Training For Hypertrophy PDF

TRAINING FOR HYPERTROPHY
Strength and Conditioning Research
STRENGTH & CONDITIONING RESEARCH
SU
ARY
It is very difcult at the present time to make any kind of defnitive assessment whether the use of heavy loads (i.e. >65 of !R"# is superior to the use of li$hter loads (%65 of !R"# for producin$ muscular hypertrophy in untrained individuals. &hile there is evidence that li$hter loads are a'le to produce hypertrophy( it is possi'le that this de$ree of hypertrophy may 'e sli$htly less than that achieva'le with heavier loads. *sin$ multiple sets to achieve a hi$her volume of trainin$ appears to lead to $reater hypertrophy than usin$ either sin$le sets or a smaller volume of trainin$. +owever( the current literature is pla$ued 'y a lack of hi$h ,uality studies with sufcient statistical power and this conclusion can only 'e drawn 'ased on a metaanalysis of studies and 'ased on a review of non-si$nifcant trends. It is very hard to make a defnitive statement a'out the e.ect of trainin$ to muscular failure on hypertrophy 'ecause of the very small num'er of studies( +owever( it seems that hypertrophy mi$ht 'e $reater when trainin$ to failure in comparison with trainin$ not-to-failure where other trainin$ varia'les are e,uated. /ince some evidence su$$ests that trainin$ to failure may increase the risk of overtrainin$( alternatin$ 'etween periods of trainin$ to failure and not trainin$ to failure may 'e the 'est option. 1here appears to 'e a very limited trend towards a hi$her volume-matched fre,uency leadin$ to $reater hypertrophy in trained su'2ects. +owever( this conclusion is very tentative and further research is clearly needed in this area. 3n the other hand( in untrained su'2ects a hi$her volume-matched trainin$ fre,uency seems to have no e.ect or may even have a detrimental e.ect on hypertrophy. /tudies comparin$ short and lon$ f4ed rest periods have reported con5ictin$ results. +owever( trainin$ volume was not always e,uated and the $roups that used shorter rest periods o6en trained with lower volume( which makes them hard to compare. /tudies comparin$ f4ed with reducin$ rest periods have found that the duration of rest periods had no e.ect on muscular hypertrophy( even when volume was lower. 1he research in this area is very limited 'ut there is some evidence that trainin$ with a $reater ran$e-ofmotion leads to $reater hypertrophy than trainin$ with a smaller ran$e-of-motion. Repetition speed appears to have li7le( if any( e.ect on hypertrophy. +owever( repetition speed may 'e important for other outcomes( such as speed and power. It seems possi'le that eccentric muscle actions may lead to $reater hypertrophy than concentric muscle actions 'ut the literature is far from 'ein$ conclusive.
Relative load
)olume
"uscular failure
0re,uency
Rest periods
Ran$e of motion
Repetition speed
"uscle action
1his document is copyri$ht /tren$th and 8onditionin$ Research 9imited( :;!<. =ret and 8hris 'oth work very hard to 'rin$ you this information. >lease help us to continue our work 'y not sharin$ it with your friends( however temptin$ it may 'e. 0ind more reviews at the we'site?
Page :
FORE!ORD "Y #A ES FISHER Chris "eards$e% sa%s&&& 0or this collection of reviews( I was deli$hted when my friend @ames 0isher a$reed to write a short foreword. @ames is a very well-known and hi$hly respected sports scientist workin$ in the areas of 'oth stren$th and hypertrophy and he shares my keen interest in promotin$ the importance of lon$-term trainin$ studies for a 'e7er understandin$ of hypertrophy. I hasten to add that @ames and I donAt always a$ree on the e4act interpretation of the literature (in fact this is rarely the case?# 'ut I fnd that 'ecause of our disa$reements I learn more from readin$ what @ames has to say than I do from readin$ people with whom I a$ree. It was in this spirit of a desire to learn rather than a desire to 'e Bri$htC that I asked @ames to contri'ute to this collection of reviews 'y writin$ a foreword.
!hat is the 'ost i')ortant +ncontro$$a*$e .aria*$e,

3f course the most si$nifcant( 'ut uncontrolla'le varia'le( is that of our $eneticsG 'y understandin$ that we are not identical directs us on a path to seek our own individually prescriptive trainin$ routine. 3ther varia'les mi$ht a.ect $rowth to a varyin$ de$reeG however limitations in the literature hinder defnitive conclusions. D muscle does not reco$niEe a di.erence 'etween resistance types( and a ma4imal repetition is ma4imal whether it is a sin$le repetition or the fnal repetition in a set.
Ho/ sho+$d /e 'o.e -or/ards,

In my opinion( reviews of research such as this provide an e4cellent foundation which we should consider with intellectual analysis( addressin$ the application of the discussed principles honestly in our trainin$ and recordin$ our pro$ress as we try di.erent methods.
#a'es Fisher sa%s(

1he present piece represents a sound review of the 'ody of literature surroundin$ resistance trainin$ for muscular hypertrophy.
!hat are the )ro*$e's in the $iterat+re,

*ne,uivocally( this area of research is hindered with difculties in comparin$ studies( whether that 'e di.erin$ methods of measurin$ hypertrophy( or the statistical analyses (which of course are further limited 'y under-powered research studies#. D vast ma2ority of research considerin$ resistance trainin$ has utiliEed untrained participants( potentially to the 'ias of the scientist seekin$ si$nifcant values which make their research more a7ractive to pu'lication.
!here sho+$d -+t+re research -oc+s,

0urther research should certainly consider trained participants( over lon$er duration interventions( as well as the inclusion of more realistic workouts (e.$. full 'ody( or multiple e4ercises( as opposed to sin$le e4ercises#.
!hat is the 'ost i')ortant training .aria*$e,

In my own review in :;!F( and from the present piece it appears that intensity of e.ort( or trainin$ to muscular failure appears the most si$nifcant controlla'le varia'leG this is supported 'y the evidence and is lo$ical in the se,uential recruitment accordin$ to the well esta'lished siEe principle with the $oal 'ein$ ma4imal recruitment of motor units and thus muscle f'ers.
Page F
INTRODUCTION
to the ne4t simply 'y alterin$ pro$rammin$ and monitorin$ the results.
Chris "eards$e% sa%s(

+ypertrophy is one of the most sou$ht-a6er outcomes that resistance-trainin$ pro$rams are intended to achieve. +owever( in spite of the $reat interest in this area( relatively few lon$-term trainin$ studies have 'een performed to assess how the di.erent varia'les within a resistancetrainin$ pro$ram can 'e manipulated to alter the amount of hypertrophy that occurs.
!hat is the )oint o- re.ie/ing $ong0ter' st+dies,

Hiven that many researchers have already performed reviews of the literature relatin$ to hypertrophy( it is fair to ask what a limited review of the lon$-term studies can add. Importantly( few previous reviews have limited themselves to an e4clusive discussion of the chronic( lon$-term trainin$ literature. Inevita'ly( this means that the conclusions of the reviews are colored 'y the acute literature( which as we noted a'ove( leads to less relia'le fndin$s and could potentially cause coaches to make pro$rammin$ errors as the Bhormone hypothesisC previously did.
!hat are $ong0ter' st+dies i')ortant,

"ost of the studies that are discussed in popular forums relatin$ to hypertrophy are actually acute investi$ations of physiolo$ical varia'les. 0or e4ample( studies are o6en performed to assess how di.erent molecular si$nalin$ pathways are activated in response to di.erent trainin$ protocols. 36en( these are taken as evidence of the e.ectiveness of a particular protocol for achievin$ increases in muscular siEe. +owever( in reality( physiolo$y is so comple4 that it is incredi'ly hard to 'e sure that such acute investi$ations will actually lead to meanin$ful chan$es over lon$er periods. D $reat reminder of this fact is the recent demise of the Bhormone hypothesisC which stated that the level of the post-e4ercise ana'olic hormone response was a'le to predict the amount of hypertrophy that occurred. 0or many years( researchers 'elieved that if a workout led to a $reater post-e4ercise ana'olic hormone release( it would cause more hypertrophy. 1his led some stren$th and conditionin$ coaches to structure their pro$rams around ways of increasin$ this post-e4ercise hormone response. +owever( recently( this has 'een found to 'e incorrect. 1here may certainly 'e some 'enefts of acute elevated hormone levels( 'ut their overall importance for hypertrophy appears to 'e $reatly over-e4a$$erated. 1his error underscores how dan$erous it is to 'ase our $uidelines for resistance-trainin$ on acute studies and emphasiEes the importance of knowin$ e4actly what the lon$-term studies say.
!hat does this re.ie/ add,

1his particular review was performed in order to show what we know a'out how hypertrophy is a.ected 'y trainin$ varia'les. Ds you will see( our understandin$ is very much less complete than many would lead you to 'elieve. In fact( amaEin$ as it may seem( we actually know very li7le a'out how to structure a resistance-trainin$ pro$ram so that it causes si$nifcantly more hypertrophy than any other pro$ram.
!hat -actors do ha.e an e1ect,

3verall( it seems that the only factors for which we can make even the most tentative statements areI volume( ran$e-of-motion and muscular failure. It seems that trainin$ with a hi$her volume( a $reater ran$e of motion and to muscular failure all seem to lead to $reater hypertrophy. &ith a still smaller de$ree of confdence( we mi$ht also assert that a hi$her trainin$ fre,uency (in trained su'2ects only# and the use of eccentric muscle actions could also lead to $reater hypertrophy. 0inally( however( it is very difcult to see whether or how relative load( rest periods( and repetition speed a.ect the e4tent to which hypertrophy occurs followin$ stren$th trainin$ pro$rams. 1herefore( it seems lo$ical that for developin$ muscle mass( trainin$ pro$rams should focus on increasin$ volume (either in individual workouts or 'y increasin$ fre,uency#( the use of full ran$es of motion( and trainin$ to muscular failure where possi'le( acknowled$in$ that recovery re,uirements may necessitate switchin$ 'etween periods of trainin$ to failure and not trainin$ to failure. Ddditionally( it is likely most 'enefcial to use e4ercises that involve an eccentric component as well as a concentric component.
!hat do $ong0ter' st+dies in.estigate,

9on$-term studies tend to investi$ate how di.erent trainin$ varia'les can 'e manipulated in order to alter the de$ree of hypertrophy that occurs. 1rainin$ varia'les are those factors that can 'e altered within a resistance-trainin$ pro$ram in an e.ort to ma4imiEe hypertrophy. /uch varia'les include relative load (i.e. percenta$e of !R"#( volume (i.e. num'er of sets and reps at a $iven load#( whether muscular failure is reached( fre,uency (i.e. num'er of times per week#( rest periods( ran$e-of-motion( repetition speed (or duration#( and muscle action (i.e. eccentric or concentric#. *nlike the underlyin$ mechanisms 'y which hypertrophy is thou$ht to occur (mechanical loadin$( meta'olic stress( and muscle dama$e#( these factors can 'e very easily measured from one intervention
Page <
CONTENTS 2& EFFECTS OF TRAINING 3ARIA"4ES ON HYPERTROPHY&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&5

