Strength PDFTraining For Strength

TRAINING
FOR STRENGTH
Strength and Conditioning Research
STRENGTH & CONDITIONING RESEARCH
TRAINING FOR STRENGTH
SUMMARY
TOPIC
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Overall
summary
Strength gains seem to be achieved most efectvely

by: greater frequency leading to more volume,
greater volume, moderate-to-heavy relatve loads,
fast bar speeds, long rest periods, and greater
proximity to muscular failure.
Strength training programs should default to making use

of moderate-to-heavy relatve loads, fast bar speeds, a
specifc ROM, and relatvely long rest periods.
Training using a specifc ROM for the strength

measure, being tested, using reducing rest periods,
and incorporatng eccentric-only and concentriconly muscle actons in additon to standard stretchshortening cycle training may also be helpful.
Frequency
(volume not
controlled)
Strength training programs can be progressed by

increasing training frequency through the additon of
more sessions per week, by increasing overall training
volume through the additon of more sets of an exercise,
and by incorporatng periods of training to failure where
recovery is assured. Additonal variaton can be achieved
by using eccentric-only and concentric-only exercises.
The literature is confictng but there seems to be

some evidence that a higher training frequency
leading to more volume might lead to greater
strength gains than a lower training frequency.
Equally, there is much less evidence that higher
training frequency will lead to inferior results. This
implies that where athletes have the ability to
recover from additonal sessions and are motvated
to perform them, it seems unlikely that this will lead
to diminished strength gains.
Individuals who are pressured for tme might expect to

see signifcant strength gains by training just once or
twice per week. However, additonal sessions leading to
more volume may lead to slightly better gains in strength.
There is a trend for a higher volume-matched

frequency causing greater strength gains in trained
subjects. However, there is very little evidence to
build a case and further research is needed. Also,
there is very limited evidence for the benefcial
efects of either a higher volume-matched training
frequency or a lower volume-matched training
frequency on strength gains in untrained people.
The research is very confictng and it is not possible
to draw a defnitve conclusion at this stage.
For trained individuals, increasing frequency may be an

efectve way of maximizing strength gains, even if this
occurs simply by splitng out the same volume over a
greater number of sessions.
Relatve load
heavy vs. light
loads
Training with both heavy and light loads can lead to

strength gains. However, training with heavier loads
(here defned as heavier than 15RM) leads to
superior strength gains than training with lighter
loads (here defned as lighter than 15RM).
Trainees can be assured that some strength gains will

occur even with very light loads. However, for maximizing
strength gains, heavier loads than 15RM are defnitely
superior.
Relatve load
heavy vs.
moderate
loads
The literature is very confictng and the picture is

not as clear as the one that we see when we
compare heavy and light loads. Thus, it is difcult to
conclude on whether heavy loads are defnitvely
better than moderate loads for increasing strength.
Individuals looking to improve strength may wish to

make use of moderate (i.e. 5 15RM) loads rather than
heavy (<5RM) loads if safety is a concern, or if greater
volume is considered desirable.
Frequency
(volume
controlled)
Where individuals have the ability to recover from

additonal strength training sessions and are motvated to
perform them, a higher training frequency leading to
more volume may well lead to greater strength gains and
it seems unlikely to lead to inferior strength gains.
For untrained individuals, increasing frequency may not

be as efectve for strength gains as in trained subjects
and the research is currently confictng. Therefore,
stcking to a traditonal number of sessions (e.g. three
tmes per week) may be the best course of acton.
This document is copyright Strength and Conditoning Research Limited, 2014. Bret and Chris both work very hard to bring you this informaton.
Please help us to contnue our work by not sharing it with your friends, however temptng it may be. Find more reviews at the website!
Page 2
SUMMARY CONTINUED...
TOPIC
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Bar speed
(relatve load
controlled)
When relatve load is controlled during isoinertal Fast repetton speeds appears to be recommended for
training, it seems that a faster repetton speed individuals training purely for strength.
leads to superior strength gains than a slower
repetton speed, although the literature is stll
somewhat confictng.
Bar speed
Although the literature is slightly confictng, there is
(relatve load
some evidence that where a faster repetton speed
not controlled) is performed in isoinertal training in order that a
greater relatve load can be used, faster repetton
speeds may lead to greater strength gains.
However, whether this is simply because greater
relatve loads are being used is unclear.
Deliberately using a slow bar speed that necessitates the

use of lower relatve loads may be counter-productve for
strength gains. Therefore, fast repetton speeds would
seem to be the default opton for individuals training
purely for strength.
Muscular
failure
Although conclusions are made slightly difcult by

the variaton between study protocols and outcome
measures, it seems that most measures of strength
are improved to a greater extent when training to
failure (or greater fatgue) in comparison with
training not-to-failure (or lesser fatgue). However,
not all studies show this for all strength measures.
Incorporatng training to failure can lead to better

strength gains. However, since training to failure can
impact on recovery, it should be used carefully within
sensible limits for athletes.
Rest periods
While only a few studies have been performed

assessing the efects of fxed-interval rest periods, it
seems that strength gains are maximized by longer
(>3 minutes) rest periods. This may be a functon of
the greater volume of work performed when using
longer rest periods. Reducing-rest-period studies
have found that despite lower training volume
being performed by the shortening rest periods
group, the decreasing-rest period groups and the
constant-rest period groups both achieved similar
strength gains.
While the research is slightly limited and a little

confictng, it seems that when using constant rest
periods, longer rest periods (probably >3 minutes) are
better for strength gains.
Range of
moton (ROM)
Reducing rest periods steadily over a period of tme may

be a useful technique for gradually and practcally
increasing the volume of individual workouts.
Full ROM exercises lead to the greatest gains in full Full ROM exercises should generally be used where
ROM strength while partal ROM exercises lead to individuals wish to maximize strength gains over the full
the greatest gains in partal ROM strength.
ROM. Partal ROM exercises can be used to generate
smaller gains in full ROM strength where variety in
exercise selecton is needed, such as where athletes have
already been using a full ROM movement for some tme
(e.g. the competton lifts for power-lifters).
Page 3
SUMMARY CONTINUED...
TOPIC
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Eccentric vs.
concentric
modes
Isoinertal training involving eccentric-only muscle

actons leads to greater increases in eccentric
strength (isoinertal and isokinetc) than isoinertal
training involving concentric-only muscle actons.
Volume
Greater training volume seems very likely to

produce superior strength gains, although the exact
dose-response is not entrely clear. There is also
some fairly good evidence that the lower-body is
more responsive to a higher volume of training than
the upper-body.
Training using eccentric-only muscle actons seems to

lead to greater increases in strength only when tested
during eccentric-only muscle actons. Therefore,
individuals may not beneft from using this type of
training when focusing purely on increasing concentric or
Isoinertal training with concentric-only muscle stretch-shortening cycle strength.
actons seems to lead to greater increases in
isometric strength than training involving eccentric- Training using concentric-only muscle actons seems to
only muscle actons.
lead to greater increases in strength when tested
isometrically. Therefore, individuals may beneft from
The literature is confictng regarding whether training using concentric-only muscle actons for
training involving eccentric-only or concentric-only scenarios in which they are performing isometric or
muscle actons leads to diferent improvements in quasi-isometric muscle actons (e.g. the bottom of a
isoinertal (eccentric-only or concentric-only) or squat or bench press for powerlifters).
isokinetc (eccentric-only or concentric-only) or
concentric-only (isoinertal or isokinetc) strength.
Training using eccentric-only muscle actons seems to
lead to greater increases in strength when tested during
eccentric-only muscle actons. Therefore, where
individuals need to enhance deceleraton abilites or the
ability to control hard landings, training using eccentriconly muscle actons may be benefcial.
Training with multple sets to achieve a higher volume of
training appears to lead to greater strength gains,
irrespectve of training status, body part and age.
There appears to be a dose-response to volume of
training to a degree, although it is not clear at what point
increasing doses cease to be increasingly efectve.
Volumes of up to 8 sets have been found superior in
lower-body training programs.
The lower-body may be more responsive to volume than
the upper-body. Increasing training volume therefore
appears to be a key factor for maximizing strength gains
for the lower-body while other factors may be as
important or more important for the upper body.
Page 4
INTRODUCTION
Chris Beardsley says
Welcome!
Welcome to the e-book, Training for Strength! This e-book
is the culminaton of hundreds of hours of work dedicated
to understanding the research that has been done into
which training variables can be manipulated to enhance
strength gains over a long-term period of tme.
If you are an experienced strength coach, personal trainer
or physical therapist, it will hopefully enhance your work by
providing access to all the informaton you need to
integrate all of the currently relevant research into your
strength-training program design.
What are training variables?

Training variables are just those factors that we can alter in
respect of either a single workout or in relaton to a
sequence of workouts. They are the fundamental elements
of program design. Training variables include whether we
train to failure or not, whether we use 1 set or 3, whether
we rest for 1 minute or 2 minutes, and whether we squat to
full depth or use a partal range of moton.
These variables are often heatedly debated by many in the
ftness industry. And not all of that debate is fruitul. Some
people cherry-pick long-term studies to support opinions
they have already formed, refer to acute studies with
dubious relatonships to long-term adaptatons, or simply
refer to anecdote and refuse to engage with research.
Fortunately for us, a full review of all the long-term
research can provide some good answers for the big
questons.
Indeed, in comparison with the same literature in the area
of hypertrophy, I have to say that I was really pleased to see
how advanced the research is in respect of the efects of
training variables on strength. Unlike hypertrophy, it is
actually possible from the current literature to get a fairly
good feel for the type of training that makes people really
strong.
How is this e-book structured?

The e-book is structured in sectons describing the following
key training variables, which have been researched using
long-term study methods:
Relatve load (proporton of 1RM)

Volume
Muscular failure
Frequency
Rest periods
Range of moton
Muscle acton (eccentric vs. concentric)
Repetton speed
In each secton, I have collated all of the relevant studies

that help us understand the long-term efects of changing
one of these variables. I detail and explain the fndings of
each study, notng whether they found a signifcant efect
of changing the training variable or not. Then, at the end of
each secton, I summarize exactly what all of the studies say
and provide practcal implicatons. Sometmes, the studies
all disagree with one another, which most likely means that
the literature is confictng and the training variable
probably isn't that important in comparison with other
training variables. Sometmes, there is a good trend, with
most studies showing the same thing and only a few
showing no efect or the opposite efect. On rare occasions,
most studies point in the same directon, which means that
the training variable being studied is probably quite
important.
Is this e-book right for you?

If you are reading this e-book, it is assumed that you are an
experienced chef in strength-training program design and
not a cook who stll needs to follow a recipe book. If you are
stll in the process of gaining that experience and do want a
recipe book, there are a number of great strength coaches
(including my colleague, Bret Contreras, and the writer of
the foreword to this e-book, Greg Nuckols) who can provide
of-the-peg strength-training programs.
Since you are a chef, this e-book is designed to support your
own analysis of the research and help you integrate that
analysis with your practcal experience to fnd what works
when training athletes and clients for the best strength
gains. Therefore, the details of each study are provided so
you can analyze them further and the PubMed link is given
in case you need to read the full-text of a given study. For
your own circumstances, you may consider that certain
studies are more or less relevant and therefore the e-book
has been structured to allow you to collect only the
relevant studies for your purposes and analyze those
specifc results separately. Similarly, you will see that the
practcal implicatons are limited to the big rocks that
really matter and are given in clear recogniton of the level
of confdence we can have in each one.
I hope that you enjoy reading this e-book and I very much
hope that it helps you to integrate the current research into
the strength-training programs that are a part of your
evidence-based practce.
Yours in strength,
Chris Beardsley.
Page 5
FOREWORD
Greg Nuckols is an up-and-coming strength coach who has
already developed a great reputaton in the industry for his
ability to blend an evidence-based approach with
tremendous under-the-bar experience. Greg is himself an
elite, drug-free powerlifter whose best lifts are a 755lbs
squat, 475lbs bench press, and a 725lbs deadlift. So it is fair
to say he knows a few things about what it takes to get you
strong.
Greg Nuckols says

This review contains vital informaton for anyone looking to
get strong. As an elite powerlifter, I know how important it
is to get the basics 100% perfect. You need to build your
training knowledge on a sound understanding of the
research and then add technique and under-the-bar
expertse on top of that.
What are the problems in the literature?

Two major problems in the literature are the training
protocols used in studies, and how those studies quantfy
increases in strength. To fulfll the scientfc ideal of isolatng
as many variables as possible, many strength training
studies, especially historically, have been performed with
single joint exercises, and increases in strength are
quantfed by measuring changes in maximal torque at a
certain joint. While this approach may be the most
scientfcally rigorous, results from such studies are often
only useful for identfying mechanisms its hard to
generalize the results to the normal training populaton
using multple exercises, and more interested, for example,
in a maximal squat rather than maximal knee extension
torque.
Where should future research focus?

There is a need for more studies on trained athletes, for
longer periods of tme, and utlizing training protocols that
more closely resemble day to day practce in weight rooms
and S&C facilites. Additonally, there is a need for more
studies investgatng the causes of divergent individual
responses to training stmuli to narrow the gap between
typical best practces and individual optmizaton.
What is the most important training variable?

For a trained athlete, its volume of fairly heavy (70%+ 1RM)
training. Heavy loads are necessary to maximize neural
adaptatons to training, and volume of training is necessary
to optmize hypertrophy. Strength literature is intrinsically
ted to hypertrophy literature. While the potental for
neural adaptatons to cause signifcant increases in strength
cant be overlooked, degree of muscle hypertrophy is
ultmately of tremendous importance.
What is the most important uncontrollable variable?

Genetcs. Genetc makeup can afect the force producton
characteristcs of the muscle fbers themselves (ACTN3
gene, for example), responsiveness to training stmuli (gene
expression and satellite cell actvity in response to training),
and phenotypic factors that afect force producton (fber
types and number, tendon lengths and insertons).
How should we move forward?

I think research needs to focus more on individual
responses to training, how much they difer from average
responses, and how to predict what sorts of training
protocols individuals will respond best to given their
individual context including age, gender, training history,
genotype, and phenotype.
In studies using relevant exercises and protocols, theres

stll a dearth of studies on trained subjects, and even fewer
on highly trained subjects, although this has been changing
in the past few years. Studies on females are also
substantally underrepresented in the literature as well.
Finally, there are often large inter-individual variatons in
responsiveness to various training protocols. Its not
uncommon for a large percentage of partcipants in a study
to be non-responders, while others see huge increases in
strength. Two studies by Beaven in 2008 perhaps suggest
that even for those who respond well to resistance
exercise, variatons in training protocol can afect whether
or not strength gains will occur in response to resistance
training. Studies are, of necessity, dealing with averages,
but individual responses to training can difer substantally
based on genetc factors, training experience, and
preparedness of the athlete for training. Recommendatons
based on the literature should hold true for groups of
people, but not necessarily for individuals.
Page 6
CONTENTS
1. TRAINING FOR STRENGTH..............................................................................................................................................8
1.
Frequency (not volume-matched).................................................................................................................................................................. 9
2.
Frequency (volume-matched)...................................................................................................................................................................... 12
3.
Relative load (heavy loads versus light loads)............................................................................................................................................. 15
4.
Relative load (heavy versus moderate loads).............................................................................................................................................. 18
5.
Bar speed (relative load controlled).............................................................................................................................................................20
6.
Bar speed (relative load not controlled).......................................................................................................................................................23
7.
Muscular failure........................................................................................................................................................................................... 25
8.
Rest periods..................................................................................................................................................................................................27
9.
Range of motion...........................................................................................................................................................................................30
10. Eccentric versus concentric training.............................................................................................................................................................33

11. Volume......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 37

1. TRAINING FOR STRENGTH
Frequency (not volume-matched)

The efect of training frequency on strength is difcult to
assess. There are strong proponents of both infrequent
(once per week) and very frequent (6+ tmes per week)
training approaches, both on a body-part and on a full-body
basis. In the literature, there many relevant studies. Some
of them control for the efect of increased volume while
others do not. This review sets out what we currently know
about how frequency afects strength gains, where volume
is NOT maintained the same, since this is the way that most
people use frequency as a variable (i.e. to increase volume).
What is the background?

Training frequency is considered important for strength
gains. However, training frequency is sometmes increased
for the purposes of spreading the same training load over a
larger number of weekly sessions and sometmes for
indirectly increasing total weekly training volume.
Therefore, it is important to consider what happens in both
scenarios (maintaining weekly volume constant and
allowing weekly volume to increase). This review considers
the latter scenario.
What are the selection criteria?

The purpose of this short review is to assess the efects of
training frequency on strength gains measured by any
metric in non-volume-matched studies of resistancetraining-only interventons in both trained and untrained
populatons, where training frequency is >1 session per
week. This involves the following selecton criteria:
Including any interventon assessing the efects of

training frequency on strength gains.
Measurement of strength gains by any metric (e.g.

dynamic/isoinertal, isometric or isokinetc).
Excluding interventons that control for total weekly

training volume.
Excluding interventons with aerobic exercise or other

components that are not resistance-training.
Excluding interventons where resistance-training was

performed for <1 session per week.
What is the effect of frequency on strength gains?

