sets·wk21) 226 6 128 171 6 47 210 6 50 0.368
No. of sets—chest (sets wk21) 27 6 14 20 6 7 25 6 7 0.294
No. of sets—back (sets wk21) 28 6 14 20 6 6 25 6 5 0.202
No. of sets— shoulder (sets·wk21) 45 6 27 34 6 11 43 6 14 0.421
No. of sets—biceps (sets wk21) 42 6 27 35 6 10 41 6 11 0.665
No. of sets–triceps (sets·wk21) 42 6 27 34 6 11 38 6 9 0.638
No. of sets–quadriceps (sets wk21) 21 6 13 16 6 5 19 6 7 0.642
No. of sets–hamstrings (sets·wk21) 21 6 13 12 6 8 18 6 7 0.137
1RMBENCH (kg) 93 6 20 103 6 23 98 6 20 0.122
1RMSQUAT (kg) 105 6 20 117 6 32 121 6 27 0.098
MT of the biceps brachii muscle (mm) 38.2 6 3.9 38.2 6 4.5 35.6 6 3.1 0.288
MT of the triceps brachii muscle (mm) 33.9 6 4.3 33.6 6 4.3 35.9 6 3.8 0.305
*G16 5 16 weekly sets per muscle group; G24 5 24 weekly sets per muscle group; G32 5 32 weekly sets per muscle group; ANOVA 5 analysis of variance; RT 5 resistance training; sets·wk21 5 sets per
week; 1RM 5 1 maximal repetition; MT 5 muscle thickness.
of consumption and types and quantity of food preparations subjects performed a general warm-up consisting of 5 minutes of
consumed during 24 hours. The quantity of food was recorded in cycling (Schwinne; AC Sport, Vancouver, WA) at 60–70 rpm and
cooking units (spoons, cups, and glasses) and transformed into 50 W. Subsequently, a specific warm-up set of the given exercise
grams. The estimation of energy intake (macronutrients) was of 5 repetitions was performed at ;50% 1RM followed by 1–2
analyzed by NutWin software (UNIFESP, Sao Paulo, Brazil). The sets of 2–3 repetitions at a load corresponding to ;60–80%
estimated food intake was assessed during weeks 1, 4, and 8 of the 1RM. Subjects then performed sets of 1 repetition of increasing
training intervention period. weight for 1RM determination. The external load was adjusted
by ;5–10% in subsequent attempts until the subject was unable
Criterion Measurements: Muscle Strength. Upper- and lower- to complete 1 maximal muscle action. The 1RM was considered
body maximum strength was assessed by 1RM testing in the the highest load lifted. A 3- to 5-minute rest was used between
bench press (1RMBENCH) and parallel back squat (1RMSQUAT) each successive attempt. All 1RM determinations were made
exercises. Subjects refrained from any exercise other than activi- within 5 attempts.
ties of daily living for at least 48 hours before baseline testing and Successful 1RMBENCH was achieved if the subject displayed
at least 48 hours before testing at the conclusion of the study. a 5-point body contact position (head, upper back, and buttocks
Maximum strength testing was consistent with recognized firmly on the bench with both feet flat on the floor), lowered the
guidelines as established by the NSCA (18). Before testing, bar to touch his chest, and executed full elbow extension. The grip
Table 2
Training protocols for experimental groups.*
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
Arout Brout Arout Brout
G16 (n 5 9)
Bench press 4 3 8-10RM Lat pull-down 4 3 8-10RM REST Bench press 4 3 8-10RM Lat pull-down 4 3 8-10RM
Dumbbell flat fly 4 3 8-10RM Dumbbell reverse fly 4 3 8-10RM Dumbbell flat fly 4 3 8-10RM Dumbbell reverse fly 4 3 8-10RM
Cable triceps 4 3 8-10RM Biceps curl 4 3 8-10RM Cable triceps 4 3 8-10RM Biceps curl 4 3 8-10RM
Parallel back squat 4 3 8-10RM Seated leg curl 8 3 8-10RM Parallel back squat 4 3 8-10RM Seated leg curl 8 3 8-10RM
Leg extension 4 3 8-10RM Leg extension 4 3 8-10RM
G24 (n 5 9)
Bench press 6 3 8-10RM Lat pull-down 6 3 8-10RM REST Bench press 6 3 8-10RM Lat pull-down 6 3 8-10RM
Dumbbell flat fly 6 3 8-10RM Dumbbell reverse fly 6 3 8-10RM Dumbbell flat fly 6 3 8-10RM Dumbbell reverse fly 6 3 8-10RM
Cable triceps 6 3 8-10RM Biceps curl 6 3 8-10RM Cable triceps 6 3 8-10RM Biceps curl 6 3 8-10RM
Parallel back squat 6 3 8-10RM Seated leg curl 12 3 8-10RM Parallel back squat 6 3 8-10RM Seated leg curl 12 3 8-10RM
Leg extension 6 3 8-10RM Leg extension 6 3 8-10RM