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ". #. Relative load...................................................................................................................................................................................................6 Volume........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Muscular failure........................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Frequency..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Rest eriods..................................................................................................................................................................................................14 Ran!e of motion...........................................................................................................................................................................................16 Re etition s eed...........................................................................................................................................................................................1" Muscle action............................................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Strength and Conditioning Research STRENGTH & CONDITIONING RESEARCH TRAINING FOR HYPERTROPHY
2& TRAINING FOR HYPERTROPHY
Relative load
Introd+ction
&hether heavy loads lead to $reater hypertrophy than li$ht loads is a ma7er of ferce de'ate( 'oth in the ivory towers of sports science circles and on stren$th sports forums worldwide. *nfortunately( these de'ates o6en de$enerate into unproductive ar$uments 'ecause of a lack of knowled$e on one or 'oth sides re$ardin$ the real e4tent of the currently availa'le evidence from lon$-term trainin$ studies. 1his short review sets out the results of the availa'le trainin$ studies and makes it clear how much we know (and how much we donJt know#.
!hat is the *ac6gro+nd,

&hen devisin$ $uidance or recommendations re$ardin$ resistance-trainin$ pro$rams( stren$th and conditionin$ coaches $enerally refer to three di.erent 'ands of relative load( typically descri'ed as heavy (! K 5R"#( moderate (6 K !5R"# and li$ht (!5R"L( which corresponds with %65 of !R"#. &hile the division 'etween heavy and moderate relative loads is somewhat ar'itrary( it is thou$ht that the division 'etween moderate and li$ht loads represents a fundamental dividin$ line. >revious researchers and coaches have $enerally assumed that trainin$ with li$ht loads of %65 of !R" is less e.ective for hypertrophy than trainin$ with heavy loads( even in 'e$inners. >erhaps surprisin$ly( althou$h this is a commonly-held 'elief( the picture from the availa'le trainin$ studies is not at all conclusive.
Indeed( we are fortunate that we have all o'served a very recent lesson in this respect( as the hormone hypothesis is now widely thou$ht to 'e discredited. 0ormerly( evidence from acute studies su$$ested that we should 'uild workouts around their a'ility to cause a si$nifcant rise in post-workout ana'olic hormones. 1his is now 'elieved to 'e unnecessary( or at least lar$ely overrated (see /choenfeld( :;!F#. 1herefore( it seems prudent that we esta'lish very clear statements re$ardin$ what is known a'out a su'2ect frstly from the chronic literature( which can 'e re$arded as stron$ evidence( and secondly from the acute literature( which should 'e re$arded as weaker ('ut still very important# evidence. 1his review is intended to provide a summary of the chronic literature.
Ho/ does re$ati.e $oad a1ect h%)ertro)h%,

In preparin$ this research summary( I am heavily inde'ted to the previously performed review 'y /choenfeld (:;!F#( and the reader is referred to that source for more detailed information. 1he followin$ studies have assessed the di.erences in hypertrophy that result from usin$ heavy vs. li$ht loads in untrained populations. 1o my knowled$e( no studies have 'een performed in trained populations (althou$h /choenfeld is currently workin$ on a paper coverin$ research from his la'oratory in this respect#. Sche+n6e 78928: K the researchers recruited F< untrained females for a 6-week pro$ram and allocated them into either slow-speed (6 K !;R" with !;-second concentric and <-second eccentric( or <; K 6; of !R"#( normal-speedstren$th (6 K !;R" with !-:-second concentric and !-:second eccentric or M; K M5 of !R"#( normal-speedendurance (:; K F;R" with !-:-second concentric and !-:second eccentric or <; K 6; of !R"# or control $roups. 1he su'2ects trained : days per week in week ! and F days per week therea6er( performin$ le$ presses( s,uats and knee e4tensions with : minutes inter-set rest periods. =efore and a6er the 6-week period( the researchers took muscle f'er 'iopsies to assess f'er-type composition and muscular cross-sectional area. 1he normal-speed-stren$th increased type I and type IID f'er area 'y :6.6 N ::.O and F:.P N :;.< ( respectively( 'oth of which increases were si$nifcantly $reater than the other $roups. "oreover( the normal-speed-stren$th $roup increased type IIQ f'er type area 'y <!.! N F:.O ( which was si$nifcantly $reater than the control. 1his was the only si$nifcant di.erence in the chan$e in type IIQ f'er type 'etween the $roups. Ca')os 78998: K the researchers recruited F: untrained males for an M-week resistance-trainin$ pro$ram and allocated them into a low-rep $roup (F K 5R" for < sets of each e4ercise with F minutes of rest 'etween sets and e4ercises#( an intermediate-rep $roup (P K !!R" for F sets with : minutes of rest#( a hi$h-rep $roup (:; K :MR" for : sets with ! minutes rest#( and a control $roup.
!h% do /e need to 6no/ /hat training st+dies sa%,

1his review is necessary not 'ecause there is a lack of hi$hlevel analysis of the overall literature. D6er all( =rad /choenfeld has provided e4haustive discussions of this area in at least two of his deservedly lauded review articles (/choenfeld( :;!; and :;!F#. +owever( in my own discussions with stren$th and conditionin$ professionals and other researchers( I have noted that there is a lack of awareness of where evidence from the chronic (i.e. lon$term# studies ends and where evidence from acute (i.e. very short-term# studies 'e$ins. &hile this mi$ht seem to some people to 'e a dry and unnecessary distinction( it is actually ,uite an important point. 8hronic studies measurin$ hypertrophy do actually tell us how a trainin$ varia'le a.ects muscular siEe directly. 1hey measure the siEe of the muscle 'efore and a6er an intervention and( unless there is a severe 5aw in the study( this $ives us a frm foundation upon which to 'ase recommendations. 3n the other hand( acute studies measure short-term physiolo$ical varia'les that are thou$ht to correspond with $reater muscular hypertrophy over the lon$-term. 1he pro'lem with this is that the measurement is indirect and the human physiolo$ical system is e4tremely comple4( leadin$ to a very hi$h risk of error.
Page O
Relative load continued... 1he su'2ects performed the le$ press( s,uat( and knee e4tension : days per week for the frst < weeks and F days per week for the second < weeks. 1he researchers took muscle 'iopsies 'efore and a6er to assess muscular crosssectional area and f'er-type composition. 1he researchers o'served increases in the cross-sectional area of all F ma2or f'er types (types I( IID( and IIQ# in the low-rep and intermediate-rep $roups 'ut they did not o'serve any si$nifcant increases in either the hi$h-rep or control $roups. Ho$' 7899;: K the researchers recruited !! sedentary males for a !:-week intervention in which each su'2ect trained F times per week( with one le$ at O; of !R" (heavy load# and the other le$ at !5.5 of !R" (li$ht load#. =efore and a6er the intervention( the researchers measured muscular cross-sectional area with ma$netic resonance ima$in$ ("RI# scans and also took muscle 'iopsies. 1hey reported that ,uadriceps muscle crosssectional area increased M N ! and F N ! in the heavy and li$ht le$s( respectively( and the di.erence 'etween le$s was si$nifcant. Po)o. 7899<: K the researchers recruited !M youn$( physically active males for an M-week intervention( in which they trained their le$ e4tensor muscles F times per week. D heavy $roup worked at M; of ")8 and a li$ht $roup worked at 5; of ")8. =efore and a6er the intervention( the researchers measured muscular cross-sectional area usin$ "RI scans. 1hey found that the heavy $roup increased muscular cross-sectional area 'y !O and the li$ht $roup 'y P . +owever( this di.erence was not statistically si$nifcant. Tani'oto 7899;: K the researchers recruited F6 healthy 'ut untrained youn$ males who performed whole-'ody resistance trainin$ : times per week for !F weeks usin$ F sets each of the s,uat( chest press( lat-pull-down( a'dominal 'end( and 'ack e4tension. 1he su'2ects were allocated into F $roupsI li$ht (55 K 6; of !R" with Fsecond eccentric and concentric actions#( heavy (M; K P; of !R" with !-second concentric and eccentric actions and a !-second pause# and a control. =efore and a6er the intervention( the researchers measured muscle thickness usin$ ultrasound. 1he researchers found that the increase in muscle thickness was similar in the li$ht (6.M N F.< in a sum of si4 sites# and heavy $roups (P.! N <.: #. +owever( the heavy $roup displayed a non-si$nifcant trend to a lar$er increase than the li$ht $roup. 3an Roie 7892=: K the researchers compared the e.ects of hi$h- and low-load resistance-trainin$ on muscle volume in 56 older adults performin$ an intervention of !: weeks of le$ press and le$ e4tension trainin$ at either hi$h (: R !;K !5 reps at M; of !R"( low (! R M;K!;; reps at :; of !R"#( or lowL (! R 6; reps at :; of !R"( followed 'y ! R !;K:; reps at <; of !R"# relative loads. 1here was no
si$nifcant di.erence in the increase in muscular volume 'etween $roups. 1he muscular volume of the upper le$ increased si$nifcantly in the hi$h (LF.: N F.O #( low (L:.< N :.O #( and lowL (L:.6 N F.M # relative load $roups. 1here was therefore a non-si$nifcant trend in favor of the hi$her relative load $roup. Tani'oto 7899<: K the researchers recruited :< healthy 'ut untrained youn$ males who performed whole-'ody resistance trainin$ F times per week for !: weeks with F sets of knee e4tension e4ercise. 1he su'2ects were allocated into F $roupsI li$ht-slow (5; of !R" with F-second eccentric and concentric actions#( li$ht-normal (5; of !R" with !-second eccentric and concentric actions and a !second pause#( and heavy (M; of !R" with !-second concentric and eccentric actions and a !-second pause#. =efore and a6er the intervention( the researchers measured increases in cross-sectional area with "RI. 1he researchers found that the ,uadriceps cross-sectional area increased 'y 5.< N F.O in the li$ht-slow $roup and 'y <.F N :.! in the heavy $roup 'ut there was no increase in the li$ht-normal $roup. 1here was no si$nifcant di.erence 'etween the increase in ,uadriceps cross-sectional area 'etween the li$ht-slow and the heavy $roups. 4eger 7899<: K the researchers recruited :5 healthy 'ut untrained males for an M-week intervention of resistance trainin$ followed 'y de-trainin$. 1he su'2ects were allocated into one of two trainin$ $roups (low reps or hi$h reps# that were matched for a$e( hei$ht( wei$ht( )3:-ma4 and muscular stren$th and endurance. 1he su'2ects performed the same trainin$ protocol as descri'ed in 8ampos (:;;:# a'ove and the researchers took 81 scans to measure muscular cross-sectional area 'efore and a6er the intervention. 1he researchers o'served an increase in ,uadriceps cross-sectional area of appro4imately !; in 'oth $roups with no si$nifcant di.erences 'etween $roups. itche$$ 78928: K the researchers recruited !M healthy 'ut untrained youn$ males for a !;-week study in which they performed sin$le-le$ resistance-trainin$ F times per week. 1he researchers randomly allocated each of the su'2ectsJ le$s to ! of F di.erent trainin$ protocols that di.ered 'y volume and 'y relative load( as followsI F; of !R" 4 F sets( M; of !R" 4 ! set( and M; of !R" 4 F sets. =efore and a6er the intervention( the researchers measured muscle volume 'y "RI. 1he researchers reported that all F $roups increased muscular volume si$nifcantly and similarly (F; -F S 6.M N !.M ( M; -! S F.: N ;.M ( and M; FS O.: N !.P #( althou$h there was a trend for the $roups performin$ a $reater num'er of sets to display nonsi$nifcantly $reater hypertrophy.
Page M
Relative load continued... Ogasa/ara 7892=: K the researchers recruited P youn$( untrained males for a 6-week( hi$h-load-resistance-trainin$ pro$ram for the 'ench press usin$ O5 of !R" for F sets( F times per week( followed 'y a !:-month detrainin$ period( followed 'y a 6-week( low-load-resistance-trainin$ pro$ram usin$ F; of !R" for < sets( F times per week. =efore and a6er each 6-week intervention( the researchers measured the muscular cross-sectional area of the triceps 'rachii and pectorals ma2or usin$ "RI scans. 1hey reported that in 'oth interventions( the muscular cross-sectional area increased si$nifcantly for 'oth muscles( with the hi$hload intervention increasin$ triceps 'rachii and pectorals ma2or cross-sectional area 'y !!.P and !O.6 ( respectively( and the low-load intervention increasin$ the same muscles 'y P.M and :!.! ( respectively. +owever( there were no si$nifcant di.erences 'etween $roups.
de$ree of hypertrophy may 'e sli$htly less than that achieva'le with heavier loads.
!hat are the )ractica$ i')$ications,

