Original Research

Muscle Hypertrophy Is Affected by Volume Load

Progression Models
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

Sanmy R. Nóbrega, Maı́ra C. Scarpelli, Cintia Barcelos, Talisson S. Chaves, and Cleiton A. Libardi
MUSCULAB—Laboratory of Neuromuscular Adaptations to Resistance Training, Department of Physical Education, Federal University
of São Carlos—UFSCar, São Carlos, Brazil
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 09/05/2023

Abstract
Nóbrega, SR, Scarpelli, MC, Barcelos, C, Chaves, TS, and Libardi, CA. Muscle hypertrophy is affected by volume load progression
models. J Strength Cond Res 37(1): 62–67, 2023—This exploratory secondary data analysis compared the effects of a percentage of
1 repetition maximum (%1RM) and a repetition zone (RM Zone) progression model carried out to muscle failure on volume load
progression (VLPro), muscle strength, and cross-sectional area (CSA). The sample comprised 24 untrained men separated in 2 groups:
%1RM (n 5 14) and RM Zone (n 5 10). Muscle CSA and muscle strength (1RM) were assessed before and after 24 training sessions,
and an analysis of covariance was used. Volume load progression and accumulated VL (VLAccu) were compared between groups. The
relationships between VLProg, VLAccu, 1RM, and CSA increases were also investigated. A significance level of p # 0.05 was adopted for
all statistical procedures. Volume load progression was greater for RM Zone compared with %1RM (2.30 6 0.58% per session vs.
1.01 6 0.55% per session; p , 0.05). Significant relationships were found between 1RM and VLProg (p , 0.05) and CSA and VLProg
(p , 0.05). No between-group differences were found for VLAccu (p . 0.05). Analysis of covariance revealed no between-group
differences for 1RM absolute (p , 0.05) or relative changes (p , 0.05). However, post hoc testing revealed greater absolute and relative
changes in CSA for the RM Zone group compared with the %1RM group (p , 0.001). In conclusion, RM Zone resulted in a greater
VLPro rate and muscle CSA gains compared with %1RM, with no differences in VLAccu and muscle strength gains between progression
models.
Key Words: concentric muscle failure, resistance training prescription, progressive overload, training volume

Introduction RM [RM Zone]) in which training loads are adjusted to ensure

From the beginning of the century to more recently, volume load
(VL 5 sets 3 repetitions 3 load [kg]) has been proposed as one of
the main driving forces behind adaptations to resistance training
(RT). This subject has been comprehensively reviewed (9,11), and
studies suggest a dose-response relationship between the number
of weekly sets (consequentially greater accumulated VL [VLAccu])
and muscle strength and mass gains (15,22). In addition to
VLAccu, it has been recently suggested that the nature of the
progression of VL (VLPro) throughout the training period also
influences RT adaptations (19). Recent studies have also dem-
onstrated that RT protocols with a similar VLPro rate did not
show differences in muscle strength and mass gains, even with
significant differences in VLAccu (2,5). These findings suggest that
the VLPro rate is of similar importance to the total VLAccu during
an RT period. However, it remains unclear how different VLPro
rates affect changes in muscle strength and mass.
Throughout an RT program, individualized VLPro is recom-
mended, according to the adaptive capacity of each subject (9).
Two models can be used when aiming for individualized pro-
gression in VL. The first consists of a loading prescription based on
relative load (e.g., percentage of 1 repetition maximum [%1RM])
with repetitions carried out to concentric muscle failure. In this
model, VL increases whenever the number of repetitions to failure
an individual is able to perform increases. The second progression
model consists of determining a specific repetition zone (e.g., 8–12
Address correspondence to Dr. Cleiton A. Libardi, c.libardi@ufscar.br.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 37(1)/62–67
ª 2022 National Strength and Conditioning Association
concentric muscle failure in the desired repetition range (1). As a
result, VL can increase not only when training load is increased but
also when the number of repetitions increases within the stipulated
range. Although both models result in VLPro, it is currently un-
known whether the VLPro rate is differently affected by these pre-
scription models and whether such differences will affect muscle
strength and hypertrophy adaptations.
Therefore, through a secondary data analysis, this exploratory
study aimed to compare the effects of a %1RM and an RM Zone
model, both carried out to concentric muscle failure, on VLPro,
muscle strength, and cross-sectional area (CSA). We hypothesized
that RT adaptations would favor the model with greater VLPro.
Methods
Experimental Approach to the Problem
This study was conducted as a secondary analysis of some of the
data published in Nóbrega et al. (13) and Barcelos et al. (2). These
studies shared a similar population (i.e., untrained healthy young
men) and design, with 1RM and CSA assessments occurring after
the same number of training sessions. Data from each subject within
each of the designated groups from these previous studies were
analyzed with intent to examine raw data in an unbiased manner.
Thus, the 14 subjects from Nóbrega et al. (13) submitted to high-
intensity resistance training to failure (HIRT-F) were considered a
group, and the group name was modified to %1RM. Similarly, the
10 subjects from Barcelos et al. (2) submitted to resistance training
at a 9–12 repetition maximum zone 3 times per week (RT3) were
conserved as a group and renamed to RM Zone. In short, before the