The following long-term training studies have explored the
efects of diferent frequencies of training (not volumematched) on strength gains in untrained or lightly-trained
subjects:
Gillam (1981) the researchers assessed the efects of
training frequency in 68 male subjects divided into 5
groups. In each of these groups, the subjects performed 18
sets of 1RM of the free-weight bench-press exercise either
once, twice, 3 tmes, 4 tmes or 5 tmes for a 9-week
training interventon.
The researchers found that the groups training 3, 4 and 5

tmes per week displayed signifcantly greater strength
gains (32.3%, 29.0 % and 40.7%) than the group training
once per week (19.5%).
Braith (1989) the researchers compared the strength
gains resultng from resistance-training either 2 or 3 days
per week for either 10 or 18 weeks in 117 untrained
subjects. The subjects were randomly allocated to various
training groups. Each group trained using 1 set of 7 10
repettons of bilateral knee extensions with variable
resistance. The researchers found that all groups
signifcantly increased isometric strength. However, they
also found that the 3-days per week groups increased
isometric strength (10 weeks = 21.2% and 18 weeks =
28.4%) more than the 2-days per week groups (10 weeks =
13.5% and 18 weeks = 20.9%).
Pollock (1993) the researchers assessed the efect of
frequency on strength gains following machine-based
cervical extension resistance-training in 50 male and 28
female subjects over a 12-week interventon. The subjects
were allocated to groups that trained either once or twice
per week and also to groups that trained using either purely
dynamic exercise or both dynamic and isometric exercise,
creatng four groups: once-dynamic, once-dynamic +
isometric, twice-dynamic, and twice-dynamic + isometric.
The researchers found that all training groups improved
cervical extension strength signifcantly at all 8 isometric
angles tested except for the dynamic group training once
per week, which did not improve at 0 degrees of cervical
fexion. The researchers observed a greater increase in
strength in the groups training twice per week compared to
those training once per week, with the greatest increases in
isometric torque in each of the once-dynamic, oncedynamic + isometric, twice-dynamic, and twice-dynamic +
isometric groups being 21.9%, 22.4%, 10.0% and 15.1%,
respectvely. However, increases in dynamic strength was
not signifcantly diferent between groups in respect of
frequency.
DeMichele (1997) the researchers assessed the efect of
frequency on torso rotaton muscle strength in 33 males
and 25 females after 12 weeks of training. The subjects
trained either 1, 2 or 3 tmes per week. Each group trained
both left and right rotatons for 8 12 repettons of full
range dynamic variable resistance exercise to failure. The
researchers measured increases in isometric torso rotaton
torque at diferent angles (54 degrees, 36 degrees, 18
degrees, 0 degree, -18 degrees, -36 degrees, and -54
degrees). The researchers reported that the average
increases across all angles in each of the groups training 1, 2
and 3 tmes per week were 4.9%, 16.3%, and 11.9%. The
groups training 2 and 3 tmes per week increased strength
signifcantly with respect to a non-training control while the
group training 1 tmes per week did not.
Page 9
Frequency (not volume-matched), continued...

Dynamic training load increased signifcantly more in the
groups training 2 and 3 tmes per week than in the group
that trained 1 tme per week.
Farinat (2013) the researchers assessed the efect of
training frequency on strength gains in 48 elderly women
aged >60 years over a 16-week training program. The
subjects performed 1 set of 10RM for several exercises
either 1, 2, or 3 days per week. The exercises comprised the
bench press, seated dumbbell curl, knee extension and
standing calf raise. The researchers found that all groups
increased 10RM strength in all exercise. However, they
found that for the seated dumbbell curl and knee extension
was greater in the higher frequencies.
DiFrancisco-Donoghue (2007) the researchers assessed
the efects of training frequency in 18 elderly subjects aged
65 79 years. The subjects were randomly assigned to 1 or
2 groups who trained either 1 or 2 tmes per week. Both
groups performed 1 set of 6 exercises at 75% of 1RM with
10 15 repettons to failure for 9 weeks. The exercises
comprised the leg press, leg extension, leg curl, chest fy,
arm curl and seated dip. The researchers observed no
diference in strength gains between the two groups.
However, there was a non-signifcant trend for the group
training 2 tmes per week to increase strength by more on
average across the 6 exercises than the group training 1
tme per week (40.0% vs. 30.8%).
Kim (2010) the researchers assessed the efects of
frequency of lumbar extension exercise on strength gains
after 12 weeks in 40 patents undergoing lumbar
discectomy surgery. The subjects trained 1 or 2 tmes per
week or once every 2 weeks. The researchers found that
groups training 1 and 2 tmes per week increased strength
by 11.8% and 3.3% while the group training once every 2
weeks displayed a 8.2% reducton in strength. Despite the
large numerical diferences between groups, they were not
signifcant.
Carroll (1998) the researchers assessed the efects of
frequency on strength gains following leg extensor and
fexor resistance-training in 17 relatvely untrained
students. The subjects performed 4 upper-body and 3
lower-body exercises for 3 sets of 4 6 RM to 15 20RM,
depending on the exercise, training either 2 or 3 tmes per
week for 6 weeks. The researchers found that increases in
1RM strength were not signifcantly diferent in the groups
that trained 2 and 3 tmes per week, although there was a
non-signifcant trend in favor of the group training 3 tmes
per week (32% vs. 22%). However, increases in isokinetc
and isometric strength were signifcantly greater in the
group that trained 2 tmes per week than the group that
trained 3 tmes per week (22 50% vs. -5 9%). Thus, there
were benefts to diferent strength measures from each

type of training frequency.
Graves (1988) the researchers assessed the efects of
reducing frequency during variable resistance-training in 50
lightly-trained subjects (24 males and 26 females) following
10-week (23 subjects) and 18-week (27 subjects) phases of
training. In this reduced phase, the subjects performed 1
set of 7 10 bilateral knee extension exercise to failure,
either 1 day or 2 days per week. Prior to this phase, one
group of the subjects had trained either 2 or 3 days per
week. The subjects who had trained 2 days reduced their
training to 1 day per week and the subjects who had trained
3 days reduced their training to 2 days per week. In the
inital training phase, the researchers found that the group
training 3 tmes per week increased isometric strength to a
signifcantly greater extent than those who only trained 2
tmes per week (26% vs. 17%). There was no signifcant
efect of training frequency in the detraining period.
Graves (1990) the researchers assessed the efects of
frequency of isolated lumbar extension resistance-training
in 72 males and 42 females following a 12-weeks
resistance-training interventon. The subjects were
allocated to training every other week, once per week,
twice per week or 3 tmes per week. The researchers
reported that all training groups improved isometric lumbar
extension torque signifcantly with no diferences between
groups. In respect of the groups training once per week,
twice per week or 3 tmes per week, dynamic strength
increased by 38.9%, 41.4% and 37.2%, respectvely, but
these improvements were not signifcantly diferent from
one another.
Taafe (1989) the researchers performed a randomized
controlled trial to compare the efects of resistance-training
1, 2 or 3 tmes per week for 24 weeks in 46 elderly people
aged 65 79 years. The training interventon comprised 3
sets of 8 repettons at 80% of 1RM for 8 exercises for the
upper and lower body. The researchers reported that
strength increased signifcantly in each training group in all
of the 8 exercises. However, there was no signifcant
diference between groups. The average increase in
strength across the 8 exercises in the groups training 1, 2
and 3 tmes per week was 37.0 15.2%, 41.9 18.2% and
39.7 9.8%.
Carpenter (2001) the researchers assessed the efect of
frequency on the development of isometric lumbar
extension torque over 12- and 20-week training periods in
56 subjects. The subjects trained either once every other
week, or 1, 2 or 3 tmes per week. The training comprised 1
set of 8 12 repettons of a variable-resistance lumbar
extension exercise to failure. Before and after the
interventon, he researchers measured isolated isometric
lumbar extension torque at 7 diferent angles.
Page 10
Frequency (not volume-matched), continued...

The researchers reported that all training groups
signifcantly increased lumbar extension torque at both 12
and 20 weeks with no signifcant diferences between
groups training >1 tme per week. Moreover, there was no
trend of increasing or decreasing strength gains with
frequency.
Berger (1965) the researchers assessed the efects of
training frequency in 79 male subjects divided into 6
groups. In 3 of these groups, the subjects trained 2 tmes
per week with 66%, 80%, or 90% of 1RM in additon to a
weekly 1RM efort. A fourth group trained 3 tmes per week
with the 1RM, a ffth group trained 3 tmes per week with
66% of the 1RM and a sixth group with the 1RM once per
week. The researchers found that the group training with
66% of 1RM three tmes per week displayed a smaller
increase in strength than the other groups. Therefore,
training with 1RM once per week was as efectve as
training with the 1RM three tmes per week.
Rozier and Schafer (1981) the researchers assessed the
efects of frequency of isokinetc unilateral knee extension
exercise in 23 young, female subjects over a 6-week
interventon. One group trained with 3 sets of 8 repettons
daily for 5 tmes per week while the other performed the
same protocol 3 tmes per week. The researchers found
that both groups increased isometric and isokinetc strength
gains signifcantly but there were no signifcant diferences
between the two groups. Moreover, the trends were for a
greater increase in isometric (17% vs. 12%) and isokinetc
(15% vs. 12%) strength for the lower frequency group over
the higher frequency group.
How can we summarize the literature?

The literature is confictng but there seems to be some
evidence that a higher training frequency might lead to
greater strength gains than a lower training frequency.
Equally, there is much less evidence that higher training
frequency will lead to inferior results. This implies that
where athletes have the ability to recover from additonal
sessions and are motvated to perform them, it seems
unlikely that this will lead to diminished strength gains.
What are the practical implications?

Individuals who are pressured for tme might expect to see
signifcant strength gains by training just once or twice per
week. However, additonal sessions leading to more volume
may lead to slightly better gains in strength.
Where individuals have the ability to recover from
additonal strength training sessions and are motvated to
perform them, a higher training frequency leading to more
volume may well lead to greater strength gains and it seems
unlikely to lead to inferior strength gains.
Page 11
Frequency (volume-matched)
The efect of training frequency on strength is difcult to
assess. In the ftness industry, there are strong proponents
of both infrequent (once per week) and very frequent (6+
tmes per week) training approaches, both on a body-part
and on a full-body basis. In the literature, there are a
number of studies but many of them do not control for the
efect of increased volume. This review sets out what we
currently know about how frequency afects strength gains,
where volume is maintained the same across the week.

Training frequency has traditonally been considered
important for strength gains. However, training frequency is
often (but not always) manipulated for the purposes of
indirectly altering total weekly training volume. Indeed, in
many research studies investgatng frequency, total weekly
training volume is often not equated between the groups.
This leads to a greater total volume of training being
performed by the high-frequency group. Since volume may
also be a key factor, this is a confounding factor. Therefore,
it is important to consider what happens to strength gains
when frequency is altered while maintaining total weekly
training volume the same. This will provide informaton
about whether splitng the same total weekly workload
into more sessions would be superior to performing fewer
but longer training sessions.

The purpose of this short review is to assess the efects of
training frequency on strength gains measured by any
metric in volume-matched studies of resistance-trainingonly interventons in both trained and untrained
populatons, where training frequency is >1 session per
week. This involves the following selecton criteria:
Including any interventon assessing the efects of

training frequency on strength gains.
Measurement of strength gains by any metric (e.g.

dynamic/isoinertal, isometric or isokinetc).
Excluding interventons that do not control for total

weekly training volume.
Excluding interventons with aerobic exercise or other

components that are not resistance-training.
Excluding interventons where resistance-training was

performed for <1 session per week.
What do meta-analyses of frequency report?

Meta-analyses have been performed in relaton to the
dose-response efect of strength training interventons,
including the specifc efect of frequency, by Rhea (2003)
and Silva (2007). These meta-analyses investgated the
dose-response efect of resistance-training (subdivided by
volume, frequency and relatve-load).
Rhea et al. reported that for training frequency of each

muscle group, untrained individuals experience a doseresponse up to 3 days per week while trained individuals
experience a dose-response relatonship up to 2 days per
week. Silva et al. investgated purely elderly subjects and
reported that any combinaton of training variables led to
increases in strength and only the length of tme spent
training had a signifcant dose-response relatonship with
strength gains.
As we will see, the fndings of the meta-analysis by Rhea et
al. do not entrely agree with the conclusions that we can
draw from the following studies, which have directly
compared lower and higher frequencies of training. This
may be because the meta-analysis does not appear to
control adequately for the confounding efect of volume in
assessing frequency. It seems to me that what was actually
assessed in that meta-analysis was the number of training
sessions and not frequency independent of volume, which
is the target of this review.
What is the effect of frequency on strength gains in

trained subjects?
efects of diferent volume-matched frequencies of training
on strength gains in trained subjects:
McLester (2000) performed a 12-week investgaton
involving trained subjects divided into two groups, one of
which performed resistance training 1 day per week for 3
sets of upper and lower body exercises at 80% of 1RM with
2 minutes of inter-set rest. The other group trained 3 days
per week for 1 set of each exercise at 80% of 1RM. The
number of sets was set in order to keep total volume
constant. The researchers reported the total upper and
lower body exercise percentage increases in the 1-day and
3-day groups were 20.2% vs. 32.4% (upper) and 23.5% vs.
37.4% (lower). There were no signifcant diferences
between groups, although there was obviously a strong but
non-signifcant trend for the sum of all exercise percentage
increases in both the upper and lower body to be greater in
the higher frequency group. Also, there was a signifcant
diference in respect of the leg press, which displayed a
22.3% vs. 46.1% increases in favour of the high-frequency
group.
Hkkinen and Kallinen (1994) performed a 6-week crossover investgaton involving trained female subjects. The
subjects performed a sequence of two 3-week periods of
resistance-training for the quadriceps, training 3 tmes a
week. In one period, the subjects trained once on each
training day and in the other period they trained using an
identcal volume over two sessions. In the 3-week period
involving training once per day, the researchers observed
no changes in the maximal voluntary isometric strength of
the leg extensors.
Page 12
Frequency (volume-matched), continued...

However, they did note signifcant increases in maximal
isometric strength of the leg extensors of 5.1% from 2493
553 to 2620 598N in the 3-week period involving training
two tmes per day. The researchers reported that this
increase was much greater than that achieved in the 3week period involving training once per day, which was an
increase of just 0.1%. However, as Carpinelli (2004) has
noted, these data do not match the data in the table, which
report an increase of 13.2% from 2258 652 to 2555
555N in the 3-week period involving training once per day.
It seems likely that there is an error in the data presented in
the table.
Hartmann (2007) performed a 3-week investgaton into the
efects of twice- and once-daily training sessions with
similar training volumes in 10 natonally compettve male
weightlifters on isometric knee-extension strength, vertcaljump peak power and weightlifting performance. The
researchers did not observe any signifcant diferences
between the two groups. However, they did fnd that there
was a greater non-signifcant percentage increase in
isometric knee-extension strength (5.1% vs. 3.2%) in the
twice-daily training group than in the once-daily training
group. It is important to note that the duraton of the study
very short and the training status of the subjects very high
and this might have led to a greater chance of type II error
occurring.

There is a trend for a higher volume-matched frequency
causing greater strength gains in trained subjects. However,
there is very little evidence to build a case and further
research is needed.
What is the effect of frequency on strength gains in

untrained subjects?
efects of diferent volume-matched frequencies of training
on strength gains in untrained subjects:
Calder (1994) performed a 20-week investgaton in 30
young women in 3 groups who performed either wholebody training, upper-lower split training or no training (a
control). The whole-body group performed 4 upper (5 sets
of 6 10RM) and 3 lower body (5 sets of 10 12RM)
resistance exercises in single sessions twice a week. The
upper-lower split group did the upper body exercises on 2
days a week and the lower body exercises on 2 other days
of the week. The researchers reported that 1RM increased
signifcantly in the arm curl, bench press and leg press
exercises in both the whole-body training and upper-lower
split training groups by 54% vs. 69%, 33% vs. 32%, and 21%
vs. 22%. There was therefore no diference between the
improvements attained by the two groups.
Benton (2011) investgated the efects of 8 weeks of 3

versus 4 days per week of volume-matched resistancetraining on body compositon in middle-aged women. The
3-day group completed 3 sets of 8 exercises arranged as a
whole-body routne and the 4-day group completed 3 sets
of 6 upper body exercises or 6 sets of 3 lower body
exercises, arranged as an upper-lower split routne. Both
groups of subjects performed 72 sets per week of 8 12
repettons at 50 80% of 1RM. The researchers reported
no signifcant diferences in strength gains between the two
groups. They found that chest press 1RM increased 34% in
both groups while leg press 1RM increased 29% in the 3-day
group and 49% in the 4-day group. There was therefore a
trend for greater lower body strength gains in the higher
frequency group.
Candow and Burke (2007) investgated the efects of 6
weeks of 2 versus 3 days per week of volume-matched
resistance-training on strength gains in 29 untrained
subjects, who performed either 3 sets of 10 repettons to
fatgue twice a week or 2 sets of 10 repettons 3 tmes per
week of the squat and bench press. The researchers
reported that both groups signifcantly improved both squat
and bench press strength. They found that the relatve
increases in squat 1RM for the 2-day and 3-day groups were
similar (29% vs. 28%) while the relatve increase in bench
press 1RM was slightly higher in the higher frequency group
(22% vs. 30%). However, there were no signifcant
diferences between groups.
Arazi and Asadi (2011) divided 39 healthy but untrained
males into four groups: one group performing 1 session of
total-body resistance training (12 exercises, once a week),
another group performing total-body resistance training
divided into 2 sessions (6 exercises, twice a week), an
upper-lower split group performing 3 sessions per week (4
exercises, three tmes a week), and a control group
(hereafter called 1-day, 2-day, 3-day and control groups). All
groups performed the same volume and number of
exercises, which comprised the leg press, leg curl, leg
extension, calf raise, lat pull-down, lat pull-row, bench
press, pec fy, arm curl, dumbbell arm curl, triceps pushdown, and dumbbell triceps extension. Before and after
the interventon, the researchers estmated bench press
and leg press 1RM based on the performance of an 8RM.
The researchers reported that each of the 1-day, 2-day, 3day groups signifcantly increased both bench press 1RM
and leg press 1RM following the interventon. However,
they did not observe any signifcant diferences between
any of the training groups. The researchers did not provide
numerical fgures for the improvements so it is difcult to
assess whether there were any non-signifcant changes.
However, based on the charts provided it does not appear
that there were any frequency-related trends.
Page 13
Frequency (volume-matched), continued...