G32 (n 5 9)
Bench press 8 3 8-10RM Lat pull-down 8 3 8-10RM REST Bench press 8 3 8-10RM Lat pull1down 8 3 8-10RM
Dumbbell flat fly 8 3 8-10RM Dumbbell reverse fly 8 3 8-10RM Dumbbell flat fly 8 3 8-10RM Dumbbell reverse fly 8 3 8-10RM
Cable triceps 8 3 8-10RM Biceps curl 8 3 8-10RM Cable triceps 8 3 8-10RM Biceps curl 8 3 8-10RM
Parallel back squat 8 3 8-10RM Seated leg curl 16 3 8-10RM Parallel back squat 8 3 8-10RM Seated leg curl 16 3 8-10RM
Leg extension 8 3 8-10RM Leg extension 8 3 8-10RM
*G16 5 16 weekly sets per muscle group; G24 5 24 weekly sets per muscle group; G32 5 32 weekly sets per muscle group; Arout 5 split routine A; Brout 5 split routine B; RM 5 repetition maximum.
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Resistance-Training Volume (2019) 00:00
width was standardized at 200% of biacromial width (21). In the 0.6, respectively. The TEM for these measurements was 0.29,
1RMSQUAT, subjects were required to squat down so that the top 0.42, and 0.41, respectively.
of the thigh was parallel to the ground (;90° of knee joint flexion)
for the attempt to be considered successful, as determined by Total Load Lifted. Total load lifted (sets 3 repetitions 3 external
a research assistant who was positioned laterally to the subject. load [kgf]) (31) was calculated from training logs filled out by
The barbell was positioned on the shoulders (high-bar position), research assistants for every RT session. The accumulated TLL
and the subjects’ feet were always positioned at hip width (5). (ATLL) was the sum of all RT weeks. Only repetitions performed
A 1RMBENCH testing was conducted before 1RMSQUAT with through a full range of motion were included for analysis. The
a 20-minute rest period separating tests. Strength testing was data were expressed in kilogram-force units (kgf). The DTLL
conducted using free weights. Recording of feet and hand place- described the difference in the TLL between weeks 8 and 1 (e.g.,
ment was made during familiarization strength testing and then TLL in the week 8 minus the TLL in the week 1).
used for preintervention and postintervention performance tests
as well as at all training sessions. All testing sessions were su-
pervised by the research team to achieve a consensus for success Statistical Analyses
on each attempt. The test-retest intraclass correlation coefficient
(ICC), coefficient of variation (CV), and the typical error of the The normality and homogeneity of the variances were verified
measurement (TEM) calculated through the data collected during using the Shapiro-Wilk and Levene tests, respectively. Before
the familiarization period and the preintervention period (5 days analysis, all data were log-transformed for analysis to reduce bias
between the test-retest) for 1RMBENCH were 0.989, 0.8%, and arising from nonuniformity error (heteroscedasticity). The mean,
2.05 kg, respectively. The ICC, CV, and SEM for 1RMSQUAT SD, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used after data
were 0.990, 0.7%, and 1.95 kg, respectively. normality was assumed. A repeated-measures analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was used to compare 1RMBENCH, 1RMSQUAT, MTBB,
Muscle Thickness. Ultrasound imaging was used to obtain the MTTB, and MTVL time effect (before vs. after week 8) 3 3 groups
assessment of MT. A trained technician performed all testing (G16 vs. G24 vs. G32). A 3 3 3 ANOVA (interaction groups and
using an A-mode ultrasound imaging unit (Bodymetrix Pro Sys- time [week 1, 4, and 8]) was used to compare the food-intake
tem; Intelametrix, Inc., Livermore, CA). After a generous appli- variables. A 1 3 3 ANOVA (G16 vs. G24 vs. G32) was used to
cation of a water-soluble transmission gel (Mercur S.A.—Body compare the variables ATLL and ΔTLL (week 8—week 1). Post
Care, Santa Cruz do Sul, Brazil) to the site to be evaluated, a 2.5- hoc comparisons were performed with the Bonferroni correction.