62

Copyright © 2022 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Volume Load Progression Models (2023) 37:1 | www.nsca.com

training intervention, subjects were familiarized with the 1RM test
procedures and exercises. Forty-eight to 72 hours later, 1RM as-
sessments were performed, with reassessments every 72 hour until a
variation below 5% was found between tests. Seventy-two hours
after the final 1RM test, vastus lateralis CSA was acquired. The RT
period was initiated, with groups performing their respective pro-
tocols (i.e., %1RM or RM Zone). Reassessments in 1RM and CSA
were performed 72 hours after the 12th training session and 72
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
young men (24 6 5 years, 71.5 6 12.5 kg, and 173 6 6 cm; mean 6
SD). All subjects were untrained in RT (i.e., at least 6 months since the
last structured RT session) and had no contraindications to the exer-
cise and tests used. Group characteristics can be found in Table 1. Both
studies were approved by the Federal University of São Carlos ethical
committee and were conducted following the Declaration of Helsinki.
All subjects were instructed about potential risks and benefits and
provided written informed consent after complete methods disclosure.

hours after the final training session (session 24). Load adjustments
were made according to each study’s protocol. For the purpose of
this secondary analysis, only the groups HIRT-F, from Nóbrega Procedures
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 09/05/2023

et al. (13), and RT3, from Barcelos et al. (2), were selected because
they shared the same number of training sessions (24 sessions),
relative load (;80% 1RM), and performed repetitions to concen-
tric muscle failure. An overview of the experimental design and each
group’s protocol characteristics can be seen in Figure 1.
Subjects
This study’s sample comprised 14 subjects from Nóbrega et al. (13)
and 10 from Barcelos et al. (2) for a total of 24 healthy untrained
Resistance Training. Both groups underwent a lower-body re-
sistance training program composed of 24 training sessions of uni-
lateral knee extension exercise on a conventional leg-extension
machine (Effort NKR; Nakagym, São Paulo, Brazil), with 5 kg as the
smallest load adjustment available on the machine alone. Dumbbells
were used to fine-tune load increases, with a minimal increase of 1
kg. All training sessions were initiated with a 5-minute general
warm-up on a cycle ergometer (Ergo-Fit; Pirmasens, Rheinland-
Pfalz, Germany) at 20 km·h21. Both %1RM and RM Zone groups
shared the same number of sets (3 sets) and rest interval (2-minute

Figure 1. Overview of the design and characteristics of the studies used for this secondary data analysis. RM 5 repetition
maximum; 1RM 5 1 repetition maximum; CSA 5 cross-sectional area; HIRT-F 5 high-intensity resistance training to failure;
HIRT-V 5 high-intensity resistance training to volitional interruption; LIRT-F 5 low-intensity resistance training to failure; LIRT-
V 5 low-intensity resistance training to volitional interruption; RT5 5 resistance training 5 times per week; RT3 5 resistance
training 3 times per week; RT2 5 resistance training 2 times per week.