Hunter (1985) compared the efects of either 3-days or 4days per week of training frequency in 46 untrained males
and females. The subjects all performed 9 sets each of 7
exercises (bench press, squat, power clean, behind-theneck press, biceps curl, behind-the-neck pull-down, and
thigh curls) with a 7 10RM for a 7-week period. The
researchers found that the 3-day and 4-day groups both
signifcantly improved bench press strength (14.1% vs. 21.9
%) and there was no signifcant diference between the
groups. However, the 4-day group did display a nonsignifcantly greater improvement.
Andersen (2012) compared how distributng 1 hour per
week of strength training for the neck and shoulder muscles
would afect neck pain, disability and strength gains in 447
ofce workers with and without neck and/or shoulder pain.
The subjects were randomly allocated into 1 of 4 strength
training groups: 1 session of 60 minutes, 3 sessions of 20
minutes, or 9 sessions of 7 minutes, or to a non-training
control group. The researchers assessed self-reported neck
and shoulder pain, work disability, and strength
improvements in the lateral raise exercise. The researchers
reported that 10RM lateral raise performance increased by
0.16kg per week in the 1 x 60-minute group, which was
signifcantly faster than the 9 x 7-minute group, which
displayed an average increase of 0.07kg per week. The
increase in the 3 x 20-minute group was 0.12kg per week
but this was not signifcantly diferent from either of the
other two training groups.

There is very limited evidence for the benefcial efects of
either a higher volume-matched training frequency or a
lower volume-matched training frequency on strength gains
for untrained individuals. The research is very confictng
and it is not possible to draw a defnitve conclusion at this
stage.

For trained individuals
Increasing frequency may be an efectve way of maximizing
strength gains, even if this occurs simply by redistributng
the same volume over a greater number of sessions.
For untrained individuals
Increasing frequency may not be as efectve for strength
gains as in trained subjects and the research is currently
confictng. Therefore, stcking to a traditonal number of
sessions (e.g. three tmes per week) may be the most
conservatve course of acton.
Page 14
Relative load (heavy loads versus light loads)

Most strength and conditoning professionals believe that
training with heavier relatve loads leads to improved
strength gains in comparison with lighter relatve loads. But
how good is the evidence for this contenton? Does training
with heavier relatve loads in fact lead to greater strength
gains than training with lighter relatve loads?

When developing guidance for resistance-training
programs, strength and conditoning coaches and sports
science researchers generally refer to three diferent bands
of relatve load, typically described as heavy (1 5RM),
moderate (6 15RM) and light (15RM+, which corresponds
with <65% of 1RM). While the division between heavy and
moderate relatve loads is somewhat arbitrary, it is thought
that the division between moderate and light loads
represents a dividing line. Previous researchers and coaches
have generally assumed that training with light loads of
<65% of 1RM is less efectve for both strength and
hypertrophy gains than training with heavy loads, even in
beginners. However, if you have read the hypertrophy
review in this series, you will know that it is not clear from
the literature that heavier relatve loads are any diferent in
their ability to produce hypertrophy from lighter relatve
loads. However, as we will see in this review, the evidence
for heavy loads (here defned as heavier than 15RM) being
superior for strength gains in comparison with lighter loads
(here defned as lighter than 15RM) is much stronger.
Do heavy loads lead to greater strength gains than

light loads?
The following studies have assessed the diferences in
strength gains resultng from using heavy (1 5RM) vs. light
(15RM+) loads in untrained populatons. To my knowledge,
no studies have been performed in trained populatons.
Campos (2002) the researchers recruited 32 untrained
males for an 8-week resistance-training program and
allocated them into a low-rep group (3 5RM for 4 sets of
each exercise with 3 minutes of rest between sets and
exercises), an intermediate-rep group (9 11RM for 3 sets
with 2 minutes of rest), a high-rep group (20 28RM for 2
sets with 1 minutes rest), and a control group. The subjects
performed the leg press, squat, and knee extension 2 days
per week for the frst 4 weeks and 3 days per week for the
second 4 weeks. The researchers found signifcant increases
in 1RM strength for all three exercises in all three training
groups. These strength gains were signifcantly greater in
the low-rep group compared to the high-rep group.
Holm (2008) the researchers recruited 11 sedentary
males for a 12-week interventon in which each subject
trained 3 tmes per week, with one leg at 70% of 1RM
(heavy load) and the other leg at 15.5% of 1RM (light load).
The researchers tested 1RM knee extension, isokinetc and
isometric strength For 1RM knee extension, the researchers

found that the strength gain was signifcantly higher
following the heavy load conditon (36 5%) than following
the light load conditon (19 2%). Similarly, the researchers
found that the heavy load conditon improved concentric
isokinetc strength by 13 5%, eccentric isokinetc strength
by 18 5% and isometric strength by 15 4% but the light
load conditon did not change any of these measures
signifcantly.
Van Roie (2013) the researchers compared the efects of
high- and low-load resistance-training on muscle volume in
56 older adults performing an interventon of 12 weeks of
leg press and leg extension training at either high (2 10
15 reps at 80% of 1RM, low (1 80 100 reps at 20% of
1RM), or low+ (1 60 reps at 20% of 1RM followed by 1
10 20 reps at 40% of 1RM) relatve loads. The researchers
reported that each of the training groups signifcantly
increase both leg press and leg extension 1RM postinterventon. For the leg press, the high and low+ groups
increased signifcantly more than the low group (46.2
32.3% and 39.2 20.7% vs. 23.1 20.7%). For the knee
extension, the high and low+ groups increased signifcantly
more than the low group (30.0 11.5% and 29.7 19.8% vs.
19.2 5.3%).
Tanimoto (2008) the researchers recruited 36 healthy but
untrained young males who performed whole-body
resistance training 2 tmes per week for 13 weeks using 3
sets each of the squat, chest press, lat-pull-down,
abdominal bend, and back extension. The subjects were
allocated into 3 groups: light-slow (55 60% of 1RM with 3second eccentric and concentric actons), heavy (80 90%
of 1RM with 1-second concentric and eccentric actons and
a 1-second pause) and a control. The researchers observed
no signifcant diferences between the groups in respect of
1RM strength. However, there was a non-signifcant trend
for the light-slow group to increase to a lesser extent than
the heavy group (33.0 8.8% vs. 41.2 7.8%). Also, the
increase in 1RM strength for the back extension exercise
was signifcantly greater in the heavy group than in the
light-slow group.
Tanimoto (2006) the researchers recruited 24 healthy but
untrained young males who performed whole-body
resistance training 3 tmes per week for 12 weeks with 3
sets of knee extension exercise. The subjects were allocated
into 3 groups: light-slow (50% of 1RM with 3-second
eccentric and concentric actons), light-normal (50% of 1RM
with 1-second eccentric and concentric actons and a 1second pause), and heavy (80% of 1RM with 1-second
concentric and eccentric actons and a 1-second pause). The
researchers measured 1RM knee extension, isometric and
isokinetc strength at 90, 200 and 300 degrees/s. There
were no signifcant diferences between isokinetc or 1RM
strength gains between the groups.
Page 15
Relative load (heavy loads versus light loads), continued...

However, the heavy-load group increased isometric
strength by signifcantly more than the light groups.
Mitchell (2012) the researchers recruited 18 healthy but
untrained young males for a 10-week study in which they
performed single-leg resistance-training 3 tmes per week.
The researchers randomly allocated each of the subjects
legs to 1 of 3 diferent training protocols that difered by
volume and by relatve load, as follows: 30% of 1RM x 3
sets, 80% of 1RM x 1 set, and 80% of 1RM x 3 sets. The
researchers found that all training protocols led to
signifcant increases in 1RM but the increase in 1RM was
greater in the 80% of 1RM x 1 set and 80% of 1RM x 3 set
conditons than in the 30% of 1RM x 3 sets conditon. The
researchers also reported that isometric strength increased
in all conditons but there were no signifcant diferences
between conditons.
Ogasawara (2013) the researchers recruited 9 young,
untrained males for a 6-week, high-load-resistance-training
program for the bench press using 75% of 1RM for 3 sets, 3
tmes per week, followed by a 12-month detraining period,
followed by a 6-week, low-load-resistance-training program
using 30% of 1RM for 4 sets, 3 tmes per week. The
researchers found that post-interventon, 1RM and
isometric strength both increased signifcantly in both
groups. However, they found that the increase in the heavyload group was signifcantly greater than that in the lightload group for both (1RM 21.0 5.9% vs. 8.6 2.9%) and
isometric (13.9 7.5% vs. 6.5 4.9%) strength measures.
Moss (1997) the researchers recruited 30 physical
educaton students and randomly allocated them into 1 of 3
groups, who trained with loads of either 90%, 35%, or 15%
of IRM. The groups trained using 3 5 sets, 3 tmes per
week for 9 weeks. The 90% group trained using 2 reps, the
35% group using 7 reps and the 15% group using 10 reps.
The researchers reported that 1RM increased by 15.2
4.5%, 10.1 5.9% and 6.6% in each of the 90%, 35% and
15% groups, respectvely. The researchers found that the
increase in the 90% group was signifcantly greater than the
increase in the 15% group.
Anderson (1982) the researchers assessed the efects on
strength gains of 3 diferent resistance training programs:
high resistance-low repetton, medium resistance-medium
repetton, and low resistance-high repetton. The
researchers found that the high resistance-low repetton
training conditon led to signifcantly greater strength gains
than the other two conditons.
Aagaard (1996) the researchers compared the efects of
strength training using high loads and slow speeds (4 sets of
8 reps with 8RM loading) and low loads and high speeds (4
sets of 24 reps with 24RM loading) in 22 elite soccer
players. Before and after the trial, the researchers tested
isokinetc concentric and eccentric knee extension and

fexion torques at 30, 120, 240 degrees/s. The researchers
found that isokinetc knee strength did not increase
signifcantly in the low load group. On the other hand,
concentric torque increased signifcantly in the high load
group for both knee extension and fexion at 30 degrees/s
and eccentric torque increased signifcantly at 30, 120 and
240 degrees/s.
Weiss (1999) the researchers compared the efects of
three resistance-training protocols with either high,
moderate or low loads in 38 untrained males. The subjects
trained 3 tmes per week for 7 weeks with 4 sets of squats
using a 3 5RM, 13 15RM, or 23 25RM load,
respectvely. The researchers found that squat strength and
knee extension peak torque at 60 degrees/s signifcantly
increased in all groups. However, squat strength improved
signifcantly more in the high-load group than in the lowload group.
Bemben (2000) the researchers compared the efects of
two volume-matched, high-load (80% of 1RM) and low-load
(40% of 1RM) resistance-training protocols on strength
gains in 25 early postmenopausal, estrogen-defcient
women. The protocols were performed for 3 sets, 3 days
per week for 6 months. The researchers found that while
both training groups displayed similar increases measures
of lower body strength and hip strength, the high-load
group displayed signifcantly greater improvements in
upper body strength (25% vs. 16%).
Rana (2008) the researchers assessed the efects of
relatve load on strength gains in 34 healthy adult females
who performed a 6-week resistance-training program
comprising the leg press, back squat and knee extension.
The researchers allocated the subjects into various diferent
groups, including a control, a traditonal strength (heavy)
group, a traditonal endurance (light) group, and a slowvelocity group. The heavy group trained at 6 10 RM, the
light group trained at 20 30RM, both with 1 2 second
concentric and eccentric phases, and the slow-velocity
group trained using a 6 10RM with a 10-second concentric
and 4-second eccentric phase. Comparing just the
traditonal strength and traditonal endurance groups, the
researchers found that the traditonal strength group
displayed signifcantly greater 1RM strength gains in the leg
press and knee extension exercises than the endurance
group. The traditonal strength group also showed a nonsignifcant trend to display greater increases in strength for
the squat.
Popov (2006) the researchers recruited 18 young,
physically actve males for an 8-week interventon, in which
they trained their leg extensor muscles 3 tmes per week
using the leg press exercise. A heavy group worked at 80%
of MVC and a light group worked at 50% of MVC.
Page 16
Relative load (heavy loads versus light loads), continued...

The researchers reported that strength increased
signifcantly in both the heavy and light groups. While there
was a non-signifcant trend for the heavy group to increase
strength (measured as maximum force developed during
the leg press exercise) to a greater extent (35% vs. 21%),
there was no signifcant diference between the groups.
(65.5% vs. 27.4%). However, both high- and low-load

groups displayed signifcant increases in 1RM for chest
(10.1% vs. 15.4 %), shoulders (18.5% vs. 27.4 %), upper back
(41.4% vs. 21.0 %), lower back (35.8% vs. 35.4 %), hips
(50.9% vs. 66.4 %), and legs (47.6% vs. 42.4%) with no
signifcant diferences between these increases.
Hisaeda (1996) the researchers compared the efects of

two resistance-training protocols using the knee extension
exercise in 11 untrained female subjects. In a light-load
protocol, the subjects used 4 5 sets of 15 20RM with
sufcient inter-set rest periods. In a heavy-load protocol,
the subjects used 8 9 sets of 4 6RM with a 90-second
inter-set rest period. Before and after the interventon, the
researchers measured isokinetc knee extension torque at
0, 60, 180, and 300 degrees/s. The researchers found that
isokinetc torque increased signifcantly in both groups but
there was a non-signifcant trend for the light-load protocol
to lead to greater strength gains (43.4 47.5% vs. 27.4
31.3%).
In 13 out of the 18 studies presented above, there was a

signifcantly superior strength gain in the heavier load
conditon in comparison with the lighter load conditon. In 3
further studies, there were no signifcant diferences
between conditons albeit there was a non-signifcant trend
in favor of a bigger strength gain in the heavier load
conditon in comparison with the lighter load conditon. In 1
further study, there was no signifcant diference between
conditons and no data were presented to allow the
determinaton of non-signifcant trends. In 1 fnal study, the
lighter load conditon achieved greater strength gains than
the higher load conditon. Thus, it seems clear that while
training with both heavy and light loads can lead to strength
gains, training with heavier loads (here defned as heavier
than 15RM) leads to superior strength gains than training
with lighter loads (here defned as lighter than 15RM).
Stone (1994) the researchers compared the efects of

moderate and low loads in 50 untrained females. The
protocols involved 9 weeks of training either involving 3
sets of 6 8RM, 2 sets of 15 20RM, or 1 set of 30 40RM,
respectvely. The researchers found that in all groups there
were signifcant strength gains as measured by 1RM but
there were no signifcant diferences between groups.
There was a non-signifcant trend for the high-load group to
display the greatest gains in strength.
How can we summarize the results of these studies?

Trainees can be assured that some strength gains will occur
even with very light loads. However, for maximizing
strength gains, heavier loads than 15RM are defnitely
superior.
Leger (2006) the researchers recruited 25 healthy but

untrained males for an 8-week interventon of resistance
training followed by de-training. The subjects were
allocated into one of two training groups (low reps or high
reps) that were matched for age, height, weight, VO2-max
and muscular strength and endurance. The subjects
performed the same training protocol as described in
Campos (2002) above. The researchers found that
resistance training led to 50% and 15% strength gains in the
leg extension and squat, respectvely, but there was no
strength gain for the leg press exercise. The researchers
found no signifcant diferences in strength gains between
the two groups and did not provide data for the two groups
separately. Therefore, it was not possible to ascertain
whether there was any non-signifcant trend.
Pruit (1995) the researchers compared the efects of two
resistance-training protocols with either high or low loads in
26 older females (65 82 years). The high-load group
performed 7 repettons at 80% of 1RM and the low-load
group performed 14 repettons at 40% of 1RM) for 3 sets
each in 10 exercises, 3 tmes per week for 1 year. The
researchers found that arm strength increased signifcantly
more in the low-load group than in the high-load group
Page 17
Relative load (heavy versus moderate loads)

Most ftness professionals believe that training with heavier
relatve loads leads to improved strength gains in
comparison with training with any lighter relatve loads. But
how precise can we be about the relatve load that leads to
the greatest strength gains? In the previous review, we
looked at the diferences in strength gains following from
high versus low loads. But what are the diferences in
strength gains following from high versus moderate loads?