&hen workin$ with untrained 'e$inners( personal trainers may 'e a'le to produce si$nifcant hypertrophy usin$ li$hter loads (!5R"L or %65 of !R"#. /uch hypertrophy may 'e similar or only sli$htly inferior to that achieva'le usin$ heavier loads and this may allow for $reater variety and an initially less-challen$in$ task for the client.
!hat is the s+''ar% o- >ndings,

In summary( this is not an easy set of studies to draw stron$ conclusions from. "oreover( we always need to remem'er that all of the a'ove studies were performed in untrained su'2ects and not in trained individuals. +owever( the literature can 'e analyEed as followsI Signi>cant di1erences K 1he frst F studies (i.e. /cheunke( :;!:( 8ampos( :;;: and +olm( :;;M# found si$nifcant di.erences 'etween hi$h- and low-relative load $roups( with the hi$h relative-load displayed $reater increases in muscular hypertrophy than the low-relative load $roup. Non0signi>cant di1erences K 1he ne4t F studies (i.e. >opov( :;;6( 1animoto( :;;M( and )an Roie( :;!F# reported marked non-si$nifcant di.erences 'etween the hi$h- and low-relative load $roups( with the hi$h relative-load displayin$ $reater increases in muscular hypertrophy than the low-relative load $roup. No di1erences K 1he fnal < studies (1animoto( :;;6( 9e$er( :;;6( "itchell( :;!:( and 3$asawara( :;!F# found no di.erences. 1his complete lack of a$reement indicates that it is very difcult at the present time to make any kind of defnitive assessment whether the use of heavy loads (i.e. >65 of !R"# is superior to the use of li$hter loads (%65 of !R"# for producin$ muscular hypertrophy in untrained individuals.
!hat is the *o?o' $ine,

It is very difcult at the present time to make any kind of defnitive assessment whether the use of heavy loads (i.e. >65 of !R"# is superior to the use of li$hter loads (%65 of !R"# for producin$ muscular hypertrophy in untrained individuals. &hile there is some evidence that li$hter loads are a'le to produce hypertrophy( it is possi'le that this
Page P
Volume
!hat is the e1ect o- .o$+'e on h%)ertro)h%,

1he followin$ chronic trainin$ studies have e4plored the e.ects of di.erent volumes of trainin$ in 'oth untrained and trained individuals. 1his analysis is divided into two sections. 1he frst section of ei$ht studies covers those trials included in the meta-analysis 'y Urie$er (:;!;#. 1he second section covers those trials pu'lished since that date( which were not included in that meta-analysis. Ga$.@o 78995: performed a randomiEed trial in :M community-dwellin$ men and women a$ed 65 K OM years. 1he su'2ects were allocated to either a !-set or a F-set $roup and 'oth $roups performed pro$ressive resistance trainin$ consistin$ of seven e4ercises tar$etin$ the ma2or muscle $roups of the upper and lower 'ody on e4ercise machines two times per week for :; weeks usin$ an MR" load. 1he researchers reported that there was no di.erence 'etween $roups in respect of the chan$e in 'ody composition. arAo$ini 7899;: compared resistance trainin$ in !-set or Fset $roups( when com'ined with aero'ic trainin$ in O: individuals with coronary artery disease( althou$h only 5F su'2ects with a mean a$e of 6! N : years completed the intervention. 1he F-set $roup increased lean mass nonsi$nifcantly more than the !-set $roup. c"ride 7899=: compared the e.ects of a !:-week resistance-trainin$ pro$ram in !-set or 6-set $roups of :M untrained males and females( trainin$ twice a week( on lean 'ody mass of the le$s and arms measured 'y dual ener$y Qray a'sorptiometry. 1he researchers found no si$nifcant di.erences in lean muscle mass $ains for the le$s or arms. +nn 78995: compared the e.ects on arm circumference in the early phase of resistance trainin$ with ! or F sets and with either fast or slow speeds. 1hey found that F sets of trainin$ produced $reater increases in stren$th than one set 'ut no si$nifcant di.erence 'etween the $roups was found in respect of arm circumference( as measured 'y a tape measure. Ostro/s6i 72BBC: investi$ated the e.ects of di.erent volumes (! set versus F sets# of resistance trainin$ on muscle siEe over a !;-week period in :O males with ! K < years wei$ht-trainin$ e4perience( trainin$ < days a week. *ltrasound was used to measure the cross-sectional area of the rectus femoris as well as to measure the muscle thickness of the triceps 'rachii. 1he researchers reported that there were no si$nifcant 'etween-$roup di.erences( althou$h there were si$nifcant increases in cross-sectional area for the rectus femoris and in muscle thickness for the triceps 'rachii in each of the $roups.
Introd+ction
Dlon$ with trainin$ to failure( or the importance of heavy loads( the e.ect of trainin$ volume on hypertrophy is a hi$hly contentious area for stren$th and conditionin$ professionals( 'ody'uildin$ coaches and personal trainers. +ere is a summary of what we knowT

8hronic trainin$ studies measurin$ the e.ect of di.erent trainin$ varia'les on hypertrophy( includin$ volume( are few and far 'etween. Ddditionally( there are various pro'lems associated with this area of literature( most nota'ly that $ains in hypertrophy are much smaller than $ains in stren$th and that such $ains tend to display a $reat deal of varia'ility 'etween su'2ects (e.$. +u'al( :;;5#. "oreover( trials tend to involve relatively few su'2ects over short durations. 1hese factors indicate that the risk of type II error (failure to identify a si$nifcant di.erence# is hi$h in chronic trainin$ studies investi$atin$ hypertrophy( as Urie$er (:;!;# in fact noted in a recent meta-analysis. Urie$er (:;!;# o'served that there is a risk that if studies are consistently performed reportin$ no-si$nifcant e.ects as a result of a varia'le( this could lead to a false impression of the true e.ect of that factor( if those studies are deemed to 'e underpowered. 1his( therefore( was the 'asis for performin$ a meta-analysis( at the end of which he concluded that multiple sets are associated with <; $reater hypertrophy-related e.ect siEes than sin$le sets( in 'oth trained and untrained su'2ects. +owever( 0isher (:;!:# has o.ered a detailed criti,ue of the meta-analysis 'y Urie$er. 0isher su$$ested that the meta-analysis did not control or analyEe the trainin$ status of the individuals concerned( which as o'served a'ove mi$ht make a marked di.erence to the a'ility to $ain muscle mass in the short-term. 0isher also proposed that di.erent relative loads were used in the studies( ran$in$ from 6 K MR" throu$h to !5 repetitions( althou$h as we will see later on the topic of relative load( this mi$ht not 'e e4pected to make a su'stantial di.erence. 3n the technical side( 0isher also draws a7ention to the fact that there were wide ran$es of measurement methods used in the studies( some of which have $reater validity than others. 0inally( 0isher concludes sayin$ that Bresearchers should 'e careful of meta-analysis that provides a sin$le statistic provin$ somethin$ that no empirical study within that meta-analysis is a'le to supportC. Indeed( it is important to note that only two of the ei$ht studies in the meta-analysis support the use of multiple sets and only then in lower 'ody trainin$ in untrained su'2ects. +owever( a$ainst this criticism( we must wei$h the hi$h risk of type II error when measurin$ hypertrophy( meanin$ that it is very easy to perform studies showin$ no e.ect.
Page !;
Volume continued... RDnnestad 7899C: compared the e.ects of sin$le- and three-set resistance-trainin$ on hypertrophy in :! untrained males( trainin$ F days per week for !! weeks usin$ O K !;R" loads. It was found that thi$h crosssectional area increased more in the three-set $roup than in the one-set $roup (!6 vs. M # 'ut there was no si$nifcant di.erence 'etween $roups in respect of upper trapeEius muscle cross-sectional area. Rhea 78998: compared !-set and F-set protocols of resistance-trainin$ in !6 recreationally trained youn$ males( trainin$ F days per week for !: weeks on the 'ench press and le$ press usin$ < K MR" loads. +owever( neither $roup displayed si$nifcant chan$es in any of the 'ody composition measures as a result of the trainin$ pro$ram. Star6e% 72BB<: assessed the e.ects of di.erent volumes of resistance-trainin$ on muscle thickness in !; healthy 'ut untrained su'2ects trainin$ F times per week usin$ either one set or three sets of 'ilateral knee e4tension and knee 5e4ion e4ercises( which were performed to fati$ue usin$ M K !: repetitions over a !< week period. =efore and a6er the intervention( the researchers assessed muscular thickness at various points alon$ the le$ usin$ =-mode ultrasound. 1he researchers found increases in muscle thickness for 'oth $roups in the ,uadriceps muscles (in the medialis for the F-set $roup and in the lateralis for the !-set $roup# and in the hamstrin$s muscles at <; and 6; from $reater trochanter to lateral epicondyle of the ti'ia( for 'oth !-set and F-sets $roups. /ince the date of the most recent meta-analysis performed 'y Urie$er( there have 'een at least three further studies performed e4plorin$ the e.ects of volume on hypertrophy( in various populations( as followsI "o?aro 78922: compared the e.ects of resistance trainin$ volume on the adaptations of di.erent muscle $roups in untrained youn$ males( randomly assi$ned into two $roups who performed either F sets of knee e4tension and ! set of el'ow 5e4ion or ! set of knee e4tensions and F sets of el'ow 5e4ion( trainin$ : days per week for !: weeks. 1he researchers found that muscle thickness of the el'ow 5e4ors increased si$nifcantly for 'oth $roups while chan$es in muscle thickness of the ,uadriceps were not si$nifcant for either $roup. 1hey found that althou$h there were no si$nifcant di.erences 'etween the $roups( there was a non-si$nifcant trend for the hi$her volume $roup to display a $reater increase than the lower volume $roup in respect of the el'ow 5e4ors (O.: for the F-set $roup and 5.P for the !-set $roup#. Sooneste 7892=: investi$ated the di.erential e.ects on hypertrophy of trainin$ 'oth arms of the same su'2ect in a crossover-like desi$n with di.erent trainin$ volumes (! or F sets# in M sedentary( untrained youn$ @apanese men. 1he
su'2ects trained their el'ow 5e4or muscles : times per week for !: weeks usin$ a seated dum''ell preacher curl with M; of !R". 1he researchers reported that the F-set protocol increased cross-sectional area si$nifcantly more than the ! set protocol. Radae$$i 7892=: compared the e.ects of low- and hi$hvolume stren$th trainin$ on muscle thickness of the lowerand upper-'ody in :; healthy( older women. 1he su'2ects were randomly assi$ned into two $roupsI low-volume and hi$h-volume( where the low-volume $roup performed !-set of each e4ercise( while the hi$h-volume $roup performed Fsets of each e4ercise( : times per week for !F weeks. 1he researchers found that all muscle thickness measurements of the lower- and upper-'ody increased similarly in 'oth $roups. +owever( there was a non-si$nifcant trend for the total ,uadriceps muscle thickness to increase 'y more in the hi$h-volume $roup than in the low-volume $roup (!<.F N <.! versus M.6 N :.; #.