MHz linear probe was placed perpendicular to the tissue interface Assumptions of sphericity were evaluated using the Mauchly test.
without depressing the skin. Equipment settings were optimized Where sphericity was violated (p , 0.05), the Greenhouse-
for image quality, according to the manufacturer’s user manual Geisser correction factor was applied. In addition, ESs were
and held constant among testing sessions. When the quality of the evaluated using a partial eta squared (h2p ), with ,0.06, 0.06–0.14,
image was deemed to be satisfactory, the image was saved to the and .0.14 indicating a small, medium, and large effect, re-
hard drive, and MT dimensions were obtained by measuring the spectively. The ES in absolute difference (before vs. after 8 weeks)
distance from the subcutaneous adipose tissue–muscle interface was calculated in raw values of the variables using the stan-
to the muscle-bone interface, as per methods used by Abe et al. (1). dardized difference, based on Cohen’s d units by means (d value)
Measurements were taken on the right side of the body at 3 sites: (6). The d result was qualitatively interpreted using the following
biceps brachii (MTBB), triceps brachii (MTTB), and vastus lateralis thresholds: ,0.2, trivial; 0.2–0.6, small; 0.6–1.2, moderate;
(MTVL). The upper-arm measurements were conducted while 1.2–2.0, large; 2.0–4.0, very large; and .4.0, extremely large. If
subjects were standing, and the measurements of the thigh muscle the 90% confidence limits overlapped, small positive and nega-
involved subjects lying supine on an examination table. For the tive values for the magnitude were deemed unclear; otherwise,
anterior and posterior upper arm, measurements were taken 60% this magnitude was deemed to be the observed magnitude (11).
distal between the lateral epicondyle of the humerus and the Smallest worthwhile change (SWC) in MTBB, MTTB, and MTVL
acromion process of the scapula; for the thigh muscle, measure- was calculated by the formula SWC 5 TEM 3 90% CIs (4).
ments were taken at 50% of the distance between the lateral Hence, the TEM is multiplied by 1.746 to establish the 90% CI,
condyle of the femur and greater trochanter. For each measure- according to the distribution of probability for t (16) as p , 0.10
ment, the examined limb was secured to minimize unwanted i.e., degrees of freedom (DF—16). The TEM for these measure-
movement. To maintain consistency between preintervention and ments was 0.42 mm (MTTB), 0.29 (MTBB), and 0.41 mm (MTVL)
postintervention testing, each site was marked with henna ink (3). Smallest worthwhile change was used as a trivial area (gray
(reinforced every week). In an effort to help ensure that swelling in bar) of the smallest true individual change of subjects (12). The
the muscles from training did not obscure results, images were relationship between variables was determined through Pearson
obtained 48–72 hours before commencement of the study and correlation. The 95% CI of the association between variables was
after the final training session. This is consistent with research calculated. The following criteria were adopted to interpret the
showing that an acute increase in MT returns to baseline within magnitude of the correlation (r): #0.1, trivial; .0.1–0.3, small;
48 hours after a RT session (19). .0.3–0.5, moderate; .0.5–0.7, large; .0.7–0.9, very large; and
To further ensure accuracy of measurements, at least 3 .0.9–1.0, almost perfect (12). If the 95% confidence limits
images were obtained for each site. If measurements were overlapped, small positive and negative values for the magnitude
within 1 mm of one another, the figures were averaged to ob- were deemed unclear; otherwise, this magnitude was deemed to
tain a final value. If measurements presented more than 1 mm be the observed magnitude (12). All analyses were performed
difference from one another, a fourth image was obtained, and using SPSS-22.0 software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). The
the closest 3 measurements were then averaged. The test-retest adopted significance was p # 0.05. Figures were assembled in
ICC for MTBB, MTTB, and MTVL was 0.996, 0.998, and 0.999, GraphPad Prism version 6.0 software (La Jolla, CA) following the
respectively. The CV for these measurements was 0.4, 0.6, and assumptions for continuous data.