When developing guidance for resistance-training
programs, strength and conditoning coaches and sports
science researchers generally refer to three diferent bands
of relatve load, typically described as heavy (1 5RM),
moderate (6 15RM) and light (15RM+, which corresponds
with <65% of 1RM). While the division between heavy and
moderate relatve loads is somewhat arbitrary, it is thought
that the division between moderate and light loads
represents a fundamental dividing line. Thus, previous
researchers and coaches have generally assumed that
training with light loads of <65% of 1RM is less efectve for
both strength gains than training with heavy loads, even in
beginners. However, there is a lot less agreement regarding
whether heavy loads are superior to moderate loads for
strength gains.
Do heavy loads lead to greater strength gains than

moderate loads?
The following studies have assessed the diferences in
strength gains resultng from using either heavy (1 5RM)
or moderate (5 15RM) loads in untrained populatons. To
my knowledge, no studies have been performed in trained
populatons.
Campos (2002) the researchers recruited 32 untrained
males for an 8-week resistance-training program and
allocated them into a low-rep group (3 5RM for 4 sets of
each exercise with 3 minutes of rest between sets and
exercises), an intermediate-rep group (9 11RM for 3 sets
with 2 minutes of rest), a high-rep group (20 28RM for 2
sets with 1 minutes rest), and a control group. The subjects
performed the leg press, squat, and knee extension 2 days
per week for the frst 4 weeks and 3 days per week for the
second 4 weeks. The researchers found signifcant increases
in 1RM strength for all three exercises in all three training
groups. However, they also found that for the leg press and
squat exercises, these strength gains were signifcantly
greater in the low-rep group compared to the moderate
training group.
Anderson (1982) the researchers assessed the efects on
strength gains of 3 diferent resistance training programs:
high resistance-low repetton, medium resistance-medium
repetton, and low resistance-high repetton. The
researchers found that the high resistance-low repetton
training conditon led to signifcantly greater strength gains

than the other two conditons.
Weiss (1999) the researchers compared the efects of
moderate or low loads in 38 untrained males. The subjects
trained 3 tmes per week for 7 weeks with 4 sets of squats
using a 3 5RM, 13 15RM, or 23 25RM load,
respectvely. The researchers found that squat strength and
knee extension peak torque at 60 degrees/s signifcantly
increased in all groups but there was no signifcant
diference between the strength gains achieved by the highload and moderate-load groups. There was a non-signifcant
trend, however, as squat strength improved by 75.0kg in
the high-load group but only by 51.1kg in the moderateload group.
Berger (1962) the researcher compared the efects of 6
diferent resistance-training protocols in 199 untrained
males, who performed 1 set of either 2RM, 4RM, 6RM,
8RM, 10RM or 12RM of the free-weight bench press, 3
tmes per week for 12 weeks. The researcher found that the
strength gains (as measured by 1RM) were signifcantly
greater in the 4RM, 6RM, and 8RM groups compared to the
2RM group but there was no signifcant diference between
4RM, 6RM and 8RM groups. Additonally, the 4RM and 8RM
groups displayed greater strength gains than the 10RM
group.
Chestnut (1999) the researchers compared the efects on
strength gains in 24 untrained males from training the
forearm extensors and fexors using 4RM and 10RM
protocols, 3 tmes per week for 10 weeks with free weights.
The 4RM group performed 6 sets of 4 repettons to failure
and the 10RM group performed 3 sets of 10 repettons to
failure. The researchers observed signifcant increases in
forearm extensor and fexor 1RM strength but they did not
fnd any signifcant diferences between groups. The
improvement in 1RM elbow fexor strength was very similar
across 4RM and 10RM groups (13% vs. 11%) but the 10RM
group displayed a non-signifcant trend towards a greater
improvement in elbow extensor strength (22% vs. 28%).
OShea (1966) the researchers assessed the efects on
squat strength gains of 3 diferent resistance training
programs: high load-low repetton, medium load-medium
repetton, and low load-high repetton. The low-load group
performed 3 sets of 9 10 repettons, the moderate-load
group performed 3 sets of 5 6 repettons, and the heavyload group performed 3 sets of 2 3 repettons. The
researchers observed signifcant increases in squat 1RM
strength but they did not fnd any signifcant diferences
between groups. The low-load, moderate-load and heavyload groups each increased in squat strength by 21.8%,
26.7%, and 20.4 %, respectvely.
Page 18
Relative load (heavy versus moderate loads), continued...
How can we summarize these studies?

In 2 of the 6 studies presented, there was a signifcantly
greater strength gain following training with heavy (less
than 5RM) than with moderate (5 15RM) loads. In 1
further study, there was a non-signifcant trend in favor of
heavy loads over moderate loads. In another study, there
was no non-signifcant diference between the strength
gains. And in 2 fnal studies, there was a non-signifcant
trend in favor of moderate loads over heavier loads. In
summary, the literature is very confictng. The picture is
not as clear as the one that we see when we compare
heavy and light loads. Thus, it is difcult to conclude on
whether heavy loads are defnitvely better than moderate
loads for increasing strength.

Individuals looking to improve strength may wish to make
use of moderate (i.e. 5 15RM) loads rather than heavy
(<5RM) loads if safety is a concern, or if greater volume is
considered desirable.
Page 19
Bar speed (relative load controlled)

The efect of repetton speed on strength is difcult to
assess. There are proponents of both fast and slow bar
speeds. Advocates of fast bar speeds suggest that this
allows a greater recruitment of high-threshold muscle
fbers. Supporters of slow bar speeds call attenton to the
greater potental for tme-under-tension. Researchers are
plagued by difcultes associated with controlling other
variables. Because of the force-velocity relatonship, the
most problematc variable is relatve load. This review sets
out what we currently know about how repetton speed
afects strength gains during isoinertal training when
relatve load is controlled.

Various researchers as well as strength and conditoning
coaches have proposed that repetton speed may be
important for strength. There are two basic ways in which a
weight can be lifted: (1) with maximal velocity, and (2) with
a controlled, sub-maximal tempo. Within this second
category, a variety of diferent lifting tempos could be used,
ranging from very slow to very fast (but not maximal). Some
researchers and strength and conditoning coaches have
suggested that a better term for repettons speed or bar
speed would be repetton duraton. This places an
emphasis on the importance of the tme-under-tension
aspect. However, such consideratons of terminology likely
pale in comparison with the more serious problems of
isolatng variables and measuring outcomes.
Problems with isolating variables
Changing repetton speed is practcally impossible to
perform in complete isolaton of all other relevant training
variables (i.e. relatve load, volume, muscular failure, tmeunder-tension, etc.). This is largely because of the forcevelocity relatonship. Where larger forces are required in
order to move greater loads, muscle contracton velocity
must be lower. This means that comparisons between fast
and slow repetton speed conditons often inherently
compare diferent relatve loads as the force produced must
be diferent. A corollary of this point is that where relatve
load is maintained the same and sets are performed to
muscular failure in all cases, it is highly unlikely that two
workout protocols with diferent repetton speeds will be
performed with the same overall volume (load x sets x
reps). Indeed, it is usually the case that a faster repetton
speed leads to more repettons being performed with the
same relatve load. Thus, volume often difers between
conditons. Equally, where volume is artfcially equated,
then this would likely require taking only one of the
conditons to muscular failure. This means that researchers
need to choose which training variable is least likely to
confound their results, which means making decisions
about what training variables are most important before
actually completng the study.
All of this discussion simply shows that it is hard to isolate

repetton speed as a training variable. When it is altered,
other training variables such as relatve load, volume, and
proximity to muscular failure tend to be altered
simultaneously, depending on the other parameters that
are fxed.
Problems with measuring strength
The other major problem with assessing the efect of
training programs involving diferent repetton speeds is
the queston of how to measure strength. Broadly speaking,
we can measure strength isometrically, isokinetcally and
isoinertally (i.e. 1RM for an exercise). Within those
categories, we can measure strength isometrically at
diferent joint angles and we can measure strength
isokinetcally at diferent velocites. In the case of repetton
speed, it is most problematc when measuring strength
isokinetcally at diferent speeds, as many of the training
programs tested often involve training at the same speeds.
Therefore, there is a training specifcity issue, and it is not
partcularly surprising when we fnd that training at slow
isokinetc speeds leads to increases in slow isokinetc
strength while training at fast isokinetc speeds leads to
increases in fast isokinetc strength. Unfortunately, other
than simply ignoring isokinetc measurement methods,
there isnt really an easy way of dealing with this problem.

For this partcular review, the following selecton criteria
were applied:
Interventons investgatng the deliberate (not
incidental) efect of repetton speed on strength gains.
Interventons using conventonal resistance-training
methods (i.e. not isokinetc or isometric) only.
Measurement of strength by dynamic/isoinertal,
isometric or isokinetc methods.
Studies with matched relatve loads.
While this is not an ideal approach, this seems to be the
limitatons of the literature at present. It is intended to be
one way of exploring the diference between the efects
that arise from training with a specifc bar speed or
tempo rather than simply trying to move the bar as fast
as possible. It is fully accepted that there are other
(probably equally valid) ways of analyzing the literature.
The eagle-eyed will notce that it wasn't actually necessary
to specify that isokinetc or isometric training interventons
were excluded because matched relatve loads were
already specifed. Diferent isokinetc speeds inherently
involve diferent relatve loads because they are performed
with maximal efort and therefore the force-velocity
relatonship means that slower isokinetc speeds involve
higher relatve loads than faster isokinetc speeds.
Page 20
Bar speed (relative load controlled), continued...
How does repetition speed affect strength gains

when relative load is controlled?
A small number of studies have been performed that have
compared the efect of repetton velocity on strength gains
following isoinertal training in (mostly) untrained subjects
where relatve load is controlled, as follows:
Munn (2005) compared the efect of repetton speed on
strength gains in a 6-week trial in 115 healthy, untrained
subjects. The subjects performed either 1 set fast (c. 140
degrees/s), 3 sets fast, 1 set slow (50 degrees/s), or 3 sets
slow of elbow fexion with a 6 8RM, 3 tmes per week.
Before and after the interventon, the researchers
measured 1RM. The researchers reported that the fast
group displayed a signifcantly greater increase in strength
than the slow group (by 11%).
Morrissey (1998) explored the efect of repetton speed in
a 7-week trial in which two groups of untrained female
subjects performed squats in one of two conditons, being
either slow (2 seconds up and 2 seconds) or fast (1 second
up and 1 second down) for 3 sets of 8 repettons to
muscular failure, 3 tmes per week. Before and after the
interventon, the researchers measured 1RM squat and
isometric and isokinetc knee extensor strength between 25
125 degrees/s.
Rana (2008) compared the efects of repetton speed in 34
healthy adult females who performed a 6-week resistancetraining program comprising the leg press, back squat and
knee extension. The researchers allocated the subjects into
various diferent groups. A fast-heavy group trained at 6
10 RM with 1 2 second concentric and eccentric phases
and a slow-heavy group trained at 6 10RM but with a 10second concentric and a 4-second eccentric phase. The
researchers found that the slow-heavy group did
signifcantly increase leg press and knee extension 1RM
(30% and 27%) but this increase was smaller than that of
the fast-heavy group (62% and 54%). The fast-heavy group
increased squat 1RM signifcantly but the slow-heavy group
did not (46% vs. 27%).
Liow and Hopkins (2003) compared the efects of slow and
explosive resistance-training in 27 male and 11 female
experienced sprint kayakers. The resistance-training was
performed 2 tmes per week for 6 weeks and involved 3 4
sets of the bench press and dumbbell pull exercises with
80% of 1RM. The slow group performed the exercise with a
tempo such that the duraton of the exercise was 1.7s while
the duraton of the exercise in the explosive group was
<0.85s. The researchers found that both groups
substantally improved strength between 8 15%
compared to the control group (<3%). However, they found
that training with a faster repetton speed improved
strength to a greater extent than training with a slower
repetton speed (between-group diferences of 7.9% for

bench press and 5.5% for dumbbell pull). They assessed
that these diferences between groups were very likely to
be substantal.
Ingebrigtsen (2009) compared the efects of slow and fast
barbell training on strength gains in 27 subjects. The
subjects performed 5 sets of 10 repettons of barbell biceps
curls 3 tmes a week for 3 weeks in either highload-fastspeed or high-load-slow-speed groups. The load used in
both cases was 60% of maximal isometric torque. Before
and after the interventon, the researchers measured
isometric and isokinetc (30, 90, 240 and 300 degrees/s)
elbow fexion strength. The researchers reported that
isometric strength increased signifcantly (by 9.7%) only in
the high-load-fast-speed group while isokinetc strength at
slow speeds (30 degrees/s) increased signifcantly (by 8.5%)
only in the high-load-slow speed group..
Young and Bilby (1993) compared the efect of repetton
speed in a 7.5-week trial in which subjects performed 4 sets
of 8 12RM with the half squat exercise, 3 tmes per week
with either fast or slow repettons. The fast-repetton
group performed a controlled eccentric phase followed by
an explosive concentric phase while the slow-repetton
group performed both concentric and eccentric phases in a
slow and controlled manner. The researchers found that
while both groups improved both isometric and 1RM
strength measures signifcantly, there was no signifcant
diference between the groups. There was a non-signifcant
trend for the slow group to improve isometric strength to a
greater extent than the fast group (24.6% vs. 12.5%).
Pereira (2007) compared the efect of repetton speed on
strength gains over a 12-week trial in 14 healthy, untrained
subjects who were randomly allocated to one of two
training groups or a non-training control group. The slow
speed group trained at 0.44 rad/s and the fast speed group
trained at 1.75 rad/s. The training program involved the
squat and bench press performed for 1 set at 8 10RM, 3
tmes per week. The researchers observed that both slow
and fast training groups improved strength in both the
squat (27.6 16.8 vs. 21.4 12.6%) and bench press (16.8
11.8 vs. 16.2 14.1%) but there were no signifcant
diferences between the two groups. There was a nonsignifcant trend for the slow group to improve 1RM squat
performance to a greater extent.
Page 21
Bar speed (relative load controlled), continued...

Of the 7 studies, 4 displayed signifcantly superior results as
a result of fast repetton velocites when controlling for
relatve load. One additonal study found confictng results
and two further studies found a non-signifcant trend in
favor of a slower repetton velocity. In summary, when
relatve load is controlled during isoinertal training, it
seems that a faster repetton speed leads to superior
strength gains than a slower repetton speed, although the
literature is stll somewhat confictng.

When the repetton speed does not afect the relatve load
selected, fast repetton speeds seem to be better for
strength gains. Fast repetton speeds would therefore
seem to be recommended for individuals training purely for
strength.
Page 22
Bar speed (relative load not controlled)

The efect of repetton speed on strength is hard to assess.
Researchers are plagued by difcultes associated with
controlling other training variables when repetton speed is
varied. The force-velocity relatonship makes relatve load
the most signifcant confounding factor for assessing
repetton velocity. The previous review sets out the
literature where relatve load is controlled. On face value,
this may appear a better method of investgaton. In fact,
not controlling for other training variables can provide
greater insight into what happens in real life when
repetton speed is deliberately altered. This review sets out
what we currently know about how repetton speed afects
strength gains after isoinertal training when relatve load is
NOT controlled.

There are two basic ways in which a weight can be lifted: (1)
with maximal velocity, and (2) with a controlled, submaximal tempo. Within this second category, a variety of
diferent lifting tempos can be used, ranging from very slow
to very fast (but not maximal). Some researchers and
strength and conditoning coaches have suggested that a
better term for repettons speed or bar speed would be
repetton duraton. This places an emphasis on the
importance of the tme-under-tension aspect. However,
such consideratons of terminology likely pale in
comparison with the much bigger problems of isolatng
variables and measuring outcomes, which I discussed in a
previous post about repetton speed.