63

Copyright © 2022 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Volume Load Progression Models (2023) 37:1
rest). The %1RM performed as many repetitions as possible per set-
up to the point of concentric muscle failure (i.e., unable to perform a
repetition with full range of motion), and load was adjusted after 12
sessions based on a 1RM reassessment. On average, subjects per-
formed 26 repetitions per session throughout the experimental pe-
riod. The RM Zone group trained at 9–12 RM, with concentric
muscle failure occurring every set. Load was adjusted on a set-by-set
approach whenever repetitions fell outside the desired range, and
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
load could be increased or decreased at 1-kg intervals (i.e., 1, 2, 3, 4,
and 5 kg) according to the number of repetitions performed and
researchers’ perception of subject’s performance. Specific protocol
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 09/05/2023
characteristics can be found in Figure 1.
Maximal Dynamic Strength Test. Tests were performed on a knee
extension machine (Effort NKR; Nakagym). Each leg was tested at
a time in a unilateral design. Procedures similar to those described
by Brown and Weir (3) were adopted. Testing procedures initiated
with a 5-minute general warm-up on a cycle ergometer at 20 km·h21.
This was followed by a specific warm-up for the tested muscle group.
Subjects initially performed 8 followed by 3 repetitions at 50 and
70% of their estimated 1RM, respectively. A rest interval of 2 mi-
nutes was allowed between warm-up sets. Then, 1RM was initiated
by having subjects lift their estimated 1RM throughout their full
range of motion. The highest load that the subjects were able to lift
within 5 attempts was considered their 1RM value. A 3-minute rest
was given between attempts. The coefficient of variation (CV) and
typical error (TE) were ,3.65% and ,1.57 kg, respectively.
Muscle Cross-Sectional Area Assessment. Muscle CSA assess-
ments were performed using an ultrasound device with a 7.5-MHz
probe (MySono U6; Samsung Industria e Comércio Ltda., São
Paulo, Brazil), following the protocol previously validated by Lix-
andrão et al. (10). After refraining from vigorous exercise for at least
72 hours, subjects were placed in a supine position for 15 minutes to
allow fluid homogenization. Subsequently, femur length was man-
ually measured, and its midpoint was identified as the 50% distance
between the greater trochanter and the lateral epicondyle. Each
subject’s skin was marked at the identified point and every 2 cm
toward the medial and lateral aspects of the thigh. Transmission gel
was applied to promote acoustic coupling between the probe and
the skin while preventing dermal deforming due to excessive pres-
sure. The point where the vastus lateralis became first visible was
identified, and skin markings were used to guide probe displace-
ment. Images were acquired on the mark and every 2 cm laterally
from there using the ultrasound’s B-mode. After image acquisition,
complete vastus lateralis CSA was reconstructed on PowerPoint
version 2007 (Microsoft, Redmond, WA) according to procedures
described by Reeves et al. (16) (Figure 2). After CSA reconstruction,
images were exported to ImageJ software. The muscle CSA value
was measured by outlining the muscle tissue using the polygonal
Table 1
Subjects’ characteristics per group at baseline.*†
%1RM RM Zone
Age (y) 24 6 2 23 6 4
Body mass (kg) 71.5 6 15.00 72.3 6 8.20
Height (cm) 173 6 6.0 174 6 6.0
Knee extension 1RM (kg) 50.07 6 16.88 41.9 6 11.18
Vastus lateralis CSA (cm2) 22.63 6 5.03 21.43 6 3.31
*%1RM 5 percentage of 1 repetition maximum progressions model; RM Zone 5 repetition zone
progression model; 1RM 5 1 repetition maximum; CSA 5 muscle cross-sectional area.
†Values expressed as mean 6 SD.
Copyright © 2022 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
tool while taking great care to avoid connective and bone tissues.
Muscle CSA was reconstructed and measured 3 times, and the mean
value obtained from the 3 calculations was adopted as the CSA true
value. Assessments were performed by the same evaluator for both
Nóbrega et al. (13) and Barcelos et al. (2). The CV and TE values
were ,1.39% and ,0.33 cm2, respectively.
Volume Load. For VLProg assessment, the VL produced during
session 1 was used as each subject’s reference value, and the
percentage differences in the VL produced between sessions 1 and
2–24 were individually calculated as follows:
 