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Resistance-Training Volume (2019) 00:00 | www.nsca.com
Table 3
Estimated dietary nutrient intake for G16, G24, and G32 (mean 6 SD).*
ANOVA 3 3 2
Time Time 3 group
Variables Week 1 Week 4 Week 8 p p
Total (kcal)
G16 3,158 6 262 3,136 6 279 3,137 6 316 0.301 0.092
G24 3,110 6 190 3,052 6 258 3,124 6 273
G32 3,103 6 330 3,065 6 283 3,089 6 279
Protein (g)
G16 144 6 15 144 6 16 144 6 15 0.445 0.388
G24 137 6 13 136 6 12 138 6 13
G32 140 6 12 140 6 14 136 6 15
Carbohydrate (g)
G16 490 6 46 480 6 33 484 6 47 0.161 0.092
G24 470 6 40 464 6 40 473 6 39
G32 478 6 46 470 6 39 480 6 41
Lipids (g)
G16 69 6 9 71 6 10 69 6 10 0.358 0.114
G24 66 6 9 63 6 8 66 6 8
G32 70 6 13 70 6 11 69 6 9
*G16 5 16 weekly sets per muscle group; G24 5 24 weekly sets per muscle group; G32 5 32 weekly sets per muscle group; ANOVA 5 analysis of variance; Total (kcal) 5 total kilocalories intake; g 5 grams.
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Resistance-Training Volume (2019) 00:00
Table 4
Before and after 8 weeks of muscle strength measures (mean 6 SD).*
Time Time 3 group
Variables Before After 8 weeks Δ% MD (95% CI) p p
1RMBENCH (kg)
G16 93 6 20 115 6 21† 23.6 22.1 (14.2–29.9) 0.001 0.275
G24 103 6 23 124 6 23† 20.9 21.5 (16.8–26.2) 0.001
G32 98 6 20 126 6 17† 28.7 28.2 (21.1–35.3) 0.001
1RMSQUAT (kg)
G16 105 6 20 123 6 19† 16.6 17.5 (13.8–21.2) 0.001 0.038
G24 117 6 32 138 6 32† 18.1 21.2 (17.6–24.7) 0.001
G32 121 6 27 151 6 25†‡ 25.4 30.7 (18.6–42.8) 0.001
*G16 5 16 weekly sets per muscle group; G24 5 24 weekly sets per muscle group; G32 5 32 weekly sets per muscle group; 1RMBENCH 5 1 maximal repetition test in bench press exercise; 1RMSQUAT 5 1
maximal repetition test in parallel back squat exercise; MD 5 mean difference; 95% CI 5 95% confidence interval.
†Significantly greater than the corresponding preintervention value (p , 0.05).
‡Significantly greater than the G16 post–8-week value (p , 0.05).
Figure 1. Efficiency of the group that trained 32 weekly sets per muscle group (G32) in
comparison with the groups that trained 24 and 16 weekly sets per muscle group (G24 and
G16) to improve muscle thickness of the triceps brachii (MTTB), biceps brachii (MTBB), and
vastus lateralis (MTVL) muscles. The Cohen’s of effect size (ES) principle 6 90% confidence
intervals were used to compare the absolute differences of the variables before vs. after 8
weeks. Trivial areas were the smallest worthwhile change (SWC) (see Methods). *Large ES;