For this review, the following specifc selecton criteria were
applied:
Interventons investgatng the deliberate (not

incidental) efect of repetton speed on strength gains.
Interventons using conventonal resistance-training

methods (i.e. not isokinetc or isometric) only.
Measurement of strength by dynamic/isoinertal,

isometric or isokinetc methods.
Studies with un-matched relatve loads.
While this is not an ideal approach, this seems to be a

limitaton of the literature at present, partcularly as there
are a great number of studies that have explored the efects
of isokinetc training interventons.
How does repetition speed affect strength gains

when relative load is not controlled?
Several studies have been performed that have compared
the efect of repetton velocity on strength gains following
isoinertal training in untrained subjects where relatve load
is not controlled, as follows:
Tanimoto and Ishii (2006) compared slow and fast

repettons in a 12-week knee extension exercise study
comprising 3 sets, 3 tmes a week. They analyzed the efects
of three diferent groups, which included a fast group and a
slow group. The slow group lifted with a 3-second eccentric
and concentric acton and a 1-second pause but no
relaxaton using a 50% of 1RM load. The fast group lifted
with a 1-second eccentric and concentric acton and a 1second relaxaton but no pause, using an 80% of 1RM load.
The researchers found that the gain in isometric strength
was signifcantly larger in the fast group than in the slow
group. However, there were no signifcant diferences in the
gains in isokinetc or in 1RM strength between groups.
Tanimoto (2008) performed a similar study to Tanimoto
and Ishii (2006) but with 5 exercises (squat, chest press,
latssimus dorsi pull-down, abdominal bend, and back
extension). However, rather than measure isometric,
isokinetc and 1RM strength values, they only studied 1RM.
It is noted that the previous study did not fnd any
diferences in respect of either 1RM or isokinetc strength
measures. This therefore increases the risk of type II error
in the present study. Indeed, the researchers found no
diferences between the groups in respect of 1RM
percentage changes. However, it is also important to note
that the slow group increased the sum of 1RM lifts by a
non-signifcantly smaller amount (33.0 8.8%) than the fast
group (41.2 7.8%). In respect of individual exercise 1RM
changes, the back extension 1RM increased by signifcantly
more in the fast group than in the slow group.
Keeler (2001) compared the efects on 1RM strength of
training with 8 traditonal Nautlus-type resistance-training
(2-second concentric and 4-second eccentric contractons)
or 8 similar exercises using a SuperSlow resistance-training
technique (10-second concentric and 5-second eccentric
contractons). The traditonal group used 80% of 1RM and
the SuperSlow group used 50% of 1RM. For the study, they
recruited 14 sedentary women, who trained 3 tmes per
week for 10 weeks. The researchers reported that while
both groups signifcantly increased 1RM strength on all 8
exercises, the Nautlus group increased signifcantly more
than the SuperSlow group in bench press (34% vs. 11%),
anterior lateral pull-down (27% vs. 12%), leg press (33% vs.
7%), leg extension (56% vs. 24%), and leg curl (40% vs. 15%)
strength as well as total of all exercise 1RM strength (39%
vs. 15%).
Neils (2005) compared conventonal (2-second concentric
and 4-second eccentric contractons) and SuperSlow (10second concentric and 5-second eccentric contractons)
resistance-training over an 8-week interventon, training 3
days per week, using the bench press and squat exercises.
Page 23
Bar speed (relative load not controlled), continued...

The SuperSlow group used 50% of 1RM and the
conventonal group used 80% of 1RM. The total tme-undertension was around 90 120 seconds per set for the
SuperSlow group and around 20 45 seconds per set for
the conventonal group. The researchers reported that
while both groups increased bench press 1RM and squat
1RM signifcantly, the conventonal group improved
strength by non-signifcantly more than the SuperSlow
group in the squat (6.8% vs. 3.6%) but not in the bench
press (8.6% vs. 9.1%).
Westcot (2001) performed two separate trials, both of
which compared conventonal (2-second concentric, 1second pause and 4-second eccentric contractons) and
SuperSlow (10-second concentric and 4-second eccentric
contractons) resistance-training for 2 3 days per week for
8 10 weeks. In both trials, conventonal training was
performed for 8 12 repettons per set with 10RM and
SuperSlow training was performed for 4 6 repettons per
set with 5RM. The frst trial involved 13 Nautlus-type
exercises in 74 untrained males and females. The second
trial involved performing only the Nautlus chest press in 73
untrained males and females. The researchers reported
that in the frst trial, SuperSlow training led to a signifcantly
greater increase in strength than the conventonal training,
(59% vs. 39%) although it is noted that both groups
increased strength substantally. In the second trial,
SuperSlow training also led to a signifcantly greater
increase in strength than the conventonal training, (44% vs.
27%) although it is noted that both groups increased
strength substantally.

In summary, 3 of the 6 trials (in 5 studies) displayed
signifcantly superior results in favor of higher repetton
velocites and a fourth study displayed a non-signifcant
trend in the same directon. Two trials (in 1 study) displayed
signifcantly superior results in favor of slower repetton
velocites. To conclude, although the literature is somewhat
confictng, there is some evidence that where a faster
repetton speed is performed in isoinertal training in order
that a greater relatve load can be used, faster repetton
speeds may lead to greater strength gains. However,
whether this is simply because greater relatve loads are
being used is unclear.

Deliberately using a slow bar speed that necessitates the
use of lower relatve loads may be counter-productve for
strength gains. Therefore, fast repetton speeds would
seem to be the default opton for individuals training purely
for strength.
Page 24
Muscular failure
Whether we should go to muscular failure during strength
training is a source of signifcant controversy in the ftness
industry. Strangely, despite a high degree of interest in the
lay press, researchers have not studied this area in a lot of
detail. To that end, volume-matched, long-term training
studies are few and far between. Consequently, it is hard to
know whether training to failure is helpful for maximizing
strength gains.

The whole training to failure debate is fraught with difcult
issues. Firstly, there is a lack of consensus among coaches.
Although training to momentary muscular failure is a
common topic of debate in the ftness industry, there is no
good consensus among strength coaches, powerlifting
coaches and personal trainers regarding whether it is
necessary to maximize strength gains. Consequently, while
a signifcant proporton of strength trainees do train to
muscular failure regularly, a good proporton also rarely go
to failure in a given workout. Secondly, study protocols
generally always go to failure. In the research literature
exploring strength gains during a period of training, it is
most common for all sets to be performed to failure. There
is therefore an important discrepancy between what the
research literature tells us and what a given trainee might
be doing. This could limit the applicability of the research
informaton to many individuals. Thirdly, defnitons of
failure are tricky. While it may seem obvious to some
partes that their defniton of training failure is quite
straightorward, not everyone agrees on the meaning of the
phrase. In general, there are two main defnitons, one
being momentary muscular failure of the muscles involved
(acceptng that this may be a complex matter in a multjoint exercise), and the other being technical exercise
failure, being the point at which the exercise could no
longer be performed to a strict set of requirements. Finally,
failure may not be needed to recruit all motor units While
some researchers and proponents of training to muscular
failure have suggested that training to failure is necessary in
order to recruit all motor units, the research does not
completely support this view. Sundstrup (2012) explored
the EMG actvity of lateral raises during individual reps of
15RM loads performed to failure. They found that a plateau
muscle actvity was reached at 10 12 reps of the 15RM
load, which they interpreted to mean that training to
complete failure is not necessary to fully recruit the entre
motor unit pool, at least in untrained individuals. In
summary, the important thing to remember is that the
research into the efect of muscular failure (and exactly
what muscular failure should be taken to mean) is
surprisingly thin on the ground to say how often studies are
performed involving protocols that have sets of exercises
performed to failure!
What is the effect of training to failure on strength?

The following training studies have explored the efect on
strength of groups performing exercises to muscular failure
(or simply greater degrees of fatgue) in comparison with
other volume-matched groups performing the same
exercises not to muscular failure (or to lesser degrees of
fatgue), using various diferent approaches:
Izquierdo (2006) the researchers assessed the efects of
training to failure or not-to-failure during 11 weeks of
resistance-training, followed by an identcal 5-week period
of maximal strength and power training in 42 physicallyactve males. In the frst 11-week phase, the researchers
found that both groups displayed similar gains in 1RM
bench press and squat and while both groups displayed
similar gains in maximum repettons during the squat, the
failure group displayed larger gains in maximum repettons
performed during the bench press. However, in the 5-week
peaking phase, the not-to-failure group displayed larger
gains in lower-body muscular power output of the lower
extremites and not-to-failure group again displayed larger
gains in maximum repettons performed during the bench
press. The researchers suggested that not-to-failure training
may beneft maximal strength and power while training to
failure may enhance muscular endurance.
Drinkwater (2006) the researchers assessed the efect of
training to repetton failure on 6RM bench press and 40kg
bench throw power in elite junior athletes. The subjects
performed bench press training for 3 workouts per week for
6 weeks, using equal volume in one of two groups. One
group trained to repetton failure by using 4 sets of 6
repettons every 260 seconds while the other group trained
using the same number of total repettons but not to
failure, using 8 sets of 3 repettons every 113 seconds. The
researchers found that the failure group displayed greater
increases in both repetton strength and bench throw
power.
Lawton (2004) the researchers compared the efects of
two training protocols in 26 elite junior male basketball and
soccer players. In two groups, the subjects performed
either 4 sets of 6 repettons or 8 sets of 3 repettons of the
bench press for 6-weeks. The 4 sets of 6 repettons group,
which experienced greater levels of fatgue, signifcantly
increased 6RM strength (9.7%) compared with the 8 sets of
3 repettons group (4.9%) but there was no signifcant
diference in power gains between groups.
Folland (2002) the researchers compared the efects of
two training protocols in 23 healthy adults with one group
performing 4 sets of 10 repettons with 30 seconds interset rest (greater fatgue group) and the other group
performing 40 repettons with 30 seconds rest between
each repetton (lesser fatgue group), using on average 73%
of 1RM on the bilateral knee extension machine, 3 tmes a
week.
Page 25
Muscular failure, continued...

After 9 weeks of training, the researchers found that
maximal isometric knee extension strength measurements
showed similar improvements for both groups.
Rooney (1994) the researchers assessed the efect of
intra-set rest periods on strength in 42 healthy subjects
within the context of a volume-matched program. The
subjects were allocated to either a no-rest group, a rest
group, or a control group. The two training groups trained
their biceps by curling a 6RM weight 6 10 tmes, 3 tmes
per week for 6 weeks. The no-rest group performed all
repettons without restng, while subjects in the rest group
rested for 30 seconds between each repetton. The
researchers found that the group who trained to failure
displayed signifcantly greater increases in strength.
However, both training groups increased strength in
comparison with the control.
volume led to greater strength gains than the basic 8 x 3

program.

There is good evidence that incorporatng training to failure
can lead to better strength gains. However, since training to
failure can impact on recovery, it should be used carefully
within sensible limits for athletes.
Schot (1995) the researchers compared the adaptatons

following two types of isometric strength training: short,
intermittent contractons (lesser fatgue group) vs. longer,
contnuous contractons (greater fatgue group) at 70% of
MVIC in which 7 subjects trained 3 tmes per week for 14
weeks. The right leg was trained using 4 sets of 10 bouts of
3-second contractons with a 2-second rest period between
each contracton and 2 minutes inter-set rest periods. The
left leg was trained using 4 sets of 30-second contractons
with a 1-minute inter-set rest period. The researchers found
that the increase in MVIC was signifcantly greater for the
longer, contnuous contractons than for the short,
intermittent contractons.
How can these studies be summarized?

In summary, although conclusions are made slightly difcult
by the variaton between study protocols and outcome
measures, it seems that most measures of strength are
improved to a greater extent when training to failure (or
greater fatgue) in comparison with training not-to-failure
(or lesser fatgue). However, not all studies show this for all
strength measures: Folland (2002) reported no diference in
MVIC strength of the two training approaches and Izquierdo
(2006) found no diference in respect of 1RM strength.
Additonally, Drinkwater (2007) assessed whether training
beyond the point of failure would lead to superior results
than training to failure in 22 team sports athletes training 3
tmes per week for 6 weeks, with either 4 x 6, 8 x 3, or 12 x
3 (sets x repettons) of bench press. In comparison with the
8 x 3 program, the 4 x 6 program involved a longer work
interval while the 12 x 3 program involved higher training
volume. Both of these programs were designed therefore to
involve signifcantly more forced repettons in order to
complete the desired number of repettons. The
researchers found that repetton failure was reached,
neither additonal forced repettons nor additonal set
Page 26
Rest periods
How long we should rest between exercises during strength
training to maximize strength gains has not been studied in
a lot of detail. Consequently, there is a dearth of both
volume-matched and non-volume-matched, long-term
training studies. Thus, it is difcult to know exactly what
rest period should be recommended when training for
strength.

The efect of rest period duraton on gains in muscular
strength and size has been reviewed previously (see De
Salles, 2009). However, at the tme that review was written,
only three studies had reported on the diference in
strength gains following from long-term resistance training
programs with short or long duraton inter-set rest periods
(i.e. Robinson, 1995; Pincivero, 1997; and Pincivero, 2004).
De Salles et al. concluded that longer rest intervals (i.e. 2
3 minutes) led to signifcantly greater increases in strength
compared with shorter rest intervals (i.e. 30 90 seconds).
They also concluded that the longer rest intervals allowed
for greater relatve loading to be used and also greater
training volumes.
How does rest period duration affect strength gains?

The following studies have assessed the efects of diferent
length, fxed-duraton rest periods on strength gains over a
long-term period:
Robinson (1995) The researchers compared the efects of
a 5-week, high-volume resistance-training program with
three diferent rest interval duratons on increases in power
and maximum strength. They recruited 33 resistancetrained young male subjects and allocated them into 3
training groups who performed the same training program
except that a long-rest group used a rest period of 3
minutes, a moderate-rest group used a rest period of 1.5
minutes and a short-rest group used a rest period of 30
seconds. Before and after the 5-week interventon, the
researchers measured vertcal jump height and 1RM squat.
They found that the vertcal jump height did not improve in
any of the groups. However, they found that the 1RM squat
did improve and improved by signifcantly more in the longrest group (7%) than the short rest group (2%). This study
suggests that longer rest periods are better for gains in
strength.
Pincivero (1997) The researchers compared the efects of
a 4-week, isokinetc resistance-training program with two
diferent rest interval duratons on increases in power and
maximum strength. The researchers recruited 15, collegeaged individuals and allocated them to either a short rest
group (40 seconds) or a long rest group (160 seconds). The
training interventon involved unilateral lower body
isokinetc resistance training, 3 days per week for 4 weeks.
Before and after the training interventon, the researchers
measured quadriceps and hamstring isokinetc strength at

60 and 180 degrees/second as well as lower body power
using the single leg hop for distance. The researchers
reported signifcantly greater improvements for isokinetc
hamstring total work and average power at 180
degrees/second for the long-rest group compared to the
short-rest group. However, there was no diference in the
single leg hop for distance.
Pincivero (2004) The researchers compared the efects of
diferent rest intervals on lower body strength and fatgue
following a 6-week period of high-intensity resistancetraining. They recruited 15 healthy males and allocated
them to one of three groups, a short-rest group (40
seconds), a long-rest group (160 seconds), and a control
group. The training groups performed isokinetc knee
extension exercises at 180 degrees/s, 2 days per week for 6
weeks. Before and after the interventon, the researchers
measured isokinetc knee extension torque, work and
power at 180 degrees/s. They also measured fatgue as the
reducton in isokinetc work and power over 30 maximal
concentric contractons. The researchers reported an
increase in isokinetc knee extension torque in the long-rest
group but not in the short-rest or control groups.
Ahtiainen (2005) The researchers explored the efects of
rest period duraton on the hormonal and neuromuscular
adaptatons following a 6-month period of resistancetraining. The researchers recruited 13 recreatonally
resistance-trained male subjects. The study was divided into
two separate 3-month training periods in a crossover
design. In one 3-month period, the subjects performed a
training protocol using a short rest (2 minutes) and in the
other they used a long rest (5 minutes). Before and after
the interventons, the researchers measured hormonal
concentratons as well as maximal isometric leg extension
torque, unilateral leg press 1RM, and muscle cross-sectonal
area of the quadriceps femoris using magnetc resonance
imaging (MRI) scans. The training protocol involved leg
presses and squats with 10RM sets and were matched for
volume (i.e. load x sets x reps) but were diferent in respect
of the relatve load used and the rest period duratons. The
researchers observed signifcant increases in maximal
isometric force (7%) and unilateral leg press 1RM (16%)
over the 6-month strength-training period. However, both
3-month training periods resulted in similar gains in
strength.
Willardson (2008) The researchers compared the efect of
rest period on squat strength gains and volume of work
performed. The researchers recruited 15 resistance-trained
male subjects and allocated them to either a 2-minute or a
4-minute rest interval group. The groups performed the
same training program and the only diference being the
rest interval and the number of reps that the subjects were
able to perform.
Page 27
Rest periods, continued...

The training program comprised 2 squat workouts per week
as part of a periodized program, with one workout being
heavy and the other light. The researchers reported that
both groups displayed signifcant gains in squat strength but
there were no signifcant diferences between groups. The
researchers also reported that the 4-minute group
displayed signifcantly higher volumes for the heavy
workouts but not the light workouts.
Buresh (2009) The researchers compared the efects of
short (1 minute) and long (2.5 minutes) rest periods on
strength and muscular cross-sectonal area during a 10week training period. They recruited 12 untrained male
subjects who performed a training routne of 3 sets using a
load that led to failure on the third set of each exercise,
including the squat and bench press exercises. The
researchers found that both groups increased strength but
they found that there were no signifcant diferences
between the two groups in respect of the strength
increases.
De Salles (2010) The researchers compared the efect of
rest period on gains in upper and lower body strength over
a 16-week resistance-training program. They recruited 36
recreatonally-trained male subjects and allocated them to
either a short-rest (1 minute), a medium-rest (3 minutes),
or a long-rest (5 minutes) group, who all performed the
same basic program. Before and after the interventon, the
researchers measured 1RM bench press and leg press. The
researchers reported signifcant increases in bench press
1RM in the medium- and long-rest groups after the 16week interventon. They also reported that the increase in
the long-rest group was signifcantly greater than the
increase in the short-rest group. The researchers reported
signifcant increases in leg press 1RM in all groups after the
16-week interventon. They also reported that the increases
in the long-rest and medium-rest groups were signifcantly
greater than the increase in the short-rest group.
Gentil (2010) The researchers investgated the efects of
diferent between-set rest interval duratons on muscle
strength. The researchers recruited 34 untrained, collegeaged men and allocated them to 2 groups. The subjects
trained 2 tmes per week for 12 weeks, using the same
exercises and the same workload for 2 sets of 8 12
repettons to muscular failure. However, one group used
short rests (work-to-rest rato of 1:3) while the other used
long rests (work-to-rest rato of 1:6). Assuming a 1-second
concentric, a 1-second pause and a 1-second eccentric, as
well as an average of 10 of repettons per set, this
translates to approximately 1.5 minutes of rest for the
short-rest period group and 3 minutes for the long-rest
group. Before and after the interventon, the researchers
measured leg press and bench press 1RM. They found that
the increase in bench press 1RM was 14.4 8.1% for the
short-rest group and 10.5 6.4% for the long-rest group.