VLsession X 2 VLsession 1
VLprog ðsession XÞ ¼ 3 100;
VLsession 1
where X is the training session of interest. Values were recor-
ded and used for slope analysis. In addition, VLAccu was calcu-
lated for each subject as the sum of the training volume (sets 3
repetitions 3 load [kg]) produced in each RT session throughout
the experimental period (sessions 1–24).
Statistical Analyses
First, visual inspection was performed, followed by the Shapiro-
Wilk normality test. Unpaired t-tests were used to compare age,
body mass, height, 1RM, and vastus lateralis CSA at baseline
between %1RM and RM Zone. Considering that baseline 1RM
and CSA could affect the changes in muscle strength and CSA, an
analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was implemented to compare
both absolute and relative changes in 1RM and CSA, having
protocol as a fixed factor, baseline 1RM and CSA as covariates,
and subjects as a random factor. Bonferroni’s post hoc test was
used for between-group comparisons in case of significant F
values. VLProg slopes were generated using linear regression and
compared through a 2-tailed F-test. In addition, simple linear
regression analysis was used to investigate the relationship be-
tween VLProg and 1RM and CSA relative increases and VLAccu
and 1RM and CSA increases. Whenever possible, between-group
effect sizes (ESs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were
calculated using Hedges and Olkin (8) adjustment for small
samples. The effect size was considered significant when the in-
ferior and superior confidence limits did not cross zero. Values are
shown as mean 6 SD. The significance level was set at p # 0.05.
Analyses were performed on SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary,
NC) and on RStudio (RStudio, Boston, MA) software.
Results
Baseline Comparisons
No significant differences were found between groups at baseline
for any of the compared variables (Table 1).
Volume Load
p For the simple regressions analysis, F statistics revealed significant
0.47 relationships between VLProg and 1RM relative increase (p 5 0.010;
0.88 estimate 5 7.28; R2 5 0.26) and VLProg and CSA relative increase (p
0.76 5 0.015; estimate 5 2.63; R2 5 0.24). No significant relationship
0.19 was found between VLAccu and 1RM relative increase (p 5 0.94;
0.58 estimate 5 20.03; R2 5 0.0002), nor between VLAccu and CSA
relative increase (p 5 0.43; estimate 5 20.0001; R2 5 0.03). T-test
comparisons revealed no significant differences in VLAccu between
groups (%1RM: 26,695 6 6,785 kg vs. RM Zone: 30,936 6 8,391
64
 Volume Load Progression Models (2023) 37:1 | www.nsca.com
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 09/05/2023

Figure 2. Representative image of a subject’s vastus lateralis cross-sectional area

(CSA) reconstructed on PowerPoint and delimitated on ImageJ before (A) and after
(B) the experimental period.

kg; p 5 0.1850; ES 5 0.57 [95% CI: 20.26 to 1.39]) (Figure 3A). Similarly, no statistically significant difference in 1RM relative
The 2-tailed F-test revealed that VLProg slopes differed significantly change was found between groups (F 5 1.353; %1RM 5 31.4 6
between groups (%1RM: 1.01 6 0.55% per session vs. RM Zone: 14.03%; RM Zone 5 38.3 6 14.1%; p 5 0.257; ES 5 0.49 [95%
2.30 6 0.58% per session; p 5 0.0001) (Figure 3B). CI: 20.33 to 1.31]) (Figure 4A).

Maximal Dynamic Muscle Strength Muscle Cross-Sectional Area

After adjustments for baseline 1RM, the ANCOVA revealed no For CSA absolute change, the ANCOVA revealed a significant dif-
statistically significant difference in 1RM absolute change be- ference between the %1RM and RM Zone groups after adjustment
tween groups (F 5 0.195; %1RM 5 14.0 6 6.88 kg; RM Zone 5 for baseline CSA (F 5 25.101; p , 0.001). Post hoc analysis in-
15.3 6 6.93 kg; p 5 0.662; ES 5 0.19 [95% CI: 20.62 to 1.00]). dicated that the mean CSA absolute change was significantly greater

Figure 3. Twenty-four sessions accumulated volume load (VLAccu) (A) and volume
load progression (VLProg) per session (B) for the percentage of 1 repetition maximum
(%1RM) and repetition zone (RM Zone) progression models, with VLProg slopes
(continuous straight lines) and 95% confidence intervals (dotted lines). Values are
presented as mean 6 SD.