**very large ES; ***extremely large ES.
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Resistance-Training Volume (2019) 00:00 | www.nsca.com
Table 5
Before and after 8 weeks of muscle morphology measures (mean 6 SD).*
Time Time 3 group
Variables Before After 8 weeks Δ% MD (95%CI) p p
MTBB (mm)
G16 38.2 6 3.9 38.4 6 3.9† 0.5 0.2 (0.1–0.3) 0.01
G24 38.2 6 4.5 38.7 6 4.6† 1.3 0.5 (0.2–0.8) 0.001 0.206
G32 35.6 6 3.1 36.7 6 3.0† 3.1 1.1 (0.8–1.4) 0.001
MTTB (mm)
G16 33.9 6 4.3 34.2 6 4.3† 0.8 0.2 (0.1–0.4) 0.022
G24 33.6 6 4.3 35.0 6 4.7† 4.0 1.3 (0.5–2.1) 0.001 0.001
G32 35.9 6 3.8 38.4 6 4.2†‡ 7.0 2.5 (1.9–3.1) 0.001
MTVL (mm)
G16 36.2 6 4.4 36.9 6 4.0† 2.1 0.7 (0.1–1.3) 0.001
G24 35.4 6 5.0 37.4 6 4.6† 5.6 1.9 (1.2–2.7) 0.001 0.001
G32 37.1 6 5.1 40.6 6 5.1†‡ 9.4 3.4 (2.9–3.9) 0.001
*G16 5 16 weekly sets per muscle group; G24 5 24 weekly sets per muscle group; G32 5 32 weekly sets per muscle group; MTBB 5 muscle thickness of the biceps brachii muscle; MTTB 5 muscle thickness
of the triceps brachii muscle; MTVL 5 muscle thickness of the vastus lateralis muscle; MD 5 mean difference; 95% CI 5 95% confidence interval.
†Significantly greater than the corresponding preintervention value (p , 0.05).
‡Significantly greater than the G16 post–8-week value (p , 0.05).
interquartile ranges [IQR]: 30 [IQR 5 8] vs. 16 [IQR 5 12], re- To date, the literature has failed to identify the optimal RT
spectively). These data demonstrate that resistance-trained men volume per muscle group to maximize muscle hypertrophy and
commonly use a higher weekly volume for the upper body com- strength. Furthermore, the existing literature has focused on
pared with the lower-body. Thus, it is plausible to hypothesize that, muscular adaptations to relatively low-volume RT (#10–12
for men, the muscles of upper limbs are already better adapted to weekly sets), highlighting a clear need to investigate this re-
higher weekly volumes, whereas lower limbs would be more sus- lationship by implementing higher weekly RT volumes (.10–12
ceptible to increases in training volume. weekly sets) (29).
Therefore, it is feasible that the subjects in the G32 unduly benefited Taken together with the findings of Schoenfeld et al. (30), the
from the unfamiliar stimulus of training with a higher RT volume for present results imply that for improvement in hypertrophy in
the lower-body muscles, where the strength gain was influenced more resistance-trained subjects, a higher RT volume (32 weekly sets
by this new stimulus, in comparison with the upper-body muscles. per muscle group in this study and 30–45 weekly sets per muscle
Regarding muscle hypertrophy, the present findings essentially group in the study of Schoenfeld et al. (30)) is crucial for en-
reflected recent meta-analytic data showing a dose-response re- hancing muscle hypertrophy. Therefore, future studies should
lationship between RT volume and hypertrophy (29). This study investigate the following: (a) when the RT volume threshold for
indicates that a substantially greater training volume may be bene- resistance-trained subjects is reached and (b) at which point the
ficial to enhance muscle growth in subjects with previous RT ex- RT volume becomes detrimental for hypertrophy gain, thus ex-
perience, at least over an 8-week training period. Hypertrophy for 2 perimentally demonstrating the hypothetical inverted-U curve for
of the 3 measured muscles was significantly greater for the highest vs. the dose-response relationship between RT volume and muscle
lowest RT volume condition. Only the biceps brachii muscle did not hypertrophy. Moreover, the current data demonstrated that
show a statistically greater increase in MT between conditions. ATLL was highly correlated with Dmm (r 5 0.84–0.88).
Moreover, a dose-response relationship was detected for the mag- Other criticism of high RT volume protocols is that this ap-
nitude of ES for MT, in the higher RT volumes conditions, where proach is prone to overtraining and can be detrimental (8).