They found that the increase in leg press 1RM was 17.5
9.2% for the short-rest group and 17.8 12.3% for the long
rest group. However, the diferences between groups were
not signifcant.

In the studies that did not match work volumes between
the groups training with diferent rest periods, all but two
(i.e. Willardson, 2008; and Buresh, 2009) we can see that
the longer rest periods led to greater gains in strength.
Moreover, in these two, one study compared only relatvely
long rest periods (2 minutes vs. 4 minutes). It is possible
that the greater strength gains observed in the longer-rest
groups occurred as a result of the greater volume of work
that the subjects were able to perform. This suggeston is
supported by the observaton that in the two studies that
compared matched volumes of work (Ahtainen, 2005 and
Gentl, 2010), there were no diferences observed between
the groups in strength gains. On balance, it seems that
strength gains are maximized by longer (>3 minutes) rest
periods and this may be a functon of the greater volume of
work performed when using longer rest periods.
How does reducing the duration of rest periods

affect strength gains?
Two studies have been performed that use reducing rest
periods over a training period, as follows:
De Souza (2010) The researchers compared the efect on
strength and hypertrophy of 8 weeks of resistance-training
using either (1) constant rest intervals, or (2) decreasing
rest intervals. They recruited 20 young, recreatonallytrained subjects and allocated them to one or other of the
training groups, who performed resistance-training
including the bench press and squat exercises. In the frst 2
weeks of training, the subjects performed 3 sets of 10
12RM with 2-minute rests. In the following 6 weeks of
training, the subjects performed 4 sets of 8 10RM and
while the constant-rest group rested 2-minutes between
sets, the decreasing-rest group rested with progressively
shorter rests (2 minutes decreasing to 30 seconds) over the
6 weeks of training. Before and after the interventon, the
researchers measured 1RM bench press and squat, as well
as isokinetc peak knee extension and fexion torque and
muscular cross-sectonal area. The researchers found that
total training volume of the bench press and squat were
signifcantly lower for the decreasing-rest group compared
to the constant-rest group (bench press 9.4% lower, and
squat 13.9% lower). However, they found that there were
no signifcant diferences in the strength gains between
constant-rest period and decreasing-rest period groups
(bench press 28 vs. 37%, squat 34 vs. 34%) or in respect of
isokinetc peak torque.
Page 28
Rest periods, continued...

Souza-Junior (2011) The researchers compared the efect
on strength and hypertrophy of 8 weeks of resistancetraining and creatne supplementaton using either (1)
constant rest intervals, or (2) decreasing rest intervals. They
recruited 22 young, recreatonally-trained males and
allocated them to one or other of the training groups, who
performed resistance-training including the bench press
and squat exercises. In the frst 2 weeks of training, the
subjects all performed exercises with 2-minute rests. In the
following 6 weeks of training, while the constant-rest group
rested 2-minutes between sets, the decreasing-rest group
rested with progressively shorter rests (2 minutes
decreasing to 30 seconds) over the 6 weeks of training.
measured 1RM bench press and squat, as well as isokinetc
peak knee extension and fexion torque and muscular crosssectonal area. The researchers found that total training
volume of the bench press and squat were signifcantly
lower for the decreasing-rest group compared to the
constant-rest group. The researchers found that both
groups displayed signifcant increases in back squat and
bench press 1RM and knee extensor and fexor isokinetc
peak torque but there were no signifcant diferences
between groups for any variable.

Both of these reducing-rest-period studies found that
despite lower training volume being performed by the
shortening rest periods, the decreasing-rest period groups
and the constant-rest period groups both achieved similar
strength gains. It is difcult to interpret these results but
they indicate that reducing rest periods steadily over a
period of tme may in some way mitgate the adverse
efects on strength that short rest periods otherwise seem
to have in most of the rest of the literature. Exactly why this
is the case is very unclear but may relate to progressive
adaptatons relatng to metabolic stress.

While the research is slightly limited and a little confictng,
it seems that when using constant rest periods, longer rest
periods (probably >3 minutes) are better for strength gains.
Reducing rest periods steadily over a period of tme may be
a useful technique of gradually and practcally increasing
the volume of individual workouts.
Page 29
Range of motion
Most lifters instnctvely know that larger range of moton
(ROM) translates to greater gains in strength, most of the
tme. However, a little surprisingly, it is not untl recently
that research has demonstrated this to be the case.
How does ROM affect gains in strength?

The following studies compared increases in strength
between two or more diferent groups as a result of a
chronic (i.e. long-term) training interventon, where at least
two of the groups trained with a single, diferent ROM,
either full ROM or partal ROM. Studies that only compared
groups that trained with multple ROMs with a single group
training with one ROM were not included in this review.
Graves (1989) The researchers assessed the efect of
diferent ROMs of variable resistance training on full ROM
strength. They recruited 28 males and 31 females and
randomly assigned them one of three training groups or a
control group. The training groups performed variable
resistance bilateral knee extension exercises 2 or 3 days per
week for a 10-week period for 1 set of 7 10 reps. The frst
group trained using 120 60 degrees of knee fexion, a
second group trained using 60 0 degrees of knee fexion
(where 0 degrees is full extension) and a third group trained
with full ROM. The researchers measured isometric knee
extension torque at 9, 20, 35, 50, 65, 80, 95, and 110
degrees of knee fexion. The researchers found that in
comparison with the control group, all training groups
improved isometric strength at each angle except for the
frst group (120 60 degrees training ROM) at 9 and 20
degrees and the second group (60 00 degrees training
ROM) at 95 degrees. The researchers found that isometric
strength gains for the full ROM group were similar
throughout the full ROM.
Graves (1992) The researchers compared the efects of
diferent ROMs of resistance-training on the development
of lumbar extension strength through 72 degrees. They
recruited 33 males and 25 females and randomly allocated
them to one of three training groups or a control group. The
training groups performed variable resistance-training
lumbar extension exercise once per week for 12 weeks for 1
set of 8 12 repettons to failure. The frst group trained
using 72 36 degrees of lumbar fexion, a second group
trained using 36 0 degrees of lumbar fexion (where 0
degrees is full extension) and a third group trained with full
ROM. The researchers measured isometric lumbar
extension torque at 72, 60, 48, 36, 24, 12, and 0 degrees of
lumbar fexion. The researchers found that the greatest
increases in lumbar extension torque occurred in the ROMs
trained in each case but these diferences did not reach
statstcal signifcance.
Weiss (2000) The researchers compared the efects of
training with either machine-based parallel or quarter
squats, 3 tmes per week for 9 weeks. They recruited 10

male and 8 female subjects who were untrained and
allocated them to one of three groups: deep squats, shallow
squats and a control group. The deep squat group
performed deep squats and full ROM leg presses. The
shallow squat group performed shallow squats and partal
ROM leg presses. Before and after the interventon, the
researchers tested deep squat 1RM, shallow squat 1RM and
maximum isokinetc squat force at 0.51m/s. The
researchers reported that only the deep squat group
signifcantly improved 1RM shallow squat and 1RM deep
squat in comparison with the control group. Additonally,
the deep squat group signifcantly improved 1RM deep
squat in comparison with the shallow squat group.
However, neither interventon group was able to improve
maximum isokinetc squat force at 0.51m/s compared to
the control group.
Massey (2004) The researchers compared the efects of
training the bench press with either full ROM, partal ROM
or a combinaton of both full ROM and partal ROM. They
recruited 56 male subjects who were not well-trained but
who were already performing some resistance-training and
allocated them into one of three groups, accordingly. All
subjects performed 2 training sessions per week for 10
weeks, lifting 3 sets of 15 reps startng at 65% of 1RM for
full ROM exercises and 100% of full ROM 1RM for partal
ROM exercises. However, weights were increased
whenever all reps were achieved. Before and after the
interventon, the researchers tested 1RM full ROM bench
press. They reported that all groups increased 1RM full
ROM bench press signifcantly (around 25lbs) and they
found no signifcant diferences in full ROM 1RM increases
between the groups. It is unfortunate that the researchers
did not also measure increases in partal ROM 1RM or MVIC
force.
Massey (2005) The researchers compared the efects of
training the bench press with either full ROM, partal ROM
or a combinaton of both full ROM and partal ROM. They
recruited 29 female subjects who were not well-trained but
who were already performing some resistance-training and
allocated them into one of three groups, accordingly. All
subjects performed 2 training sessions per week for 10
weeks, lifting 3 sets of 15 reps startng at 65% of 1RM for
full ROM exercises and 100% of full ROM 1RM for partal
ROM exercises. However, weights were increased
whenever all reps were achieved. Before and after the
interventon, the researchers tested 1RM full ROM bench
press. They reported that all groups increased 1RM full
ROM bench press signifcantly. However, they also found
that full ROM 1RM increased by signifcantly more in the
full ROM group (around 25lbs) than in either of the other
groups (around 16lbs). Again, the researchers did not
measure partal ROM 1RM or MVIC force.
Page 30
Range of motion, continued...

The diferences between the fndings of this study and of
Massey (2004) could lie in diferences between the actual
training status of the two groups, with the males potentally
having more experience with the bench press.
Pinto (2012) The researchers compared partal ROM vs.
full ROM upper-body resistance training on strength. They
recruited 40 young males with no resistance-training
experience and allocated them randomly to one of three
groups: full ROM, partal ROM, and a control. The subjects
in the training groups performed a preacher curl exercise, 2
days per week for 10 weeks in a periodized program. The
full ROM group performed the exercise with full ROM (0 to
130 degrees, where 0 degrees is full elbow extension) ROM
and the partal ROM group performed the exercise with
partal ROM (50 to 100 degrees) ROM. Before and after the
interventon, the researchers measured full ROM preacher
curl 1RM. The researchers found that both full ROM and
partal ROM training group increased full ROM preacher
curl 1RM by 25.7 9.6% and 16.0 6.7%, respectvely. The
increase in full ROM preacher curl 1RM strength was
signifcantly greater in the full ROM group than in the
partal ROM group. Unfortunately, the researchers did not
measure partal ROM 1RM or MVIC.
Hartmann (2012) The researchers compared the efects
of diferent squat variants on the development of full squat
1RM and MVIC. They recruited 23 females and 36 males
with only basic resistance-training experience and allocated
them to one of three groups: deep front squats, deep back
squats and quarter Smith-machine back squats. They also
recruited a further 16 subjects to be a control group. The
interventon groups trained 2 tmes per week for 10 weeks,
which was divided into 2 strength/hypertrophy blocks (5
sets of 8 10RM, then 5 sets of 6 8RM) and a
strength/power block (5 sets of 2 4RM), with 5 minutes of
rest between each set in all cases. Before and after the
interventon, the researchers measured the increase in
deep front squat, deep back squat and quarter Smithmachine back squat performance in each group, as well as
unilateral isometric leg press MVIC with a knee angle of 120
degrees.
The researchers found that the deep front squat group and
the deep back squat group both signifcantly improved
performance in all three dynamic lifts but did not improve
performance in the MVIC test. On the other hand, the
quarter back squat group signifcantly improved quarter
back squat performance, displayed no signifcant changes in
deep front squat performance, and sufered signifcant
declines in both deep back squat and MVIC performance.
However, the gains in quarter back squat performance were
signifcantly greater in the quarter back squat group than in
the other groups.
Bloomquist (2013) The researchers compared the efects

of short ROM and long ROM squat training on short ROM
squat 1RM and long ROM squat 1RM as well as MVIC knee
extension torque at knee angles of 40, 75 and 105 degrees
(where full knee extension is 0 degrees). They recruited 24
young male subjects with little experience of resistancetraining and allocated them to either a short ROM squat
group or a long ROM squat group. Both groups performed a
periodized program that included both sets to failure and
sets not to failure for 3 4 sets of 3 10 reps. The short
ROM squat group performed the squat from 0 60 degrees
of knee fexion (0 degrees being full knee extension) while
the long ROM squat group performed the squat from 0
120 degrees of knee fexion.
The researchers reported that the long ROM squat group
increased 1RM in both the short ROM squat and long ROM
squat by around 20 3 % while the short ROM squat group
increased 1RM in the short ROM squat by 36 4% and long
ROM squat by 9 2%. The short ROM squat group
increased short ROM squat performance by signifcantly
more than the long ROM squat group and the long ROM
squat group increased long ROM squat performance by
signifcantly more than the short ROM squat group.
Additonally, the researchers found that the long ROM
squat group improved isometric knee extension strength at
105 degrees of knee fexion by signifcantly more than the
short ROM squat group (i.e. where the knee is most fexed,
as full knee extension is 0 degrees).
McMahon (2013) The researchers compared the efects
of training and detraining using long and short ROMs. They
recruited 26 recreatonally actve subjects and allocated
them to either a long ROM group, a short ROM group, or a
control group. Both training groups performed 8 weeks of
resistance-training and 4 weeks detraining, involving
isoinertal resistance training with either a short muscle
length (0 50 degrees knee fexion) or with a long muscle
length (0 90 degrees knee fexion), 3 tmes per week at
80% of 1RM using the squat, leg press and leg extension.
measured MVIC knee extension torque at a range of angles
(i.e. 30, 50, 60, 65, 70, 75 and 90 degrees, where full knee
extension = 0 degrees).
The researchers found that on average the long ROM group
experienced greater gains in strength than the short ROM
group (18 2% vs. 4 2%). The researchers also observed
angular specifcity of training in both groups with the short
ROM group signifcantly increasing MVCs at 50, 60, 65 and
70 degrees while the long ROM group increased MVCs over
the entre angular range i.e. 30 90 degrees). Additonally,
during detraining, the short ROM group displayed faster
losses of strength gains than the long ROM group.
Page 31
Range of motion, continued...

Full ROM dynamic strength gains
Weiss (2000), Massey (2005), Hartmann (2012), Pinto
(2012), and Bloomquist (2013) all found that full ROM
exercises increased strength in full ROM exercises by
signifcantly more than partal ROM exercises. However,
Massey (2005) found that full ROM and partal ROM
exercises led to similar strength gains in full ROM exercises.
The reason for this diferent study result is unclear but may
have resulted from over-familiarity of the subjects in this
trial with the full ROM bench press exercise.
Full ROM exercises lead to the greatest gains in full ROM

strength while partal ROM exercises lead to the greatest
gains in partal ROM strength.
Partal ROM exercises can be used to generate smaller gains
in full ROM strength where variety in exercise selecton is
needed, such as where athletes have already been using a
full ROM movement for some tme (e.g. the competton
lifts for power-lifters).
Partial ROM dynamic strength gains

Hartmann (2012) and Bloomquist (2013) found that partal
ROM exercises increased strength in partal ROM exercises
by signifcantly more than full ROM exercises. Weiss (2000)
found no signifcant diference between the full ROM and
partal ROM groups but the full ROM group increased
partal ROM squat by more than the control group while the
partal ROM group did not. Why this diferent study result
occurred is unclear.
Isometric strength gains
Graves (1989), Bloomquist (2013) and McMahon (2013)
each found that isometric strength gains were specifc to
the ROM through which subjects trained using dynamic
exercises and while Graves (1992) observed a similar trend,
the results were not statstcally signifcant. Hartmann
(2012) surprisingly found that while full ROM groups did not
display any improvement in isometric strength, the partal
ROM group displayed a decrease in isometric strength,
which the researchers attributed to a lack of motvaton.
Overall, therefore, it seems that gains in isometric strength
at specifc joint angles are specifc to the dynamic ROMs in
which the subjects trained.
ROM-specificity
Strength gains appear to be broadly ROM-specifc, with full
ROM exercises increasing full ROM strength and partal
ROM exercises increasing partal ROM strength, whether
isometric or dynamic. Additonally, there appears to be a
certain degree of cross-transfer with both full and partal
ROM exercises providing some increase in partal and full
ROM strength, respectvely. Finally, while not covered in
this review, some studies have found that full ROM
resistance-training exercises lead to greater gains in vertcal
jump height (e.g. Hartmann, 2012), which suggests that full
ROM exercises may be better for increasing power.

Full ROM exercises should generally be used where
individuals wish to maximize strength gains over the full
ROM.
Page 32
Eccentric versus concentric training

Muscle acton (eccentric vs. concentric) is altered fairly
infrequently by strength coaches in resistance-training
programs, although researchers have often recommended
using eccentric-only muscle actons for enhancing strength.
However, many of the studies supportng this positon use
isokinetc training, which is not in common use by athletes.
So does eccentric-only training really lead to greater
strength gains than conventonal or concentric-only training
when only isoinertal training studies are assessed?