In summary( out of all !! studies assessin$ the di.erence 'etween low- and hi$h-volumes of trainin$ on hypertrophy( F have found statistically si$nifcant 'enefts of usin$ a hi$her volume( O have found non-si$nifcant 'enefts of usin$ a hi$her volume (which may or may not 'e 'ecause of a type II error#( and ! study has found no 'eneft at all of usin$ a hi$her volume( althou$h that study used perhaps the most unrelia'le measurement method of hypertrophy (arm circumference#. In trained su'2ects( the only : studies that have 'een performed so far have found non-si$nifcant 'enefts of usin$ a hi$her volume (which a$ain may or may not 'e 'ecause of a type II error#.

In conclusion( usin$ multiple sets to achieve a hi$her volume of trainin$ appears to lead to $reater hypertrophy than usin$ either sin$le sets or a smaller volume of trainin$. +owever( the current literature is pla$ued 'y a lack of hi$h ,uality studies with sufcient statistical power and this conclusion can only 'e drawn 'ased on a meta-analysis of studies and 'ased on a review of non-si$nifcant trends.

1rainin$ with multiple sets to achieve a hi$her volume of trainin$ appears to lead to $reater hypertrophy( irrespective of trainin$ status and a$e. Ddditionally( there appears to 'e a dose-response to volume of trainin$ to a de$ree( althou$h it is not clear at what point increasin$ doses cease to 'e increasin$ly e.ective. 0inally( the law of diminishin$ returns seems to apply to hypertrophy trainin$I in that the frst set may 'e the most important and each successive set o.ers a steadily reducin$ stimulus. 1herefore( for those who are short of time( fewer sets may 'e appropriate.
Page !!
Muscular failure
Introd+ction
Vespite $reat de'ate in the ftness industry re$ardin$ whether individuals should train to failure or not( researchers have not investi$ated this pro'lem thorou$hly. In fact( despite what many people 'elieve( volumematched( lon$-term trainin$ studies are very thin on the $round in respect of whether trainin$ to failure (or $reater levels of fati$ue# is to 'e preferred for stren$th and hypertrophy. +ere is a summary of what we knowT

1rainin$ to momentary muscular failure is a common concept in the ftness industry and most intermediate and advanced trainees have a $ood instinct for when they are approachin$ it durin$ a set. "oreover( while many stren$th athletes do re$ularly $o to failure in their trainin$( a si$nifcant proportion( includin$ some powerli6ers and 'ody'uilders( do not always $o to failure in a $iven workout. +owever( in the research literature e4plorin$ stren$th and hypertrophy $ains followin$ a period of trainin$( it is very common for all sets to 'e performed to failure. 1here is therefore a discrepancy 'etween what the research literature tells us and what a $iven trainee mi$ht 'e doin$. Ddditionally( as noted a'ove( e4tremely few studies have compared volume-matched trainin$ protocols in which one $roup performed sets to failure while another $roup performed the same volume-matched pro$ram not to failure. 1herefore( in this 'rief review( such studies are included as well as a few more that have e4plored the di.erence 'etween volume-matched protocols with di.erin$ levels of fati$ue. &hile this is not ideal( it does provide a fuller picture and 'ased on the fndin$s of /undstrup (:;!:#( which is discussed in more detail 'elow( it is likely to 'e valid. Indeed( while some researchers and proponents of trainin$ to muscular failure have su$$ested that trainin$ to failure is necessary in order to recruit all motor units( the research does not completely support this view. /undstrup (:;!:# e4plored the W"H activity of lateral raises durin$ individual reps of !5R" loads performed to failure. 1hey found that a plateau muscle activity was reached at !; K !: reps of the !5R" load( which they interpreted to mean that trainin$ to complete failure is not necessary to fully recruit the entire motor unit pool( at least in untrained individuals. $%at is t%e e&ect of muscular failure on %y ertro %y' 1he followin$ trainin$ studies have e4plored the e.ect on stren$th of $roups performin$ e4ercises to muscular failure (or 2ust $reater de$rees of fati$ue# in comparison with other volume-matched $roups performin$ the same e4ercises not to muscular failure (or lesser de$rees of fati$ue#( usin$ various di.erent approachesI
Goto 78995: investi$ated the e.ects of failure within the conte4t of a volume-e,uated scheme of resistance-trainin$ on ,uadriceps hypertrophy of the ,uadriceps. Dlthou$h each trainin$ $roup performed F sets of !;R" on the lat pull-down and shoulder press( and 5 sets of !;R" on the 'ilateral knee e4tension( one $roup performed the e4ercises strai$ht throu$h with ! minute of rest 'etween sets and e4ercises( while another $roup took another F; seconds of rest half-way throu$h each set. 1he researchers found that the $roup that took the inter-set rest displayed less hypertrophy in comparison with the $roup who took no rest( indicatin$ that muscular failure may well 'e an important modifyin$ factor for muscular hypertrophy. +owever( the e4act mechanism 'y which such superior results occur remains unclear. Scho? 72BB5: K the researchers compared the adaptations followin$ two types of isometric stren$th trainin$I short( intermi7ent contractions (lesser fati$ue $roup# vs. lon$er( continuous contractions ($reater fati$ue $roup# at O; of ")I8 in which O su'2ects trained F times per week for !< weeks. 1he ri$ht le$ was trained usin$ < sets of !; 'outs of F-second contractions with a :-second rest period 'etween each contraction and : minutes inter-set rest periods. 1he le6 le$ was trained usin$ < sets of F;-second contractions with a !-minute inter-set rest period. 1he researchers found that the increase in muscular cross-sectional area was si$nifcantly $reater for the lon$er( continuous contractions than for the short( intermi7ent contractions.

Vespite the $reat interest in this area and numerous proposals that muscular failure is critical for muscular stren$th and siEe $ains 'y 'oth lay people and researchers( there is in fact a paucity of literature. 3nly : studies have directly e4plored the e.ects of trainin$ to muscular failure or not in volume-matched trials and these have found 'enefcial results for trainin$ to muscular failure in comparison with trainin$ not-to-failure.

In conclusion( it is very hard to make a defnitive statement a'out the e.ect of muscular failure on hypertrophy 'ecause of the very small num'er of studies( +owever( seems that hypertrophy mi$ht 'e $reater when trainin$ to failure in comparison with trainin$ not-to-failure where other trainin$ varia'les are e,uated.

0or stren$th athletes and 'ody'uilders( as well as everyone lookin$ to increase hypertrophy for physi,ue enhancement( there is some limited evidence that incorporatin$ trainin$ to failure mi$ht lead to 'e7er $ains in hypertrophy.
Page !:
Frequency
Introd+ction
Dlon$ with trainin$ to muscular failure( usin$ heavy or li$ht loads( and trainin$ volume( the e.ect of trainin$ fre,uency on hypertrophy is a contentious area. 0re,uency most o6en comes up in the conte4t of discussions a'out how many times a 'ody part is trained per week. +owever( a 'i$ pro'lem with manipulatin$ trainin$ fre,uency is that volume tends to $et altered at the same time. 0ortunately( a small num'er of studies have investi$ated trainin$ fre,uency while keepin$ volume constant. +ere is a summary of what we knowT
trainin$ day( the su'2ects didnJt display an increase in ,uadriceps cross-sectional area( 'ut trainin$ twice each trainin$ day( they displayed si$nifcant increases in ,uadriceps cross-sectional area. Hart'ann 7899C: performed a F-week investi$ation into the e.ects of twice- and once-daily trainin$ sessions with similar trainin$ volumes in !; nationally competitive male wei$htli6ers on muscle cross-sectional area and performance measures. 1hey reported no increases in muscular cross-sectional area in either $roup and no si$nifcant di.erences 'etween $roups. In fact( the oncedaily $roup increased cross-sectional area to a nonsi$nifcantly $reater e4tent than the twice-daily $roup (F.: versus :.! #. +owever( the duration of the study was very short and the trainin$ status of the su'2ects was very hi$h( su$$estin$ that only ti ny increases in muscular crosssectional area would occur and( $iven that the sample siEe was very small( it would 'e impossi'le to detect such chan$es statistically.

9ike volume( muscular failure and relative load( trainin$ fre,uency has traditionally 'een considered important for hypertrophy. +owever( ma7ers are o6en confused on the $ym 5oor 'ecause trainin$ fre,uency is o6en manipulated for the purposes of indirectly alterin$ volume. 1he same issue is present in the literature. In many research studies investi$atin$ fre,uency( volume is not e,uated 'etween the $roups( leadin$ to a $reater total volume of trainin$ 'ein$ performed 'y the hi$h-fre,uency $roup. /ince volume may well 'e a key factor in muscular hypertrophy( this is an important confoundin$ factor for the study of trainin$ fre,uency. Xevertheless( a small num'er of volumematched studies have 'een performed to assess the independent e.ect of fre,uency on hypertrophy( in 'oth trained and untrained populations.