G32 . G24 . G16 for all measured muscles (Figure 1). Contrary to this hypothesis, the current results demonstrated that
Another interesting aspect of the present findings is that al-
though a significant within-group difference was observed in the
G16 for all muscles measured, and the absolute differences from
pre– to post–8 weeks for MTBB (0.2 6 0.1 mm) and MTTB (0.3 6
0.2 mm) were below TEM for these measurements (0.29 and 0.42
for MTBB and MTTB, respectively). In fact, all subjects in the G16
presented absolute changes below the SWC (MTBB 5 range
0–0.4 mm, SWC 5 0.50 mm; MTTB 5 range 0–0.4 mm, and SWC
5 0.73). Therefore, it is possible that the changes observed for
these outcomes in the G16 were not due to the RT intervention
but the expected variation of these measurements.
Several potential relationships between RT volume and skeletal
muscle hypertrophy/strength have been postulated: (a) a dose-
response relationship, where gradual increases in weekly RT vol- Figure 2. Univariate scatterplot with means of absolute dif-
ume lead to a greater increase in muscle mass and strength (24,29), ference from before to week 8 in muscle thickness (MT) of the
(b) an inverted-U relationship, whereby increasing weekly RT biceps brachii (MTBB), triceps brachii (MTTB), and the vastus
volume beyond a certain threshold negatively impacts skeletal lateralis (MTVL) of the 3 groups (G16, G24, and G32). Trivial
areas were the smallest worthwhile change (SWC) (see
muscle accretion (8), and (c) no relationship between weekly RT Methods).
volume and muscle hypertrophy or strength (10,20,30).
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Resistance-Training Volume (2019) 00:00
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Resistance-Training Volume (2019) 00:00 | www.nsca.com
Acknowledgments exercise in trained males. Eur J Appl Physiol 111: 3007–3016, 2011. 24:
1150-1159, 2010.
The authors acknowledge for the support of Conselho Nacional 18. McGuigan, M. Principles of test selection and administration. In: Baechle
de Desenvolvimento Cientı́fico e Tecnologia—Brazil (CNPq), and TR, Earle RW, eds. Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning.
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nı́vel Superior— Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2008. pp. 249–258.
19. Ogasawara R, Thiebaud RS, Loenneke JP, Loftin M, Abe T. Time course
Brazil (CAPES).
for arm and chest muscle thickness changes following bench press train-
ing. Interv Med Appl Sci 4: 217–220, 2012.
References 20. Ostrowski K, Wilson GJ, Weatherby R, Murphy PW, Little AD. The effect
of weight training volume on hormonal output and muscular size and
1. Abe T, DeHoyos DV, Pollock ML, Garzarella L. Time course for strength function. J Strength Cond Res 11: 149–154, 1997.
and muscle thickness changes following upper and lower body resistance 21. Padulo J, Laffaye G, Chaouachi A, Chamari K. Bench press exercise: The
training in men and women. Eur J Appl Physiol 81: 174–180, 2000. key points. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 55: 604–608, 2015.
2. Baz-Valle E, Fontes-Villalba M, Santos-Concejero M. Total number of 22. Peterson MD, Rhea MR, Alvar BA. Applications of the dose-response for
sets as a training volume quantification method for muscle hypertrophy: A muscular strength development: A review of meta-analytic efficacy and
systematic review. J Strength Cond Res 2018. Epub ahead of print. reliability for designing training prescription. J Strength Cond Res 19:
3. Brigatto FA, Braz TV, Zanini TCDC, et al. Effect of resistance training 950–958, 2005.
frequency on neuromuscular performance and muscle morphology after 23. Radaelli R, Fleck SJ, Leite T, et al. Dose-response of 1, 3, and 5 sets of
eight weeks in trained men. J Strength Cond Res 33: 2104–2116, 2019. resistance exercise on strength, local muscular endurance, and hypertro-
4. Claudino JG, Cronin JB, Amadio AC, Serrão JC. How can the training phy. J Strength Cond Res 29: 1349–1358, 2015.
load be adjusted individually in athletes with an applied statistical ap- 24. Ralston GW, Kilgore L, Wyatt FB, Baker JS. The effect of weekly set
proach? J Athl Enhanc 5: 1–4, 2016. volume on strength gain: A meta-analysis. Sports Med 47: 2585–2601,
5. da Silva JJ, Schoenfeld BJ, Marchetti PN, et al. Muscle activation differs 2017.
between partial and full back squat exercise with external load equated. 25. Ratamess NA, Alvar BA, Evetoch TK, et al. American College of Sports
J Strength Cond Res 31: 1688–1693, 2017.