65

Copyright © 2022 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Volume Load Progression Models (2023) 37:1
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 09/05/2023
Figure 4. Relative changes (%) in maximal dynamic strength (1RM) (A) and vastus lateralis cross-sectional area (CSA) (B) for
the percentage of 1 repetition maximum (%1RM) and repetition zone (RM Zone) progression models. Results are presented as
mean 6 SD. The bars represent the adjusted means after Bonferroni’s adjustment. Individual dots represent subjects’ true
value. *Significant difference compared with %1RM progression model, as identified by Bonferroni’s post hoc.
in RM Zone compared with %1RM (%1RM: 1.62 6 0.85 cm2 vs.
RM Zone: 3.39 6 0.85 cm2; p , 0.001; ES 5 2.08 [95% CI:
1.08–3.09]). Similarly, after adjusting for baseline CSA, comparisons
revealed a significant between-group difference in relative CSA gains
(F 5 23.401; p , 0.001). Post hoc analysis found significantly
greater mean CSA relative change for the RM Zone group compared
with %1RM (%1RM: 7.86 6 4.0% vs. RM Zone: 16.0 6 4.02%;
p , 0.0001; ES 5 2.03 [95% CI: 1.04–3.02]) (Figure 4B).
Discussion
Our results demonstrate that the RM Zone prescription resulted
in significantly greater VLPro compared with the %1RM pre-
scription. Accompanying these results, significantly greater vastus
lateralis CSA changes were found for the RM Zone group com-
pared with the %1RM group. No significant between-group
differences in 1RM changes were observed. In addition, signifi-
cant relationships were observed between VLProg and RT-induced
adaptations (i.e., 1RM and CSA relative changes), but not be-
tween VLAccu and the same adaptations. Collectively, our results
suggest that VLPro affects muscle hypertrophy. In addition, the
RM Zone prescription model is more advantageous to muscle
hypertrophy compared with a %1RM model when both are
carried out to concentric muscle failure.
Regarding muscle strength, neural adaptations are recognized as
one of the main contributors to RT strength increases (14,17). This
statement is especially true for RT beginners, with neural adapta-
tions occurring early on the exercise program (14,17). For this
study, both groups initiated training at ;80% 1RM, with load
adjustments being made at each set for the RM Zone group. As for
the %1RM group, load was adjusted after the 1RM retest on week
6 in an attempt to optimize muscle adaptations to the protocol. As a
direct result, it is likely that the %1RM group trained with pro-
gressively lower relative loads until load adjustment, while the load
was kept as constant as possible for the RM Zone group. However,
current evidence point toward increases of similar magnitude be-
tween protocols performed at comparable load zones, especially
with near-to-maximal loads lifted to or close to the point of con-
centric muscle failure (11,21). Thus, the minimal differences in load
lifted by each group would not explain any possible difference in
strength gains between groups. Although no significant difference
was found for muscle strength increase between groups, relative
change for the RM Zone group, after adjusting for baseline 1RM,
was 6.9 percentage points (pp) higher than that found for the %
66
Copyright © 2022 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
1RM. In addition, the superior limit of the CI for the ES (20.33 to
1.31) could also be indicative of a possible favorable effect for RM
Zone. Albeit statistically nonsignificant, the difference in 1RM
increase was almost twice the CV value found for 1RM assess-
ments (CV ,3.65%), making it highly unlikely to be derived from
measurement variability. Thus, if proven to be of clinical or per-
formance relevance, this nonsignificant difference would be an
indicative that RM Zone models could be better for promoting
1RM increases. On a similar note, RM Zone resulted in a VLAccu
;16 pp above %1RM, with no statistical significance. As such, it
could be questioned whether this discrepancy in VLAccu was re-
sponsible for the nonsignificant difference in 1RM increase be-
tween groups. It is important to consider that simple regression
analysis revealed no significant relationship between VLAccu and
muscle strength increases. On the other hand, a significant re-
lationship was found for VLProg with an R2 of 0.26. While rela-
tively small by itself, having 26% of the 1RM increase explained in
a simple regression model could indicate its importance to RT
adaptations. Such results point toward VLProg being better related
to muscle strength increase after an RT program than VLAccu,
adding to the current body of evidence that shows that VLAccu is not
the only variable behind RT adaptations (4–6,12,18).
For our muscle CSA results, the RM Zone group demonstrated
greater CSA changes, with the relative change being 2 times greater