In summary( if we e4clude the 3lympic wei$ht-li6in$ study on the 'asis that the study desi$n made it hard for any di.erence to 'e detected 'ecause of the very short study duration( small sample of su'2ects( and hi$h trainin$ status of the su'2ects( there appears to 'e a limited trend towards a hi$her volume-matched fre,uency leadin$ to $reater hypertrophy in trained su'2ects. +owever( this conclusion is very tentative and further research is clearly needed in this area.
Ho/ does -reE+enc% a1ect h%)ertro)h% in trained s+*Fects,

1he followin$ chronic trainin$ studies have e4plored the e.ects of di.erent volume-matched fre,uencies of trainin$ in trained su'2ectsI c4ester 78999: performed a !:-week investi$ation involvin$ trained su'2ects divided into two $roups( one of which performed resistance trainin$ ! day per week for F sets of each e4ercise at M; of !R" with : minutes of interset rest. 1he other $roup trained F days per week for ! set of each e4ercise at M; of !R". 1he num'er of sets was set in order to keep total volume constant. Xeither $roup si$nifcantly increased lean 'ody mass as a result of the trainin$. 1he researchers found non-si$nifcantly $reater increases in lean 'ody mass as a result of trainin$ three times a week compared to once a week per muscle $roup( matched for total volume (M and ! ( respectively#. HG66inen and Ha$$inen 72BBI: performed a 6-week crossover investi$ation involvin$ trained female su'2ects. 1he su'2ects performed a se,uence of two F-week periods of resistance-trainin$ for the ,uadriceps( trainin$ three times a week. In one period( the su'2ects trained once on each trainin$ day and in the other period they trained usin$ an identical volume over two sessions. 1rainin$ once each
Ho/ does -reE+enc% a1ect h%)ertro)h% in +ntrained s+*Fects,

1he followin$ chronic trainin$ studies have e4plored the e.ects of di.erent volume-matched fre,uencies of trainin$ in untrained su'2ectsI Ca$der 72BBI: performed a :;-week investi$ation in F; youn$ women in F $roups who performed either whole'ody trainin$( upper-lower split trainin$ or no trainin$ (a control#. 1he whole-'ody $roup performed < upper (5 sets of 6 K !;R"# and F lower 'ody (5 sets of !; K !:R"# resistance e4ercises in sin$le sessions twice a week. 1he upper-lower split $roup did the upper 'ody e4ercises on : days a week and the lower 'ody e4ercises on : other days of the week. 1he researchers reported that trunk lean tissue mass increased in the whole 'ody and upper-lower split $roups 'y F.< and :.O ( respectively( le$ lean mass 'y <.P and !.O ( and whole 'ody lean mass 'y <.! and :.6 ( respectively. 1he le$ lean mass increase was si$nifcant only in the whole 'ody $roup. "enton 78922: investi$ated the e.ects of M weeks of F versus < days per week of volume-matched resistancetrainin$ on 'ody composition in middle-a$ed women.
Page !F
Frequency continued... 1he F-day $roup completed F sets of M e4ercises arran$ed as a whole-'ody routine and the <-day $roup completed F sets of 6 upper 'ody e4ercises or 6 sets of F lower 'ody e4ercises( arran$ed as an upper-lower split routine. =oth $roups of su'2ects performed O: sets per week of M K !: repetitions at 5; K M; of !R". Dlthou$h 'oth $roups displayed si$nifcant increases in lean mass (!.! N ;.F k$#( there were no si$nifcant di.erences 'etween $roups. +owever( the F-day per week $roup displayed a nonsi$nifcantly $reater increase in lean mass than the <-day per week $roup (F.! versus !.5 ( respectively#. Cando/ and "+r6e 7899C: investi$ated the e.ects of 6 weeks of : versus F days per week of volume-matched resistance-trainin$ on lean tissue mass in untrained su'2ects( who performed either F sets of !; repetitions to fati$ue twice a week or : sets of !; repetitions three times a week. Dlthou$h 'oth $roups increased lean tissue mass si$nifcantly( there were no si$nifcant or even any nonsi$nifcant di.erences 'etween $roups (:.P and F.; increases in lean mass for the lower and hi$her fre,uency $roups( respectively#. AraAi and Asadi 78922: divided healthy 'ut untrained males into four $roupsI one $roup performin$ one session of total-'ody resistance trainin$ (!: e4ercises( once a week#( another $roup performin$ total-'ody resistance trainin$ divided into two sessions (6 e4ercises( twice a week#( an upper-lower split $roup performin$ three sessions per week (< e4ercises( three times a week#( and a control $roup. Dll $roups performed the same volume and num'er of e4ercises( which comprised the le$ press( le$ curl( le$ e4tension( calf raise( lat pull-down( lat pull-row( 'ench press( pec 5y( arm curl( dum''ell arm curl( triceps pushdown( and dum''ell triceps e4tension. 1he total-'ody twice a week $roup and the upper-lower split $roup displayed si$nifcant improvements in thi$h circumference while the total-'ody once a week $roup and the upper-lower split $roup displayed si$nifcant increases in arm circumference. &hile there were no si$nifcant di.erences 'etween $roups( there was a non-si$nifcant trend for the hi$her fre,uency $roups to increase arm and thi$h circumference to a $reater e4tent than the low fre,uency $roup.
in trained su'2ects. +owever( this conclusion is very tentative and further research is clearly needed in this area. 3n the other hand( in untrained su'2ects a hi$her volumematched trainin$ fre,uency seems to have no e.ect or may even have a detrimental e.ect on hypertrophy.

0or trained individuals( increasin$ fre,uency may lead to sli$htly $reater hypertrophy( whether in con2unction with increasin$ volume or simply 'y redistri'utin$ the same volume over a $reater num'er of sessions. 3n the other hand( for untrained individuals( increasin$ fre,uency may not 'e as e.ective for hypertrophy and stickin$ to a more traditional num'er of sessions (e.$. three times per week# may 'e the 'est course of action.

In summary( in untrained su'2ects a hi$her volumematched trainin$ fre,uency seems to have no e.ect or may even have a detrimental e.ect on hypertrophy. &hether this di.erence 'etween untrained and trained su'2ects is indeed an e.ect of trainin$ status or simply a function of there 'ein$ con5ictin$ results 'etween studies is unclear.

1here appears to 'e a very limited trend towards a hi$her volume-matched fre,uency leadin$ to $reater hypertrophy
Page !<
Rest eriods
Introd+ction
"any trainin$ varia'les seem to have an important e.ect on the e4tent to which a resistance-trainin$ protocol can cause hypertrophy. /uch varia'les include volume( relative load( ran$e of motion( e4ercise selection( whether or not the e4ercise is taken to failure( repetition speed( and interset rest period duration. +owever( while some of these varia'les have 'een e4tensively researched in lon$-term studies (e.$. volume#( other areas( includin$ inter-set rest period duration( have not. 1o 'rin$ you up to speed with where the research is at when it comes to how inter-set rest periods a.ect stren$th and siEe $ains( hereJs a 'rief review of the lon$-term studies that are currently availa'le.
of F sets usin$ a load that led to failure on the third set of each e4ercise( includin$ the s,uat and 'ench press e4ercises. 1he researchers found that arm cross-sectional area increased more with lon$ rest periods (!:.F NO.: # than with short rest periods (5.! N :.P # 'ut they did not notice any si$nifcant di.erences in respect of le$ muscle cross-sectional area.

1hese studies found con5ictin$ results. Dhtiainen (:;;5# found no di.erences in muscular hypertrophy when short (: minutes# vs. lon$ (< minutes# rest periods were used in a volume-matched pro$ram of resistance-trainin$. 3n the other hand( =uresh (:;;P# found that hypertrophy was $reater when usin$ lon$ (:.5 minutes# versus short (! minute# rest periods when volume was dictated 'y muscular failure and therefore lower in the short-rest $roup. 1he di.erences 'etween these studies may a$ain arise 'ecause of the failure of the short-rest period in the la7er study to achieve sufcient trainin$ volume. /li$htly lon$er rest periods than ! minute (e.$. P; K !:; seconds# may therefore 'e prefera'le in order to maintain optimal workloads while maintainin$ some meta'olic stress( which is thou$ht to 'e 'enefcial for hypertrophy 'ased on acute studies (/choenfeld( :;!F#. +owever( the e4act duration of rest period that leads to the optimal recovery of stren$th 'etween sets is outside the scope of this review. "oreover( persistin$ workin$ with short rest periods may lead to 'enefcial adaptations which permit hi$her volumes while usin$ short rests( as the ne4t sections will demonstrate. 1herefore( it remains difcult to assess whether rest period has any si$nifcant e.ect on hypertrophy irrespective of volume 'ased on the current lon$-term studies. It seems appropriate to recommend that individuals seekin$ hypertrophy do not pre2udice trainin$ volume too much 'y reducin$ rest periods to the point where it is difcult to perform as much work as they would otherwise 'e a'le to with lon$er rest periods.
Ho/ does rest )eriod a1ect gains in h%)ertro)h%,

1he e.ect of rest period duration on $ains in muscular stren$th and siEe has 'een reviewed previously (see Ve /alles( :;;P#. +owever( at the time that review was wri7en( there were no studies that had studied the lon$-term e.ects of rest period duration on muscular siEe $ains? 8onse,uently( conclusions drawn for muscular hypertrophy in that review were 'ased on acute studies of hormones and meta'olites. /ince then( two studies have 'een performed( as followsI Ahtiainen 78995: K 1he researchers e4plored the e.ects of rest period duration on the hormonal and neuromuscular adaptations followin$ a 6-month period of resistancetrainin$. 1he researchers recruited !F recreationally resistance-trained male su'2ects. 1he study was divided into two separate F-month trainin$ periods in a crossover desi$n. In one F-month period( the su'2ects performed a trainin$ protocol usin$ a short rest (: minutes# and in the other they used a lon$ rest (5 minutes#. =efore and a6er the interventions( the researchers measured hormonal concentrations as well as ma4imal isometric le$ e4tension tor,ue( unilateral le$ press !R"( and muscle cross-sectional area of the ,uadriceps femoris usin$ ma$netic resonance ima$in$ ("RI# scans. 1he trainin$ protocol involved le$ presses and s,uats with !;R" sets and were matched for volume (i.e. load 4 sets 4 reps# 'ut were di.erent in respect of the relative load used and the rest period durations. 1he researchers o'served si$nifcant increases in ,uadriceps muscle cross-sectional area (< # over the 6-month stren$th-trainin$ period. +owever( 'oth F-month trainin$ periods resulted in similar $ains in muscle mass 'ut no statistically si$nifcant chan$es were o'served in hormone concentrations. "+resh 7899B: K 1he researchers wanted to compare the e.ects of short (! minute# and lon$ (:.5 minutes# rest periods on stren$th and muscular cross-sectional area durin$ a !;-week trainin$ period. 1hey recruited !: untrained male su'2ects who performed a trainin$ routine
Ho/ does red+cing rest )eriods a1ect h%)ertro)h%,

D rather interestin$ couple of studies have 'een initiated since the review 'y Ve /alles et al. in :;;P( which involve the use of reducin$ rest periods over the se,uence of resistance-trainin$ sets. De So+Aa 78929: K 1he researchers compared the e.ect on stren$th and hypertrophy of M weeks of resistance-trainin$ usin$ either (!# constant rest intervals( or (:# decreasin$ rest intervals. 1hey recruited :; youn$( recreationallytrained su'2ects and allocated them to one or other of the trainin$ $roups( who performed resistance-trainin$ includin$ the 'ench press and s,uat e4ercises. In the frst : weeks of trainin$( the su'2ects performed F sets of !; K !:R" with :-minute rests.
Page !5
Rest eriods continued... In the followin$ 6 weeks of trainin$( the su'2ects performed < sets of M K !;R" and while the constant-rest $roup rested :-minutes 'etween sets( the decreasin$-rest $roup rested with pro$ressively shorter rests (: minutes decreasin$ to F; seconds# over the 6 weeks of trainin$. =efore and a6er the intervention( the researchers measured !R" 'ench press and s,uat( as well as isokinetic peak knee e4tension and 5e4ion tor,ue and muscular cross-sectional area.. 1he researchers found that total trainin$ volume of the 'ench press and s,uat were si$nifcantly lower for the decreasin$rest $roup compared to the constant-rest $roup ('ench press P.< lower( and s,uat !F.P lower#. +owever( they found that there were no si$nifcant di.erences in the arm or thi$h cross-sectional area increases (arm !F.M vs. !<.5 ( thi$h !6.6 vs. !6.F # 'etween the two trainin$ $roups. So+Aa0#+nior 78922: K 1he researchers compared the e.ect on stren$th and hypertrophy of M weeks of resistancetrainin$ and creatine supplementation usin$ either (!# constant rest intervals( or (:# decreasin$ rest intervals. 1hey recruited :: youn$( recreationally-trained males and allocated them to one or other of the trainin$ $roups( who performed resistance-trainin$ includin$ the 'ench press and s,uat e4ercises. In the frst : weeks of trainin$( the su'2ects all performed e4ercises with :-minute rests. In the followin$ 6 weeks of trainin$( while the constant-rest $roup rested :-minutes 'etween sets( the decreasin$-rest $roup rested with pro$ressively shorter rests (: minutes decreasin$ to F; seconds# over the 6 weeks of trainin$. =efore and a6er the intervention( the researchers measured !R" 'ench press and s,uat( as well as isokinetic peak knee e4tension and 5e4ion tor,ue and arm and thi$h muscular cross-sectional area. 1he researchers found that total trainin$ volume of the 'ench press and s,uat were si$nifcantly lower for the decreasin$-rest $roup compared to the constant-rest $roup. 1he researchers found that 'oth $roups displayed si$nifcant increases in arm and thi$h muscular cross-sectional area 'ut there were no si$nifcant di.erences 'etween $roups for either varia'le.
$roup. W4actly why =uresh (:;;P# found di.erent results to these two studies is unclear 'ut a$ain may relate to the pro$ressive adaptations achieved 'y steadily decreasin$ rest periods rather than maintainin$ short rest periods from the outset.