Biological plausibility
Eccentric-only muscle actons may be able to lead to greater
strength gains for several reasons: (1) they involve a lower
energy cost for the same amount of mechanical tension
(e.g. Peailillo, 2013). Thus, lifters are able to perform a
greater volume of work while taxing their work capacity to
the same degree, (2) they enable athletes to lift a larger
amount of weight than during concentric-only or stretchshortening cycle muscle actons with the same percentage
of 1RM (e.g. Flanagan, 2013, and Moir, 2013). This may lead
to greater mechanical tension for the same relatve load
and greater strength-related adaptatons, and (3) they
appear to cause earlier actvaton of the higher threshold
motor units (e.g. Hortobagyi, 2000, and Hortobagyi, 1996),
which are capable of displaying greater amounts of force.
There therefore appears to be biological plausibility for
using eccentric-only muscle actons to improve strength.
Matched relative load or matched volume?
The absolute load that individuals can lift is considerably
diferent between concentric-only and eccentric-only
versions of the same lift (e.g. Moir, 2013) estmated that
the 1RM eccentric-only bench press was 165% of the
stretch-shortening cycle 1RM). Since researchers often use
the same absolute load in both conditons, the relatve load
used for the eccentric-only conditon is therefore lower.
Alternatvely, where the same relatve load is used,
researchers often use the same set/rep scheme for both
conditons, which means that the volume of work
performed is higher in the eccentric-only conditon. This
makes it difcult to compare concentric-only and eccentriconly training programs, as both volume and relatve load
become known confounding factors.
Isokinetic or isoinertial training?
In the literature investgatng the efects of eccentric-only
versus concentric-only muscle actons on strength gains,
around half of the available studies seem to use isokinetc
training methods and around half seem to use isoinertal
training methods. However, isokinetc methods are only
infrequently used by athletes. Thus, it is important to
understand the literature in respect of solely isoinertal
training, as this method has greater ecological validity.
Isokinetic, isometric or isoinertial testing?

Strength testng is a very difcult area to compare in the
literature investgatng the efects of muscle acton on
strength gains. This is because there are so many optons.
Researchers might choose to analyze any of the following
diferences that might arise between the training
conditons: isoinertal eccentric 1RM, isoinertal concentric
1RM, isoinertal eccentric 1RM (in the eccentric group) vs.
isoinertal concentric 1RM (in the concentric group,
isokinetc eccentric force, isokinetc concentric force,
isokinetc eccentric force (in the eccentric group) vs.
Isokinetc concentric force (in the concentric group), and
isometric force. Moreover, in the available studies,
researchers do not always directly compare diferences in
the increases in strength measures between the two
conditons. They may simply report whether each conditon
displayed signifcant increases relatve to baseline. These
aspects make analyzing the literature in a systematc way
extremely difcult without electng to simply eliminate
groups of studies because they dont assess the strength
gains achieved in exactly the same way.
Selection criteria
For the purposes of this review, the following selecton
criteria have been implemented:
Studies including ONLY resistance-training methods
(i.e. subjects did not also perform stretching or aerobic
exercise etc.
Studies comparing at least two groups, one of which
performed ONLY eccentric-only muscle actons and the
other which performed ONLY concentric-only muscle
actons.
Studies in which all subjects trained ONLY isoinertally
and NOT isometrically or isokinetcally.
Studies in which strength was measured EITHER
isometrically, OR isokinetcally, OR isoinertally.
Studies in which strength was compared across the
groups using the same measure for both groups.
These criteria are limited on the one hand because they
exclude many studies. For example, it excludes studies that
compared eccentric-only with stretch-shortening cycle
resistance-training programs. It also excludes studies that
used accentuated eccentric muscle actons and studies that
only used eccentric-only or concentric-only muscle actons
for a proporton of the total exercises performed. On the
other hand, the criteria are limited in that they stll
compare studies that have quite heterogeneous training
and measurement methods. Hopefully, this therefore
strikes a good balance between the two possible
approaches of being either extremely limited in the studies
incorporated or encompassing an extremely wide variety of
training program types and/or measurement methods.
Page 33
Eccentric versus concentric training, continued...
What is the effect of muscle action on strength?

Several studies have been performed comparing the efect
of exclusively either eccentric-only versus exclusively
concentric-only muscle actons during isoinertal resistancetraining on strength gains, in mostly untrained subjects, as
follows:
Vikne (2006) investgated the efects of 12 weeks of either
concentric or eccentric training of the elbow fexors using a
bespoke elbow fexion training machine in 17 resistancetrained males. The subjects trained 2 3 tmes per week
with varying loads. The exercise sessions alternated
between maximum or medium loads. The maximum load
was based on a repetton maximum (4 8RM) while the
medium training load was set to 85 90% of the maximum
load. Over a 2-week period of training, each subject
completed 3 workouts with the maximum load and 2
workouts with the medium load. Inter-set rest periods were
3 6 minutes. In the eccentric conditon, the subjects
lowered the weight over 3 4 seconds while the concentric
conditon, the subjects used maximum efort. The number
of sets was increased from 3 5 over the interventon.
Therefore, the relatve loads used were similar across the
two conditons but it is likely that the volumes were not
matched. Before and after the training interventon, the
researchers measured eccentric-only strength and
concentric-only strength but not stretch-shortening cycle
strength. Concentric 1RM improved by 4.7 2.2kg (18%)
and 3.9 1.3kg (14%) in the concentric-only and eccentriconly groups, respectvely, and the diference in
improvement was not signifcantly diferent. However,
eccentric 1RM improved signifcantly more for the
eccentric-only group (by 8.6 3.3kg or 26%) than for the
concentric-only group (by 3.1 1.3kg or 9%).
Ben-Sira (1995) investgated the efects of eccentric-only,
concentric-only, conventonal and supra-maximal eccentriconly resistance training in 60 untrained young female
students. The subjects performed knee extension exercise 2
tmes per week for 8 weeks. The subjects in the
conventonal group performed 3 sets of 10 bilateral reps
with 65% of 1RM. The supra-maximal eccentric-only group
performed the eccentric phase only of 3 sets of unilateral 5
reps with 130% of 1RM. Therefore, these two groups were
work-matched although it is unclear whether they were
matched in terms of relatve load. The concentric-only and
eccentric-only groups performed only the concentric or
eccentric phases of 3 sets of 10 bilateral reps with 65% of
1RM. These groups were work matched with each other but
were not matched in terms of relatve load. The researchers
reported average weekly strength gains in the concentriconly and eccentric-only groups of 1.8% and 2.1%
respectvely, which were not signifcantly diferent from one
another.
Reeves (2009) investgated the efects of bilateral eccentriconly and conventonal leg press and knee extension
resistance-training in 19 untrained older adults. The
subjects were divided into two groups who both trained 3
tmes per week for 14 weeks at 80% of the muscle-acton
specifc 5RM, performing 2 sets of 10 repettons. Thus, the
relatve load was matched between the two groups.
However, the training volume was not matched between
the two groups, although the researchers did not discern
any signifcant diferences between groups in this respect.
measured the increases in eccentric and concentric knee
extension torque isokinetcally at 50, 100, 150 and 200
degrees/s as well as isometrically at various joint angles.
The eccentric-only group displayed signifcant increases
during eccentric muscle actons of 9 17% across the tested
speeds but only displayed signifcant increase during
concentric muscle actons at 200 degrees/s. The increase in
isometric torque was not quite signifcant (at 7%). The
concentric-only group displayed signifcant increases during
concentric muscle actons of 22 37% across the tested
speeds but did not display any signifcant increase during
eccentric muscle actons at any speed. The increase in
isometric torque was signifcant (9%).
Smith (1995) investgated the efects of 20 weeks of either
concentric-only or eccentric-only unilateral knee extension
resistance-training in 10 young males and females on
strength gains. All subjects trained using both types of
loading protocol, one for each leg. The training program
involved a heavier load for the eccentric group but it was
not clear whether this represented the same relatve load
as for the concentric group. Before and after the
interventon, the researchers measured the changes in
isometric and isokinetc strength. They reported that the
increase in isometric strength was signifcantly greater for
the concentric conditon than for the eccentric conditon
(43.7 19.6 versus 22.9 9.8%). However, there was a
trend for the increase in isokinetc strength to be greater in
the eccentric conditon, although the diference was not
signifcant.
Jones (1987) investgated the efects of 12 weeks of either
eccentric-only or concentric-only unilateral knee extension
resistance-training in 6 young males and females, with one
leg used for the eccentric-only conditon and one leg used
for the concentric-only conditon. The training was
performed 3 tmes per week and comprised 4 sets with a
6RM load, representng around 80% of 1RM for each
muscle acton. A 1-minute inter-set rest period was
provided. The researchers noted that the load used for the
eccentric conditon was around 145% of the load used in
the concentric conditon. The researchers reported that
strength increased by 15% in the concentric-only limb and
by 11% in the eccentric-only limb but there was no
signifcant diference between the two conditons.
Page 34

Johnson (1976) investgated the efects of 6 weeks of either
eccentric-only or concentric-only unilateral training in 8
male university students who performed 4 exercises (arm
curl, press, knee fexion and knee extension), 3 tmes per
week. The concentric-only exercises were performed for 2
sets of 10 repettons using 80% of concentric 1RM and the
eccentric-only exercises were performed using 2 sets of 6
repettons of 120% of concentric 1RM. All subjects
performed all exercises, with one arm and leg being used
for the eccentric-only conditon and the other arm and leg
being used for the concentric-only conditon. There were
signifcant gains in both dynamic and isometric strength
measures for most of the exercises in both the eccentriconly and concentric-only conditons but there were no
signifcant diferences or trends between groups.
Seliger (1968) investgated the efects of 13 weeks of either
eccentric-only or concentric-only training in 15 highly
trained rugby players who performed several upper-body
and lower-body free-weight resistance-training exercises
(including the bench press and squat), 2 tmes per week.
One group performed concentric-only muscle actons with
90 95% of concentric 1RM, while the other group
performed eccentric-only muscle actons with 145 150%
of concentric 1RM. The researchers found that both
concentric-only and eccentric-only groups displayed a
signifcant increase in bench press (13 vs. 9%) and squat
strength (49 vs. 49%), respectvely, but there was no
signifcant diference or trend between the two groups.
Pavone (1985) investgated the efects on isometric
strength of the quadriceps as a result of a 6-week training
program in 27 healthy females who trained 3 tmes per
week using either an eccentric-only, concentric-only or
isometric training approach. The subjects performed 30
repettons per session based on a percentage of eccentric
and concentric 1RM. The researchers found that all 3
groups signifcantly increased in isometric strength but
there was no signifcant diference between groups.
Raue (2005) compared the efects of concentric-only and
eccentric-only unilateral knee extension resistance-training
programs in 15 sedentary, healthy males allocated into 3
groups: concentric, eccentric and control. The subjects
performed 4 sets of 8 repettons with 80% of concentric 1RM, 3 days per week for 4 weeks. Before and after the
interventon, the researchers measured concentric 1RM.
The researchers found that knee extension concentric 1RM
signifcantly increased in the concentric group but not in the
eccentric group (19% vs. 7%, respectvely).
How can these studies be analyzed?

Consideraton of the overall results showed that there was
no obvious trend in favor of either concentric-only or
eccentric-only muscle actons. Comparing outcomes in
groupings (i.e. testng method: isometric, isokinetc or
isoinertal, and testng muscle acton: eccentric or

concentric) was more helpful, as shown below.
Isoinertial
There is no clear trend in the results of the studies that
have compared the strength gains in eccentric-only versus
concentric-only training using an isoinertal measurement
method (such as 1RM). Several studies have found no
diference between the muscle actons used during training
and one or two studies have found a beneft of either
eccentric-only or concentric-only muscle actons.
Isokinetic
There is no clear trend in the results of the studies that
have compared the strength gains in eccentric-only versus
concentric-only training using an isokinetc measurement
method (most likely involving a dynamometer). One study
found a signifcant diference in favor of eccentric-only, one
found no signifcant diference, and one came out in favor
of concentric-only muscle actons.
Isometric
While the literature is limited in respect of the strength
gains occurring in eccentric-only versus concentric-only
muscle actons using an isometric (with a dynamometer)
measurement method, there is a fairly strong trend in favor
of training using concentric-only muscle actons.
Concentric-only
There is a slight trend in favor of concentric-only muscle
actons leading to greater strength gains in studies
comparing eccentric-only versus concentric-only muscle
actons using a concentric-only (either isokinetcally using a
dynamometer or isoinertally using the training equipment)
or stretch-shortening cycle measurement method.
Eccentric-only
Although the number of available studies is limited, there is
a strong indicaton that eccentric-only training leads to
greater increases in eccentric-only strength in studies
comparing eccentric-only versus concentric-only training
using an eccentric-only measurement method (either
isokinetcally using a dynamometer or isoinertally using the
training equipment).
Summary
For isoinertal training involving either eccentric-only or
concentric-only muscle actons, there is a strong trend
albeit based on a very limited number of studies that
training involving eccentric-only muscle actons leads to
greater increases in eccentric strength (isoinertal or
isokinetc) than training involving concentric-only muscle
actons. Similarly, for isoinertal training involving either
eccentric-only or concentric-only muscle actons, there is a
strong trend albeit based on a very limited number of
studies that training involving concentric-only muscle
actons leads to greater increases in isometric strength than
training involving eccentric-only muscle actons.
Page 35

The literature is confictng regarding whether training
involving eccentric-only or concentric-only muscle actons
leads to diferent improvements in isoinertal (eccentriconly or concentric-only) or isokinetc (eccentric-only or
concentric-only) or concentric-only (isoinertal or isokinetc)
strength.

Training using eccentric-only muscle actons seems to lead
to greater increases in strength only when tested during
eccentric-only muscle actons. Therefore, individuals may
not beneft from using this type of training when focusing
purely on increasing concentric or stretch-shortening cycle
strength.
Training using concentric-only muscle actons seems to lead
to greater increases in strength when tested isometrically.
Therefore, individuals may beneft from training using
concentric-only muscle actons for scenarios in which they
are performing isometric or quasi-isometric muscle actons
(e.g. the bottom of a squat or bench press for powerlifters).
Training using eccentric-only muscle actons seems to lead
to markedly greater increases in strength when tested
during eccentric-only muscle actons. Therefore, where
individuals need to enhance deceleraton abilites or the
ability to control hard landings, training using eccentric-only
muscle actons may be benefcial.
Page 36
Volume
Whether a greater volume of resistance-training leads to
greater strength gains is the subject of much debate in the
ftness industry. Moreover, if a greater volume of training
does lead to bigger gains, at what point might these gains
stop increasing? If three sets are better than one set, are six
sets better than three sets? And if six sets are better than
three sets, are nine sets better than six sets?

Introduction
Volume is perhaps one of the easiest training variables to
manipulate. Whats more, since strength is relatvely simple
to measure (at least in comparison with hypertrophy), there
are probably more studies investgatng the efects of
training volume on strength than have been done on almost
any other training variable. Recent meta-analyses by
Krieger (2009), Peterson (2004), and Rhea (2003) have
suggested that volume is a very important factor for
strength gains. However, some researchers have critcized
the fndings of these meta-analyses and subsequent
positon stands based upon them for various reasons
(Winett, 2004; Otto, 2006; Carpinelli, 2004; Carpinelli, 2009;
and Fisher, 2011). There are clearly difcultes in
performing meta-analyses of the literature exploring the
efects of training variables in long-term trials because of
heterogeneity in the study characteristcs. Equally,
however, narratve reviews are plagued by (recognized or
unrecognized) biases of the individuals writng them.
Selection criteria
Since the frst secton of the review details the studies
included in the meta-analysis by Krieger (2009), this review
uses the selecton criteria set out in that study, of which the
key ones for our purposes are as follows:
Resistance-training program of >4 weeks
Performing >1 exercise in >1 major muscle group (i.e.
quadriceps, hamstrings, pectoralis major, latssimus
dorsi, biceps, triceps, and deltoids)
Subjects are healthy adults >19 years old
Single and multple sets per exercise compared
All other training variables are equivalent (so far as
possible)
Dynamic 1RM strength measured pre- and postinterventon
Obviously, for the meta-analysis, it was also necessary to
require that efect sizes could be calculated, which is not
necessary for our purposes. Examples of excluded studies
that stll explored the efects of volume on strength gains
are Kelly (2007), which only measured isokinetc strength
gains, Marx (2001) and Gonzlez-Badillo (2005), which
compared programs that difered in ways other than simply

the number of sets of each exercise, and Pollock (1993),
which did not measure strength in a major muscle group,
How does volume affect strength gains?