than that found for the %1RM group. Our findings are not so
surprising considering that many studies have already demonstrated
the lack of association between VLAccu and hypertrophic responses
(4–6,12,18). Barcelos et al. (2) compared muscle strength and CSA
adaptations between protocols performed with different RT fre-
quencies (i.e., 2, 3, and 5 times per week). Similar adaptations were
found for all groups, despite the higher-training frequency group
resulting in a VLAccu of almost 3 times that of the lower-frequency
one. When VLProg was analyzed, a similar behavior was found for
all groups, with significant increases in VL occurring at similar time
points. Likewise, Damas et al. (5) investigated the effect of variables’
manipulation on protein synthesis of RT-trained subjects. Their
results demonstrate no advantage for the variables-manipulation
protocol, despite the greater VLAccu produced by it. Of note, when
VLProg slopes were compared, a similar progression was found be-
tween the experimental groups. This finding led the authors to hy-
pothesize that, at a group level, the VLProg slope could be an
important variable for muscle hypertrophy. Adding to the afore-
mentioned evidence, our results show that the RM Zone pre-
scription protocol favors VLProg more than the %1RM one, with
 Volume Load Progression Models (2023) 37:1
marked hypertrophy for the protocol progressing more, at least
when both are carried out to the point of concentric muscle failure.
The set-by-set load adjustment of the RM Zone model seems to
ensure that subjects’ training load is always at a near-optimal range
for their adaptive capacity, apparently promoting increases on
VLPro at an accelerated pace. When associated with our simple
regression analysis, which indicates that 24% of the muscle CSA
increases could be explained by the simple regression model that
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
considered VLProg, increased muscle CSA accrual is to be expected
for the greater VLPro rate. On the other hand, increases in repetition
number seem to occur at a slower pace. Unpublished data from our
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdgGj2MwlZLeI= on 09/05/2023
laboratory show increases of 2–4 repetitions after 12 training ses-
sions, which reflects the less-inclined VLProg slope observed for %
1RM. As a result, muscle CSA increase would be negatively im-
pacted by this slower progression. Future studies should try to
identify the possible mechanism behind this phenomenon.
This study is not without limitations: (a) the secondary data
analysis applied here prevented us from using a design developed
specifically for the presented problem. However, although subjects
could not be randomly distributed between the intervention groups,
no significant between-group differences were detected at baseline;
(b) the secondary analysis also limited the number of subjects
available for analysis, resulting in a small sample size; (c) although
both groups performed the same number of RT sessions, the dif-
ference in training frequency could be considered a limitation.
However, meta-analytic data show no difference in muscle strength
and muscle mass increases between frequencies of 23 vs. 33 per
week, especially when VL is matched (7,20); (d) CSA increase was
assessed only on the vastus lateralis muscle. Considering the in-
volvement of the rectus femoris in leg extension, the lack of data on
this muscle can also be considered a limitation; (e) finally, our data
are limited to 24 training sessions of a single exercise on previously
untrained subjects. A different adaptive behavior might be observed
for VLProg and muscle hypertrophy with longer training periods,
different exercises, and trained subjects. Thus, great care should
also be taken when extrapolating these findings.
In conclusion, our results suggest that VLPro influences the
magnitude of muscle hypertrophy. In addition, the RM Zone
prescription model promotes greater muscle hypertrophy com-
pared with a %1RM model when both are carried out to con-
centric muscle failure, although no difference was found for
muscle strength gains.
Practical Applications
The present findings suggest that exercise professionals and
coaches, when prescribing an RT regimen for untrained in-
dividuals and beginners, should opt for programs prescribed
with RM Zone models rather than programs prescribed with
%1RM carried out to concentric muscle failure, as the former
results in muscle hypertrophy of greater magnitude, with a
potential benefit on muscle strength. This could be of special
relevance on the early stages of an RT regimen, as the in-
creased muscle hypertrophy might reflect on subjects’ adher-
ence, serving as an encouraging factor.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by Coordination for the Improvement
of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) (#88887.634303/2021-