/tudies comparin$ short and lon$ f4ed rest periods have reported con5ictin$ results in respect of hypertrophy. +owever( trainin$ volume was not always e,uated and the $roups that used shorter rest periods o6en trained with lower volume( which makes them hard to compare. /tudies comparin$ f4ed with reducin$ rest periods have found that the duration of rest periods had no e.ect on muscular hypertrophy( even when volume was lower.

&hile the research is e4tremely limited and very con5ictin$( it seems wise that when usin$ constant rest periods( care should 'e taken not to reduce volume at the e4pense of usin$ short rest periods( as this may lead to su'-optimal volume( which appears to 'e a relevant trainin$ varia'le for hypertrophy.

1hese two studies comparin$ f4ed with reducin$ rest periods found identical results( which were that the duration of rest periods had no e.ect on muscular hypertrophy. +owever( the period of time was ,uite short for measurin$ hypertrophy di.erences (6 weeks for the : di.erent protocols#. /imilarly( Dhtiainen (:;;5# found no di.erences in muscular hypertrophy when short (: minutes# vs. lon$ (< minutes# rest periods were used 'ut this study di.ered in that a volume-matched pro$ram was used. 3n the other hand( =uresh (:;;P# found that hypertrophy was $reater when usin$ lon$ (:.5 minutes# versus short (! minute# rest periods when volume was dictated 'y muscular failure and therefore lower in the short-rest
Page !6
Ran!e of motion
Introd+ction
"ost li6ers instinctively know that lar$er ran$e of motion (R3"# translates to $reater $ains in stren$th and hypertrophy( most of the time. +owever( surprisin$ly( it is not until recently that research has demonstrated this to 'e the case. +ere is a 'rief review of how R3" durin$ resistance-trainin$ e4ercises a.ects $ains in stren$th and siEe.
area at all measured sites while the short R3" s,uat $roup increased front thi$h muscle cross-sectional area only at the two most pro4imal sites. +owever( the increases in the lon$ R3" $roup were si$nifcantly $reater at all front thi$h sites than in the short R3" $roup. Ddditionally( the researchers found that the lon$ R3" s,uat $roup increased 'ack thi$h muscle cross-sectional area at the second most pro4imal site whereas the short R3" s,uat $roup did not. c ahon 7892=: K 1he researchers compared the e.ects of trainin$ and detrainin$ usin$ lon$ and short R3"s. 1hey recruited :6 recreationally active su'2ects and allocated them to either a lon$ R3" $roup( a short R3" $roup( or a control $roup. =oth trainin$ $roups performed M weeks of resistance-trainin$ and < weeks detrainin$( involvin$ isoinertial resistance trainin$ with either a short muscle len$th (; K 5; de$rees knee 5e4ion# or with a lon$ muscle len$th (; K P; de$rees knee 5e4ion#( F times per week at M; of !R" usin$ the s,uat( le$ press and le$ e4tension. =efore and a6er( the researchers measured anatomical cross-sectional area of the vastus lateralis at :5 ( 5; ( O5 of femur len$th. 1he researchers found that vastus lateralis anatomical cross-sectional area increased si$nifcantly followin$ trainin$ at all sites in 'oth trainin$ $roups. 1hey also noted a trend for the lon$ R3" $roup to display $reater relative $ains in vastus lateralis anatomical crosssectional area compared to the short R3" $roup at all sites. +owever( the di.erence 'etween $roups was only si$nifcant at the end of the M-week trainin$ intervention at O5 of femur len$th( with the lon$ R3" $roup displayin$ a 5P N !5 increase compared to the short R3" $roup showin$ only a !6 N !; increase.
Ho/ does RO
a1ect gains in h%)ertro)h%,
1he followin$ studies have compared increases in hypertrophy 'etween two or more di.erent $roups as a result of a chronic (i.e. lon$-term# trainin$ intervention. Ds you will note( there are far fewer studies in this area( as a result of the $reater difculty in measurin$ muscular crosssectional area than stren$th. Raastad 7899;J con-erence )roceedings: K 1he researchers reported that they compared the e.ects of parallel and ,uarter 'ack s,uats over a !:-week period and found that the full 'ack s,uats produced hi$her increases in ,uadriceps muscle cross-sectional area than ,uarter 'ack s,uats. Pinto 78928: K 1he researchers compared partial R3" vs. full R3" upper-'ody resistance trainin$ on stren$th. 1hey recruited <; youn$ males with no resistance-trainin$ e4perience and allocated them randomly to one of three $roupsI full R3"( partial R3"( and a control. 1he su'2ects in the trainin$ $roups performed a preacher curl e4ercise( : days per week for !; weeks in a periodiEed pro$ram. 1he full R3" $roup performed the e4ercise with full R3" (; to !F; de$rees( where ; de$rees is full el'ow e4tension# R3" and the partial R3" $roup performed the e4ercise with partial R3" (5; to !;; de$rees# R3". =efore and a6er the intervention( the researchers measured the muscle thickness of the el'ow 5 e4ors usin$ ultrasound. 1he researchers found that 'oth the full R3" and partial R3" $roups si$nifcantly increased muscle thickness 'y P.5: and O.FO ( respectively. +owever( the di.erence in hypertrophy 'etween the two $roups was not si$nifcant. "$oo'E+ist 7892=: K 1he researchers compared the e.ects of short R3" and lon$ R3" s,uat trainin$ on thi$h muscle cross-sectional area. 1hey recruited :< youn$ male su'2ects with li7le e4perience of resistance-trainin$ and allocated them to either a short R3" s,uat $roup or a lon$ R3" s,uat $roup. =oth $roups performed a periodiEed pro$ram that included 'oth sets to failure and sets not to failure for F K < sets of F K !; reps. 1he short R3" s,uat $roup performed the s,uat from ; K 6; de$rees of knee 5e4ion (; de$rees 'ein$ full knee e4tension# while the lon$ R3" s,uat $roup performed the s,uat from ; K !:; de$rees of knee 5e4ion. 1he researchers found that the lon$ R3" s,uat $roup increased front thi$h muscle cross-sectional

In summary( >into (:;!:# found that there was no si$nifcant di.erence in muscle thickness as a result of full R3" and partial R3" trainin$ of the el'ow 5 e4ors( althou$h they did o'serve a trend towards increased hypertrophy in the full R3" $roup. 3n the other hand( =loom,uist (:;!F#( "c"ahon (:;!F# and Raastad (:;;M( conference proceedin$s# each reported that a lon$ R3" $roup displayed $reater hypertrophy of the thi$h muscles than a short R3" $roup followin$ s,uat trainin$.

1he research in this area is very limited 'ut there is some evidence that a $reater R3" leads to $reater hypertrophy than a smaller R3".

It seems likely that full R3" e4ercises lead to the $reatest $ains in hypertrophy and should therefore 'e preferred in the frst instance( unless the e4ercise is 'ein$ altered to focus on a di.erent muscle $roup (e.$. partial 'ench press for the triceps#.
Page !O
Re etition s eed
Introd+ction
Repetition speed is less fre,uently discussed than the more contentious topics of trainin$ to muscular failure( usin$ heavy or li$ht loads( hi$h versus low trainin$ volume( and hi$h versus low trainin$ fre,uency. +owever( the use of e4plosive repetitions and the use of slow( controlled tempos 'oth have their stalwart supporters. /ome stren$th and conditionin$ coaches recommend usin$ fast 'ar speeds. 3thers su$$est that 'y slowin$ down the repetition and e4tendin$ its duration( Btime-under-tensionC can 'e increased( which has 'een proposed to lead to $reater hypertrophy. D small num'er of studies have investi$ated the e.ect of repetition speed on hypertrophy.
sectional area si$nifcantly and while there was no si$nifcant di.erence 'etween $roups( the slow repetition $roup displayed a small non-si$nifcantly $reater increase (5.< N F.O versus <.F N :.! #. Tani'oto 7899;: performed a similar study 'ut with fve e4ercises (s,uat( chest press( latissimus dorsi pull-down( a'dominal 'end( and 'ack e4tension#. =oth of these $roups improved total 'ody muscular cross-sectional area si$nifcantly and while there was no si$nifcant di.erence 'etween $roups( the fast repetition $roup displayed a nonsi$nifcantly $reater increase (P.! N <.: versus 6.M N F.< #. Nei$s 78995: compared conventional (:-second concentric and <-second eccentric contractions# and /uper/low (!;second concentric and 5-second eccentric contractions# resistance-trainin$ over an M-week intervention( trainin$ F days per week. 1he /uper/low $roup used 5; of !R" and the conventional $roup used M; of !R". &hile there were no si$nifcant chan$es in lean 'ody mass in either $roup( in the /uper/low $roup( lean 'ody mass increased 'y ;.Fk$ while in the conventional $roup it reduced 'y ;.:k$. Hee$er 78992: performed a similar study that nevertheless reported contrastin$ results. 1hey compared the e.ects of traditional Xautilus-type (:-second concentric and <-second eccentric contractions# or /uper/low (!;-second concentric and 5-second eccentric contractions# resistance-trainin$ on 'ody composition in sedentary women( trainin$ F times per week for !; weeks. 1here were no si$nifcant di.erences in respect of lean 'ody mass $ains 'etween the $roups( althou$h the traditional $roup displayed a non-si$nifcantly $reater increase than the /uper/low $roup (L;.5k$ versus -;.<k$#. Yo+ng and "i$*% 72BB=: compared the e.ect of repetition speed in a O.5-week trial in which su'2ects performed < sets of M K !:R" with the half s,uat e4ercise( F times per week with either fast or slow repetitions. 1he fast-repetition $roup performed a controlled eccentric phase followed 'y an e4plosive concentric phase while the slow-repetition $roup performed 'oth concentric and eccentric phases in a slow and controlled manner. "uscle thickness was measured with ultrasound and while 'oth $roups displayed a si$nifcant increase in several parts of the le$ musculature( there were no si$nifcant di.erences 'etween the $roups. 0or the sum of all measurements( muscle thickness increased 'y non-si$nifcantly more in the fastrepetition $roup than in the slow-repetition $roup (F.P versus F.: #.