The following chronic training studies have explored the
efects of diferent volumes of training on strength gains in
both untrained and trained individuals. This analysis is
divided into two sectons. The frst secton covers the 14
trials included in the most recent meta-analysis by Krieger
(2009). The second secton covers those trials published
since that date, which were not included in that metaanalysis.
Arce Esquivel and Welsch (2007) compared high- and lowvolume whole-body circuit training in 35 young subjects.
The circuit training comprised 8 statons and was performed
3 days per week for 5 weeks. The high volume group
performed 3 sets per staton and the low volume group
performed 1 set per staton. Strength measures were taken
pre- and post-interventon and included hand grip, knee
extension and bench press. The researchers found
signifcant but similar strength gains in both groups. The
non-signifcant diferences difered between the tests and
there was no strong trend.
Borst (2001) investgated the efect of training volume on
strength gains in 31 middle-aged men and women. The
subjects performed either 1-set or 3-sets of resistancetraining for 25 weeks, 3 days per week. Strength was
measured by reference to 1RM leg extension and chest
press exercises. The researchers found that the strength
gains were signifcantly higher with 3-set training compared
to with 1-set.
Galvo (2005) performed a randomized trial in 28
community-dwelling men and women aged 65 78 years.
The subjects were allocated to either a 1-set or a 3-set
group and both groups performed progressive resistance
training consistng of 7 exercises targetng the major muscle
groups of the upper and lower body on exercise machines 2
tmes per week for 20 weeks using an 8RM load. Strength
was measured by reference to the isoinertal 1RM of the 7
exercises, as well as isokinetc and isometric knee extensor
strength, and muscle endurance for the chest press and leg
press exercises. The researchers reported that isoinertal
1RM strength increased signifcantly in both exercise groups
for all 7 exercises and the gain was signifcantly greater in
the 3-set group greater for the seated row, triceps
extension, and knee extension exercises. Muscular
endurance gains were greater in the 3-set group than the 1set group but there was no signifcant diference between
groups for isokinetc and isometric knee extensor strength.
Page 37
Volume, continued...
Hass (2000) compared the efects of a 1-set and a 3-set
resistance-training program on muscular strength and
endurance in 42 adult recreatonal weight lifters with 6.2
4.6 years of resistance-training experience. The subjects
performed either 1 or 3 sets of 8 12 repettons to
muscular failure 3 days per week for 13 weeks in a using a
9-exercise resistance training circuit. Measures of strength
included 1RM leg extension, leg curl, chest press, overhead
press, and biceps curl and muscular endurance was tested
in the chest press and leg extension at 75% of preinterventon 1RM. The researchers found that both groups
signifcantly improved muscular endurance and 1RM
strength but there was no signifcant diference between
groups.
Humberg (2007) compared the efects of a 1-set and a 3-set
resistance-training program on muscular strength in 29
untrained men and women over a 9-week training period.
The subjects performed either 1 or 3 sets of 8 12
repettons. Pre- and post-interventon, the researchers
measured 1RM biceps curl, unilateral leg press, and bench
press. The researchers found that both 1-set and 3-set
groups signifcantly improved 1RM in all lifts but the
increases were signifcantly higher in the 3-set program for
the biceps curl and the bench press compared with the 1set program.
Kemmler (2004) compared the efects of a single- vs. a
multple-set (2 4 sets) resistance training protocol in 71
trained early postmenopausal women over a 12-week
period. Pre- and post-interventon, the researchers
measured leg press, bench press, rowing, and leg adducton
1RM. The researchers found that the multple-set conditon
led to signifcant increases in strength in all 4
measurements but single-set training did not.
Kraemer (1997) compared the efects of a single set of
resistance-training exercise to failure with two diferent
multple-set protocols (not to failure) on lower-body
strength in 43 males over a 14-week period. The single set
to failure was performed for 8 12 repettons, the frst
multple set program comprised 3 sets of 10 repettons,
and the second multple set program comprised a varied set
and repetton scheme. Pre- and post-interventon, the
researchers measured 1RM parallel squat. The researchers
reported that 1RM parallel squat increased signifcantly in
all groups. The researchers also found that the increases in
the multple set groups were greater than the increase in
the single-set group, even though they were not performed
to muscular failure.
McBride (2003) compared the efects of a 12-week
resistance-training program in 1-set or 6-set groups of 28
untrained males and females, training twice a week, on leg
press and biceps curl 1RM. The researchers found that both
groups signifcantly increased 1RM in both exercises.

Additonally, they found that the 6-set group displayed a
signifcantly greater increase in biceps curl 1RM than the 1set group.
Munn (2005) compared the efects of resistance training
using biceps curls with either 1 or 3 sets in 115 healthy,
untrained subjects over a 6-week training period, training 3
tmes per week. The subjects trained using a 6 8RM load
to muscular failure, with 2 minutes of inter-set rest, for
either 1 or 3 sets. Pre- and post-interventon, the
researchers measured 1RM biceps curl strength. They
reported that the 3-set group displayed a greater increase
in strength than the 1-set group.
Ostrowski (1997) investgated the efects of 3 diferent
volumes (low, moderate and high) of resistance training on
muscle size over a 10-week period in 27 males with 1 4
years weight-training experience, training 4 days a week.
Pre- and post-interventon, the researchers measured 1RM
squat and bench press. The researchers reported that each
group led to signifcantly increased strength with no
signifcant between-group diferences. There was a slight
trend towards superior gains in the lower body in the high
volume group (high: 11.6%, moderate: 5.5%, and low:
7.5%). However, for the upper body, there was a trend for
the low and moderate volume groups to outperform the
high volume group (high: 1.9, moderate: 5.0%, and low:
4.0%).
Paulsen (2003) compared the efects of 1-set and 3-sets of
resistance-training in 18 untrained male subjects, training 3
days per week over a 6-week period. Pre-and postinterventon, the researchers measured strength using knee
extension and bench press isometric tests and 1RM tests
for the exercises used in the program (squat, knee
extension, leg curl, bench press, shoulder press, row, and
lat pull-down). The exercises were performed for 7
repettons to muscular failure. The researchers reported
that 1RM in all training exercises signifcantly increased in
both groups but the increase in the lower-body exercises
but not the upper-body exercises was signifcantly greater
in the 3-set conditon compared to the 1-set conditon.
Rhea (2002) compared 1-set and 3-set protocols of
resistance-training in 16 recreatonally trained young males,
training 3 days per week for 12 weeks on the bench press
and leg press using 4 8RM loads. Pre- and postinterventon, the researchers measured 1RM bench press
and leg press. The researchers found that the increase in leg
press 1RM was statstcally signifcantly greater in the 3-set
group and the increase in bench press displayed a similar
but non-signifcant trend in the same directon.
Page 38
Rnnestad (2007) compared the efects of 1-set and 3-set
resistance-training on strength gains in 21 untrained males,
training 3 days per week for 11 weeks using 7 10RM loads.
The subjects performed 3 leg exercises and 5 upper-body
exercises. Pre- and post-interventon, the researchers
measured 1RM in all leg and upper-body exercises and also
in 2 isokinetc tests. The researchers reported that the
increase in 1RM in lower-body exercises was signifcantly
higher in the 3-set group but there was no similar
diference in respect of upper-body exercises. Peak maximal
isokinetc knee extension torque also increased more in the
3-set group than in the 1-set group.
Schlumberger (2001) compared the efects of 1-set and 3set strength training in 27 female subjects with basic
resistance-training experience. The subjects trained 2 days
a week for 6 weeks using bilateral leg extension, bilateral
leg curl, abdominal crunch, seated hip adducton-abducton,
seated bench press, and lat pull-down exercises. Both
groups performed 6 9 repettons to muscular failure with
inter-set and inter-exercise rest intervals of 2 minutes. Preand post-interventon, the researchers tested 1RM bilateral
leg extension and 1RM seated machine chest press. The
researchers reported that both training groups made
signifcant strength improvements in 1RM leg extension
(although the 3-set group displayed a greater increase) but
only the 3-set group signifcantly improved 1RM seated
machine chest press.
Since the date of the most recent meta-analysis performed
by Krieger, there have been at many new studies performed
exploring the efects of volume on strength gains, in various
populatons, as follows:
Marzolini (2008) compared resistance training in 1-set or 3set groups, when combined with aerobic training in 72
individuals with coronary artery disease, although only 53
subjects with a mean age of 61 2 years completed the
interventon. The researchers reported that both 1-set and
3-set groups increased both muscular strength and
endurance but there were no diferences between groups.
Cannon and Marino (2010) compared the efects of highand low-volume moderate-intensity resistance-training on
various measures of leg strength in untrained young and
older women. The subjects performed either 1 set or 3 sets
of 10 repettons for the bilateral leg extension and bilateral
leg curl at 50 75% of 1RM, 3 days per week for 10 weeks.
The researchers found that neither age nor training volume
had any modifying efect on strength gains. They found a
non-signifcant trend in favour of the lower volume group.
Marshall (2011) and Robbins (2012) both reported on a trial
to assess the efects of 1, 4, or 8 sets of squats on strength
gains in 32 resistance-trained individuals over a 6-week
period. The squats were performed at 80% of 1RM to
muscular failure, twice per week. The researchers found

that squat 1RM signifcantly increased in all three groups
but the 8-set group displayed signifcantly greater increases
than the 1-set group.
Bottaro (2011) compared the efects of resistance training
volume on strength gains in 24 untrained young males,
randomly assigned into two groups. The subjects performed
either 3 sets of knee extension and 1 set of elbow fexion or
1 set of knee extensions and 3 sets of elbow fexion,
training 2 days per week for 12 weeks. The researchers
found that the increase in elbow fexion peak torque was
similar in the high- and low-volume conditons (12.5% vs.
11.2%) but the increase in knee extension peak torque was
only signifcant in the high-volume group (10.9% vs. 5.1%).
Andersen (2011) compared the efects of two diferent
volumes of resistance-training for relieving neck and
shoulder pain in healthy adults (174 females and 24 males)
with frequent symptoms. They also measured strength
gains. The subjects performed elastc band resistancetraining for either 2 or 12 minutes per day 5 tmes per
week. Both groups increased maximal voluntary isometric
shoulder abducton moment at 90 degrees of shoulder
angle but there were no signifcant or non-signifcant
diferences between the groups.
Hanssen (2013) compared the efects of 1-set and 3-sets of
training volume on strength gains and the actvaton of
satellite cells in 21 healthy but untrained men, who trained
for 3 sessions per week for 11 weeks. The workouts
comprised leg press, leg extension, leg curl, seated chest
press, seated rowing, lat pull-down, biceps curl, and
shoulder press exercises. The researchers found that knee
extension strength increased signifcantly more in the 3-set
group compared to the 1-set group but strength gains in
shoulder press was similar in both groups.
Naclerio (2013) compared the efects of 3 diferent
resistance-training volumes (1 set, 2 sets, and 3 sets per
exercise) on maximum strength in 32 college team sport
athletes (20 males and 12 females) with no previous
resistance-training experience over a 6-week interventon.
The researchers found that upper body 1RM measures
increased signifcantly in all groups but 1RM squat only
increased in the high volume group. There was also a nonsignifcant trend for the high volume group to display a
greater increase in upper body 1RM measures than the
other groups.
Sooneste (2013) investgated the diferental efects on
strength gains of training both arms of the same subject in a
crossover-like design with diferent training volumes (1 or 3
sets) in 8 sedentary, untrained young Japanese men. The
subjects trained their elbow fexor muscles 2 tmes per
week for 12 weeks using a seated dumbbell preacher curl
with 80% of 1RM.
Page 39
The researchers reported that the 3-set protocol increased
non-signifcantly more than the 1 set protocol (31.7 22.0%
vs. 20.4 21.6%).
Radaelli (2013) compared the efects of low- and highvolume strength training on strength gains of the lowerand upper-body in 20 healthy, older women. The subjects
were randomly assigned into two groups: low-volume and
high-volume, where the low-volume group performed 1-set
of each exercise, while the high-volume group performed 3sets of each exercise, 2 tmes per week for 13 weeks. The
researchers found that there was a signifcant increase in
lower- and upper-body strength in both groups with no
signifcant diference between groups. However, there was
a non-signifcant trend for greater strength gains in the
high-volume group compared to the low-volume group for
knee extension 1RM (38.3 7.3% vs. 31.8 20.5%) but not
for elbow fexion 1RM (26.6 8.9% vs. 25.1 9.5%).
Radaelli (2014) compared the efects of low- and highvolume strength training on strength gains in lower- and
upper-body muscles in elderly women. The subjects were
randomly assigned into two groups: low-volume and highvolume, where the low-volume group performed 1-set of
each exercise, while the high-volume group performed 3sets of each exercise, 2 tmes per week for 13 weeks. Preand post-interventon, the researchers measured knee
extension and elbow fexion 1RM, maximum isometric
strength. They found that both knee extension and elbow
fexion 1RM improved signifcantly for both groups but knee
extension 1RM gains were signifcantly greater for the highvolume group than for the low-volume group.
How can we analyze these studies?

Overall effect of volume
In summary, 16 of the 24 trials found that at least one
measure of strength was signifcantly greater in the highvolume group or conditon compared to the low-volume
group or conditon. Additonally, in 2 further trials that
reported no signifcant diference, there was a clear
numerical diference in favor of higher volume training that
may have arisen from type II error. One other trial reported
a clear numerical diference that may have arisen from type
II error in favor of lower volume training. Thus, we can
conclude that greater training volume appears to produce
superior strength gains, although the exact dose-response
is not entrely clear.
(2007) also reported that the increase in 1RM in lower-body

exercises was signifcantly higher in the 3-set group but
there was no similar diference in respect of upper-body
exercises. Rhea (2002) found that the increase in leg press
1RM was signifcantly greater in the 3-set group than in the
1-set group but the increase in bench press only displayed a
non-signifcant trend in the same directon. Bottaro (2011)
found that increases in elbow fexion peak torque were
signifcant in both high- and low-volume conditons but the
increase in knee extension peak torque was only signifcant
in the high-volume group. Radaelli (2013) found a nonsignifcant trend for greater strength gains in the highvolume group compared to the low-volume group for knee
extension 1RM but not for elbow fexion 1RM. Radaelli
(2014) found that while both knee extension and elbow
fexion 1RM improved signifcantly for high- and lowvolume groups, knee extension 1RM gains were
signifcantly greater for the high-volume group than for the
low-volume group. Hanssen (2013) found that knee
extension strength increased more in a 3-set group
compared to a 1-set group but strength gains in shoulder
press was similar in both groups.

Training with multple sets to achieve a higher volume of
training appears to lead to greater strength gains,
irrespectve of training status, body part and age.
There appears to be a dose-response to volume of training
to a degree, although it is not clear at what point increasing
doses cease to be increasingly efectve. Volumes of up to 8
sets have been found superior in lower-body training
programs.
The lower-body may be more responsive to volume than
the upper-body. Increasing training volume therefore
appears to be a key factor for maximizing strength gains for
the lower-body while other factors may be as important or
more important for the upper body.
Differences between upper- and lower-body

There is some fairly good evidence that the lower-body is
more responsive to a higher volume of training than the
upper-body. Paulsen (2003) found that the increase in
strength in the lower-body exercises but not in the upperbody exercises was signifcantly greater in the 3-set
conditon compared to the 1-set conditon. Rnnestad
Page 40

Strength PDFTraining For Strength

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Strength PDFTraining For Strength

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

TRAINING

Strength and Conditioning Research

STRENGTH & CONDITIONING RESEARCH

TRAINING FOR STRENGTH

Strength gains seem to be achieved most efectvely

Strength training programs should default to making use

Training using a specifc ROM for the strength

Strength training programs can be progressed by

The literature is confictng but there seems to be

Individuals who are pressured for tme might expect to

There is a trend for a higher volume-matched

For trained individuals, increasing frequency may be an

Training with both heavy and light loads can lead to

Trainees can be assured that some strength gains will

The literature is very confictng and the picture is

Individuals looking to improve strength may wish to

Where individuals have the ability to recover from

For untrained individuals, increasing frequency may not

Strength and Conditioning Research

STRENGTH & CONDITIONING RESEARCH

TRAINING FOR STRENGTH

Deliberately using a slow bar speed that necessitates the

Although conclusions are made slightly difcult by

Incorporatng training to failure can lead to better

While only a few studies have been performed

While the research is slightly limited and a little

Reducing rest periods steadily over a period of tme may

Strength and Conditioning Research

STRENGTH & CONDITIONING RESEARCH

TRAINING FOR STRENGTH

Isoinertal training involving eccentric-only muscle

Greater training volume seems very likely to

Training using eccentric-only muscle actons seems to

Strength and Conditioning Research

STRENGTH & CONDITIONING RESEARCH

TRAINING FOR STRENGTH

What are training variables?

How is this e-book structured?

Relatve load (proporton of 1RM)

In each secton, I have collated all of the relevant studies

Is this e-book right for you?

Strength and Conditioning Research

STRENGTH & CONDITIONING RESEARCH

TRAINING FOR STRENGTH

Greg Nuckols says

What are the problems in the literature?

Where should future research focus?

What is the most important training variable?

What is the most important uncontrollable variable?

How should we move forward?

In studies using relevant exercises and protocols, theres

Strength and Conditioning Research

STRENGTH & CONDITIONING RESEARCH

TRAINING FOR STRENGTH

Frequency (not volume-matched).................................................................................................................................................................. 9

Relative load (heavy loads versus light loads)............................................................................................................................................. 15

Relative load (heavy versus moderate loads).............................................................................................................................................. 18

Bar speed (relative load controlled).............................................................................................................................................................20

Bar speed (relative load not controlled).......................................................................................................................................................23

10. Eccentric versus concentric training.............................................................................................................................................................33

Strength and Conditioning Research

TRAINING FOR STRENGTH

1. TRAINING FOR STRENGTH