Medicine position strand. Progression models in resistance training for
6. Dankel SJ, Mouser JG, Mattocks KT, et al. The widespread misuse of
healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41: 687–708, 2009.
effect sizes. J Sci Med Sport 20: 446–450, 2017.
26. Rhea MR, Alvar BA, Ball SD, Burkett LN. Three sets of weight training
7. Eng J. Sample size estimation: How many individuals should be studied?
superior to 1 set with equal intensity for eliciting strength. J Strength Cond
Radiology 227: 309–313, 2003.
Res 16: 525–529, 2002.
8. Figueiredo VC, De Salles BF, Trajano GS. Volume for muscle hypertrophy
27. Rhea MR, Alvar BA, Burkett LN, Ball SD. A meta-analysis to determine
and health outcomes: The most effective variable in resistance training.
the dose response for strength development. Med Sci Sports Exerc 35:
Sports Med 48: 499–505, 2018.
456–464, 2003.
9. Hackett DA, Johnson NA, Chow CM. Training practices and ergogenic aids
28. Rønnestad BR, Egeland W, Kvamme NH, et al. Dissimilar effects of one- and
used by male bodybuilders. J Strength Cond Res 27: 1609–1617, 2013.
10. Heaselgrave SR, Blacker J, Smeuninx B, McKendry J, Breen L. Dose-response three-set strength training on strength and muscle mass gains in upper and
relationship of weekly resistance-training volume and frequency on muscular lower body in untrained subjects. J Strength Cond Res 21: 157–163, 2007.
adaptations in trained men. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 14: 360–368, 2019. 29. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Dose-response relationship be-
11. Helms ER, Cronin J, Storey A, Zourdos MC. Application of the repeti- tween weekly resistance training volume and increases in muscle mass: A
tions in reserve-based rating of perceived exertion scale for resistance systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sports Sci 35: 1073–1082, 2016.
training. Strength Cond J 38: 42–49, 2016. 30. Schoenfeld BJ, Contreras B, Krieger J, et al. Resistance training volume
12. Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM, Hanin J. Progressive sta- enhances muscle hypertrophy but not strength in trained men. Med Sci
tistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports Sports Exerc 51: 94–103, 2019.
Exerc 41: 3–13, 2009. 31. Scott BR, Duthie GM, Thornton HR, Dascombe BJ. Training monitoring
13. Klemp A, Dolan C, Quiles JM, et al. Volume-equated high- and low-repetition for resistance exercise: Theory and applications. Sports Med 46: 687–698,
daily undulating programming strategies produces similar hypertrophy and 2016.
strength adaptations. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 41: 699–705, 2016. 32. Teixeira CVLE, Pereira EFM, Evangelista AL, et al. Is the weekly sets
14. Kraemer WJ, Hakkinen K, Triplett-McBride NT, et al. Physiological volume training performed by trained subjects in accordance with training
changes with periodized resistance training in women tennis players. Med recommendations guidelines for muscle hypertrophy? Motriz 24: 1–6,
Sci Sports Exerc 35: 157–168, 2003. 2018.
15. Krieger JW. Single versus multiple sets of resistance exercise: A meta- 33. Thomas JR, Nelson JK, Silverman SJ. Differences among groups. In: Re-
regression. J Strength Cond Res 23: 1890–1901, 2009. search Methods in Physical Activity. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics,
16. Krieger JW. Single vs. multiple sets of resistance exercise for muscle hy- 2015. pp. 167–200.
pertrophy: A meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res 24: 1150–1159, 2010. 34. Wernbom M, Augustsson J, Thomeé R. The influence of frequency, in-
17. Marshall PW, McEwen M, Robbins DW. Strength and neuromuscular tensity, volume and mode of strength training on whole muscle cross-
adaptation following one, four, and eight sets of high intensity resistance sectional area in humans. Sports Med 37: 225–264, 2007.
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
View publication stats