)arious researchers as well as stren$th and conditionin$ coaches have proposed that repetition speed may 'e important for hypertrophy. In essence( there are two ways in which a wei$ht can 'e li6edI (!# with ma4imal velocity( and (:# with a controlled( su'-ma4imal tempo. 3f course( within the second cate$ory( a variety of di.erent li6in$ tempos could 'e used( ran$in$ from very slow (even /uper/low# to very fast. D num'er of studies have compared the resultin$ hypertrophy 'etween $roups that used fast and slow repetition speeds. /ome researchers and stren$th and conditionin$ coaches who su'scri'e to the view that lon$er repetition speeds are superior for hypertrophy have su$$ested that a 'e7er term would 'e Brepetition durationC in order to emphasiEe the importance of the Btime-undertensionC aspect. +owever( it is important to reco$niEe that( emphasis aside( the two varia'les are inherently very stron$ly and inversely correlated. 0or most conventional resistance-trainin$ e4ercises( the distance over which the wei$ht travels is essentially f4ed 'y anthropometry and therefore when repetition duration is reduced( repetition speed must 'e increased proportionally and vice versa.
!hat is the e1ect o- re)etition s)eed on h%)ertro)h%,

Dt least si4 studies have 'een performed comparin$ the e.ect of repetition velocity or repetition duration on the rate of hypertrophy in untrained su'2ects. 1o my knowled$e( no studies have 'een performed in trained populations. Tani'oto and Ishii 7899<: compared slow and fast repetitions in a !:-week knee e4tension e4ercise intervention comprisin$ F sets( F times a week. 1he slow repetition $roup li6ed with a F-second eccentric and concentric action and a !-second pause 'ut no rela4ation usin$ a 5; of !R" load( while the fast repetition $roup li6ed with a !-second eccentric and concentric action and a !-second rela4ation 'ut no pause( usin$ an M; of !R" load. =oth of these $roups improved muscular cross-
Page !M
Re etition s eed continued... Nog+eira 7899B: compared the e.ects of !; weeks of either traditional slow and heavy resistance-trainin$ or fast and li$ht power trainin$ on the rate of hypertrophy in elderly males( trainin$ twice a week( durin$ !; weeks. 1he two $roups performed the same volume of work comprisin$ F sets of M repetitions of the same e4ercises with relative loads of <; K 6; of !R". It was found that muscle thickness as measured 'y ultrasound increased si$nifcantly in 'oth $roups in the 'iceps 'rachii 'ut only increased si$nifcantly in the power trainin$ $roup in the rectus femoris. 1he increase in muscle thickness of the 'iceps 'rachii was $reater in the power trainin$ $roup than in the resistance-trainin$ $roup.

In summary( only one out of the si4 studies found a si$nifcant e.ect of repetition speed on hypertrophy. 1hat study reported that a fast repetition speed was superior for hypertrophy than a slow repetition speed in elderly males. &hether this is applica'le to youn$er populations is unclear. 3f the remainin$ fve studies( three reported a non-si$nifcant e.ect that a fast repetition speed was superior for hypertrophy than a slow repetition speed in various populations of untrained su'2ects while two studies reported the opposite e.ect. It is therefore likely that repetition speed is not a stron$ modifyin$ factor of hypertrophy in untrained individuals. If it has any e.ect at all( it is likely that a fast repetition speed is mar$inally superior to a slow repetition speed. &hether di.erent e.ects would 'e o'served in trained su'2ects is unknown from the literature at the present time.

1he research in this area su$$ests that repetition speed has li7le( if any( e.ect on hypertrophy. +owever( repetition speed may 'e important for other outcomes( such as speed and power.

>ersonal trainers may recommend slower( more controlled repetitions for achievin$ hypertrophy with their clients if they wish( as repetition speed seems to have li7le e.ect in untrained su'2ects for 'ody composition $oals. Individuals may make use of either fast or slow repetition speeds for the purposes of hypertrophy( dependin$ on their personal preferences and other $oals. +owever( for stren$th and power $ains( a faster speed may 'e necessary.
Page !P
Muscle action
Introd+ction
"any stren$th and conditionin$ coaches have previously recommended usin$ eccentric muscle actions for enhancin$ hypertrophy. =ut how much support is there for this claimY 0ortunately( a small num'er of studies have directly compared the e.ects of eccentric-only with concentric-only trainin$ on hypertrophy. +ere is a summary of what we knowT
hi$her in the eccentric condition (as muscles are stron$er eccentrically than concentrically#. 1hese mismatches 'etween the varia'les make it difcult to compare the e.ects of eccentric-only and concentric-only resistancetrainin$ pro$rams. 1herefore( it is important when comparin$ studies to note whether the relative loads and volumes were matched.
!hat is the e1ect o- '+sc$e action on h%)ertro)h%,

Dt least !5 studies have 'een performed comparin$ the e.ect of eccentric and concentric muscle actions on the rate of hypertrophy in mainly untrained su'2ects( as shown 'elow( althou$h one or two studies in the list were performed in trained populations. 3i6ne 7899<: investi$ated the e.ects of !: weeks of either concentric or eccentric trainin$ of the el'ow 5e4ors usin$ a 'espoke el'ow 5e4ion trainin$ machine in !O resistancetrained males. 1he su'2ects trained : K F times per week with varyin$ loads. 1he e4ercise sessions alternated 'etween ma4imum or medium loads. 1he ma4imum load was 'ased on a repetition ma4imum (< K MR"# while the medium trainin$ load was set to M5 K P; of the ma4imum load. 3ver a :-week period of trainin$( each su'2ect completed F workouts with the ma4imum load and : workouts with the medium load. Inter-set rest periods were F K 6 minutes. In the eccentric condition( the su'2ects lowered the wei$ht over F K < seconds while the concentric condition( the su'2ects used ma4imum e.ort. 1he num'er of sets was increased from F K 5 over the intervention. 1herefore( the relative loads used were similar across the two conditions 'ut it is likely that the volumes were not matched. =efore and a6er the intervention( the researchers measured muscular cross-sectional area usin$ a 81 scan. 1he researchers reported that the mean anatomical el'ow5e4or cross-sectional area did not chan$e in the concentric $roup (LF # 'ut increased si$nifcantly in the eccentric $roup (!! #. Hig*ie 72BB<: investi$ated the e.ects of !; weeks of unilateral concentric or eccentric isokinetic trainin$ at 6; de$rees[s on ,uadriceps cross-sectional area in 5< untrained female su'2ects( as measured 'y ma$netic resonance ima$in$ ("RI# scans. 1he su'2ects trained F days per week for !; weeks with F sets of !; reps and F-minute inter-set rest periods. 1he isokinetic e.orts were performed ma4imally and therefore it is likely that the relative load was similar 'ut that the volume was di.erent( althou$h these varia'les were not directly measured 'y the researchers. *sin$ the "RI scans( the researchers measured O slices of the ,uadriceps from :; K M; of femur len$th and they reported that the mean increases in ,uadriceps cross-sectional area for the eccentric and concentric $roups ran$ed from 6.; K O.M and F.5 K M.6 ( respectively.