00 to S.R.N., #88882.426904/2019-01 to M.C.S., and
67
Copyright © 2022 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
| www.nsca.com
#88887.634297/2021-00 to T.S.C.) and National Council for
Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) (#302801/
2018-9 to C.A.L.). The authors acknowledge all subjects of this
study. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. This study and
its results do not constitute an endorsement of the product by the
authors or the NSCA.
References
1. American College of Sports Medicine. American College of Sports Med-
icine position stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy
adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41: 687–708, 2009.
2. Barcelos C, Damas F, Nóbrega SR, et al. High-frequency resistance
training does not promote greater muscular adaptations compared to low
frequencies in young untrained men. Eur J Sport Sci 18: 1077–1082, 2018.
3. Brown LE, Weir JP. ASEP procedures recommendation I: Accurate as-
sessment of muscular strength and power. J Exerc Physiol Online 4: 1–21,
2001.
4. Chaves TS, Pires de Campos Biazon TM, Marcelino Eder Dos Santos L,
Libardi CA. Effects of resistance training with controlled versus self-
selected repetition duration on muscle mass and strength in untrained
men. PeerJ 8: e8697, 2020.
5. Damas F, Angleri V, Phillips SM, et al. Myofibrillar protein synthesis and
muscle hypertrophy individualized responses to systematically changing
resistance training variables in trained young men. J Appl Physiol (1985)
127: 806–815, 2019.
6. Dinyer TK, Byrd MT, Garver MJ, et al. Low-load vs. high-load resistance
training to failure on one repetition maximum strength and body com-
position in untrained women. J Strength Cond Res 33: 1737–1744, 2019.
7. Grgic J, Schoenfeld BJ, Davies TB, et al. Effect of resistance training fre-
quency on gains in muscular strength: A systematic review and meta-
analysis. Sports Med 48: 1207–1220, 2018.
8. Hedges LV, Olkin I. Estimation of a Single Effect Size: Parametric and
Nonparametric Methods. In: Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. San
Diego: Academic Press, 1985. pp 75–106.
9. Kraemer WJ, Ratamess NA. Fundamentals of resistance training: Progression
and exercise prescription. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: 674–688, 2004.
10. Lixandrao ME, Ugrinowitsch C, Bottaro M, et al. Vastus lateralis muscle
cross-sectional area ultrasonography validity for image-fitting in humans.
J Strength Cond Res 28: 3293–3297, 2014.
11. Morton RW, Colenso-Semple L, Phillips SM. Training for strength and hy-
pertrophy: An evidence-based approach. Curr Opin Physiol 10: 90–95, 2019.
12. Morton RW, Oikawa SY, Wavell CG, et al. Neither load nor systemic hor-
mones determine resistance training-mediated hypertrophy or strength gains
in resistance-trained young men. J Appl Physiol (1985) 121: 129–138, 2016.
13. Nóbrega SR, Ugrinowitsch C, Pintanel L, Barcelos C, Libardi CA. Effect of
resistance training to muscle failure versus volitional interruption at high-
and low-intensities on muscle mass and strength. J Strength Cond Res 32:
162–169, 2018.
14. Pearcey GEP, Alizedah S, Power KE, Button DC. Chronic resistance
training: Is it time to rethink the time course of neural contributions to
strength gain? Eur J Appl Physiol 121: 2413–2422, 2021.
15. Ralston GW, Kilgore L, Wyatt FB, Baker JS. The effect of weekly set volume
on strength gain: A meta-analysis. Sports Med 47: 2585–2601, 2017.
16. Reeves ND, Maganaris CN, Narici MV. Ultrasonographic assessment of
human skeletal muscle size. Eur J Appl Physiol 91: 116–118, 2004.
17. Sale DG. Neural adaptation to resistance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc
20: S135–S145, 1988.
18. Sampson JA, Groeller H. Is repetition failure critical for the development
of muscle hypertrophy and strength? Scand J Med Sci Sports 26: 375–383,
2016.
19. Schoenfeld B, Fisher J, Grgic J, et al. Resistance training recommendations
to maximize muscle hypertrophy in an athletic population: Position stand
of the IUSCA. Int J Strength Cond 1: 81, 2021.
20. Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J, Krieger J. How many times per week should a
muscle be trained to maximize muscle hypertrophy? A systematic review
and meta-analysis of studies examining the effects of resistance training
frequency. J Sports Sci 37: 1286–1295, 2019.
21. Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J, Van Every DW, Plotkin DL. Loading recommen-
dations for muscle strength, hypertrophy, and local endurance: A re-
examination of the repetition continuum. Sports 9: 32, 2021.
22. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Dose-response relationship be-
tween weekly resistance training volume and increases in muscle mass: A
systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sports Sci 35: 1073–1082, 2016.