Dlthou$h some stren$th and conditionin$ coaches have recommended usin$ eccentric-only muscle actions for ma4imiEin$ hypertrophic $ains( and even thou$h eccentriconly trainin$ is common in reha'ilitation circles( few li6ers actually make use of eccentric-only trainin$ for 'ody'uildin$. +owever( there are a num'er of theoretical 'ases upon which eccentric-only trainin$ mi$ht lead to superior results to concentric-only or stretch-shortenin$ cycle trainin$( as followsI Wccentric muscle actions are thou$ht to lead to $reater e4ercise-induced muscle dama$e than concentric muscle actions. W4ercise-induced muscle dama$e may 'e one mechanism 'y which hypertrophy is stimulated (see /choenfeld( :;!;#. +owever( whether this factor is as important as has previously 'een reported is a ma7er of de'ate at present (see further /choenfeld( :;!:#. Wccentric-only trainin$ involves a lower ener$y cost for the same amount of mechanical tension (e.$. >eZailillo( :;!F#. In this way( li6ers are a'le to perform a $reater volume of work while ta4in$ their work capacity to the same de$ree. Wccentric-only trainin$ ena'les li6ers to move a lar$er amount of wei$ht than durin$ concentric-only or stretch-shortenin$ cycle muscle actions with the same percenta$e of !R" (e.$. 0lana$an( :;!F( and "oir( :;!F#( which may lead to $reater mechanical tension for the same relative load. Wccentric muscle actions appear to preferentially tar$et the fast-twitch muscle f'ers (e.$. +orto'a$yi( :;;;( and +orto'a$yi( !PP6#( which have $reater capacity for $rowth.
/ince these lar$e di.erences 'etween eccentric and concentric muscle actions e4ist( researchers have o6en 'een una'le to control other key varia'les( such as volume and relative load. 36en in studies( the same a'solute load is used( which means that the relative load is lower in the eccentric condition (as muscles are stron$er eccentrically than concentrically#. Dlternatively( where the same relative load is used( the researchers o6en use the same set[rep scheme( which means that the volume of work performed is
Page :;
Muscle action continued... 0or the sum of the all O slices( mean increases in ,uadriceps cross-sectional area increased 'y 6.6 and 5.; in the eccentric and concentric $roups( respectively. 1he increase was si$nifcantly $reater in the eccentric condition than in concentric condition. Ho'i and "+s6ir6 72BC8: investi$ated the e.ects of eccentric or concentric trainin$ in F! untrained male su'2ects. 1he su'2ects performed 6 ma4imal isokinetic el'ow 5e4ion contractions with either eccentric or concentric muscle actions( < times per week for O weeks. =efore and a6er the intervention( the researchers measured the $irth of the upper ri$ht and le6 arms. 1hey reported that the eccentric-only $roup increased ri$ht upper arm $irth 'y a $reater amount than the concentriconly $roup (;.5O N ;.6Mcm versus ;.;P N ;.;<cm#. 1he increase in the eccentric-only $roup was si$nifcant while the increase in the concentric-only $roup was not si$nifcant. Seger 72BB;: investi$ated the e.ects of !; weeks of either eccentric or concentric isokinetic trainin$ at P; de$rees[s on knee e4tensor muscular adaptations in !; moderatelytrained male physical education students. /ince isokinetic e.orts were used( it is likely that the relative load was similar 'ut that the volume was di.erent. 1he researchers found that the cross-sectional area of the ,uadriceps increased 'y around F K < in 'oth $roups 'ut only reached statistical si$nifcance in the eccentric trainin$ $roup. Farthing 7899=: investi$ated the e.ects of isokinetic concentric and eccentric trainin$ of the el'ow 5e4ors at two di.erent velocities (!M; and F; de$rees[s# in F6 su'2ects (!F male and :F female# with li7le e4perience of resistance-trainin$. 1he su'2ects trained their el'ow 5e4ors usin$ an isokinetic dynamometer F times per week for M weeks at a set velocity (either !M; or F; de$rees[s# for : K 6 sets of M reps with ma4imal e.ort with ! minute of intra-set rest. 1he researchers measured muscular cross-sectional area 'efore and a6er the intervention usin$ ultrasound. 1he researchers reported that the eccentric fast trainin$ condition resulted in $reater muscle thickness chan$e (!F N :.5 # than the concentric slow (5.F N !.5 # and concentric fast (:.6 N ;.O # conditions( and non-si$nifcantly $reater muscle thickness chan$e than the eccentric slow trainin$ condition (O.M N !.F #. Horto*ag%i 72BB<: investi$ated whether ma4imal eccentriconly trainin$ would lead to $reater $ains in muscle siEe than concentric-only trainin$. 1hey therefore recruited !5 untrained su'2ects who performed F6 sessions of isokinetic concentric-only or eccentric-only unilateral knee e4tension resistance-trainin$ for a !:-week period. 1he researchers reported that type I f'er areas did not chan$e si$nifcantly in either $roup 'ut type II f'er area increased
appro4imately !; times more in the eccentric-only trainin$ $roup compared to the concentric-only trainin$ $roup. Horto*ag%i 78999: investi$ated the e.ects of F weeks of knee immo'iliEation followed 'y !: weeks of retrainin$ with eccentric-only( concentric-only or stretch-shortenin$ cycle muscle actions in <M untrained males and females. 1he su'2ects performed !: weeks of ma4imum e.ort isokinetic concentric-only or eccentric-only or stretchshortenin$ cycle ,uadriceps knee e4tension trainin$ of the le6 le$ at 6; de$rees[s. 1he su'2ects performed < K 6 sets of M K !: repetitions with a !-minute inter-set rest period. 1he researchers reported that immo'iliEation reduced type I( IIa and II4 muscle f're areas 'y !F( !; and !; ( respectively. 1hey reported that hypertrophy of type I( IIa and II4 f'ers was !;( !6 and !6 a6er eccentric-only trainin$ 'ut only <( 5 and 5 a6er concentric-only trainin$. 1hey reported that increases in type IIa and II4 f'ers were $reater than the increases in type I f'ers a6er eccentric trainin$. "en0Sira 72BB5: investi$ated the e.ects of eccentric-only( concentric-only( conventional and supra-ma4imal eccentriconly resistance trainin$ on thi$h $irth in 6; untrained youn$ female students. 1he su'2ects performed knee e4tension e4ercise : times per week for M weeks. 1he su'2ects in the conventional $roup performed F sets of !; 'ilateral reps with 65 of !R". 1he supra-ma4imal eccentric-only $roup performed the eccentric phase only of F sets of unilateral 5 reps with !F; of !R". 1herefore( these two $roups were work-matched althou$h it is unclear whether they were matched in terms of relative load. 1he concentric-only and eccentric-only $roups performed only the concentric or eccentric phases of F sets of !; 'ilateral reps with 65 of !R". 1hese $roups were work matched with each other 'ut were not matched in terms of relative load. 1he researchers found no meanin$ful chan$es in thi$h $irth and chan$es ran$ed from -;.O - L;.5 over the four trainin$ $roups. Ree.es 7899B: investi$ated the e.ects of 'ilateral eccentriconly and conventional le$ press and knee e4tension resistance-trainin$ in !P untrained older adults. 1he su'2ects were divided into two $roups who 'oth trained F times per week for !< weeks at M; of the muscle-action specifc 5R"( performin$ : sets of !; repetitions. 1hus( the relative load was matched 'etween the two $roups. +owever( the trainin$ volume was not matched 'etween the two $roups( althou$h the researchers did not discern any si$nifcant di.erences 'etween $roups in this respect. =efore and a6er the intervention( the researchers measured vastus lateralis muscle thickness usin$ ultrasono$raphy. 1he researchers reported that muscle thickness increased to a similar e4tent in 'oth $roups ('y !: N !F in the concentric $roup and 'y !! N !; in the eccentric $roup#.
Page :!
Muscle action continued... Nic6o$s0Richardson 7899C: investi$ated the e.ects of 5 months of either unilateral concentric or eccentric isokinetic resistance-trainin$ in youn$ female su'2ects. 1he trainin$ intervention was performed F days per week and comprised ! K 5 sets of 6 reps of isokinetic knee and el'ow e4tension and 5e4ion at 6; de$rees[s with ! minute of intra-set rest. =efore and a6er the intervention( the researchers measured 'ody composition usin$ dual-ener$y Q-ray a'sorptiometry scans. 1hey found that the concentric $roup $ained ;.6k$ (!.5 # of lean mass( while the eccentric $roup $ained ;.Ok$ (!.O #. &hile these increases were si$nifcant( there were no di.erences in the increase in lean mass 'etween the two $roups. "$aAe.ich 7899C: investi$ated the e.ect of !; weeks of either concentric-only or eccentric-only slow speed (F; de$rees[s# isokinetic knee e4tensor trainin$ on muscular adaptations in :! men and women. 1he su'2ects performed < K 6 sets of 6 ma4imal knee e4tension reps with a !-minute inter-set rest period F times a week on an isokinetic dynamometer at F; de$ree[s( usin$ either concentric-only or eccentric-only muscle actions. 1he isokinetic e.orts were performed ma4imally and therefore it is likely that the relative load was similar 'ut that the volume was di.erent( althou$h these varia'les were not directly measured 'y the researchers. =efore and a6er the intervention( the researchers measured muscle volume( anatomical crosssectional area and physiolo$ical cross-sectional area usin$ ma$netic resonance ima$in$ ("RI# scans as well as muscle thickness usin$ ultrasound. 1he researchers found that 'oth $roups increased muscular siEe 'ut they reported no di.erences 'etween $roups. /ince the researchers did not report any values for the $roups separately( it is unclear whether there was a non-si$nifcant trend for one of the $roups to increase muscular siEe 'y more than the other $roup. S'ith 72BB5: investi$ated the e.ects of :; weeks of either concentric-only or eccentric-only unilateral knee e4tension resistance-trainin$ in !; youn$ males and females on stren$th and hypertrophy. Dll su'2ects trained usin$ 'oth types of loadin$ protocol( one for each le$. 1he trainin$ pro$ram involved a heavier load for the eccentric $roup 'ut it was not clear whether this represented the same relative load as for the concentric $roup. =efore and a6er the intervention( the researchers measured muscle crosssectional area near the knee and hip usin$ computed tomo$raphy (81# scans. 1he researchers found si$nifcant increases in muscle cross-sectional area occurred near the hip for 'oth the eccentric-only and concentric-only conditions 'ut there were no si$nifcant di.erences 'etween the two conditions (<.; versus <.6 #. #ones 72B;C: compared the increases in the siEe of the ,uadriceps muscle followin$ !: weeks of either eccentric-
only or concentric-only unilateral knee e4tension resistance-trainin$ in 6 youn$ males and females. 1he trainin$ was performed F times per week and comprised < sets with a 6R" load( representin$ around M; of !R" for each muscle action. D !-minute inter-set rest period was provided. 1he researchers noted that the load used for the eccentric condition was around !<5 of the load used in the concentric condition. =efore and a6er the intervention( the researchers measured the ,uadriceps cross-sectional area with mid-thi$h Q-ray computeriEed tomo$raphy (81# scans. 1he researchers reported that the chan$es ,uadriceps cross-sectional area were not si$nifcantly di.erent 'etween the eccentric-only and concentric-only trainin$ $roups (F.5 versus 5.O #. Franchi 7892I: investi$ated the e.ects of !; weeks of either concentric or eccentric resistance-trainin$ in !: youn$ males on vastus lateralis volume( as measured 'y ma$netic resonance ima$in$ ("RI# scans. 1he su'2ects performed < sets le$ presses for M K !; repetitions with M; of either concentric or eccentric !R". 1hus the relative load was matched 'etween the two studies. +owever( the load and volume used in the eccentric-only $roup was !.:-fold $reater than in the concentric-only $roup. 1he researchers reported that the increases in muscular volume were similar in 'oth $roups( althou$h there was a trend towards a $reater increase in the concentric $roup compared to the eccentric $roup (M versus 6 #. a%he/ 72BB5: investi$ated the e.ects of concentric and eccentric trainin$ on hypertrophy in :; untrained male and female su'2ects. 1he su'2ects performed either concentric or eccentric isokinetic contractions at F; de$rees[s of the ,uadriceps muscles for 5 sets of !; repetitions at P; of ma4imal concentric power( F times per week for < weeks. 1herefore( in this study( trainin$ volume was e,uated 'ut the relative load used in each condition di.ered K the proportion of eccentric-!R" in the eccentric condition was lower than the proportion of concentric-!R" in the concentric condition. =efore and a6er the intervention( the researchers measured the f'er area of the type I and type II f'ers. 1he researchers found that with the same load( performin$ concentric contractions led to si$nifcantly $reater type II muscle hypertrophy than trainin$ with eccentric contractions (:5.O versus !M.; # and also displayed a trend towards $reater type I hypertrophy (!<.F versus !:.F #.

"ost of the studies used the same relative load 'ut di.erent volumes of trainin$. In most of these cases( the eccentric-trainin$ $roups used $reater volumes 'ecause their relative loads were $reater. +owever( there were also many di.erences 'etween the studies( with some usin$ isokinetic trainin$ methods and others usin$ conventional loadin$ protocols.
Page ::
Muscle action continued... 1here was no clear-cut di.erence 'etween eccentric-only trainin$ and concentric-only trainin$ at either the si$nifcant or non-si$nifcant levels. +owever( there was a stron$ trend for eccentric-only trainin$ to display $reater hypertrophy. 3ut of the !5 studies( O found a si$nifcantly 'enefcial e.ect of eccentric-only trainin$ while ! found a si$nifcantly 'enefcial e.ect of concentric-only trainin$. 3f the O studies that reported non-si$nifcant e.ects( the results of < studies displayed either no di.erences( or were unreported. 1he remainin$ F studies that reported non-si$nifcant e.ects displayed a 'enefcial trend in favour of concentric-only trainin$. Xevertheless( a previous review and meta-analysis concluded that eccentric-only trainin$ does in fact lead to $reater hypertrophy than concentric-only trainin$ (Roi$( :;;P#. Ds may well 'e the case with trainin$ volume( it could therefore 'e the case that the presence of type II errors prevents the individual studies from o'servin$ the underlyin$ e.ects. +owever( in contrast to trainin$ volume( the studies comparin$ eccentric and concentric muscle actions have found con5ictin$ results at the non-si$nifcant level.

It seems possi'le that eccentric muscle actions may lead to $reater hypertrophy than concentric muscle actions 'ut the literature is far from 'ein$ conclusive.

0or stren$th athletes( 'ody'uilders and physi,ue athletes Wccentric-only trainin$ may lead to sli$htly $reater hypertrophy than concentric-only trainin$. Individuals seekin$ hypertrophy should make use of eccentric muscle actions in their pro$rammin$ to ma4imiEe increases in muscular siEe.
Page :F

Training For Hypertrophy PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Training For Hypertrophy PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TRAINING FOR HYPERTROPHY

Strength and Conditioning Research

STRENGTH & CONDITIONING RESEARCH