See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320474552

Effects of different resistance training systems

on muscular strength and hypertrophy in
resistance-trained older women

Article in The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · October 2017

DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002326

CITATIONS READS

0 374

7 authors, including:

Alex Silva Ribeiro Andreo Fernando Aguiar

University of Northern Parana University of Northern Parana
62 PUBLICATIONS 134 CITATIONS 44 PUBLICATIONS 152 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Eduardo Lusa Cadore Edilson Serpeloni Cyrino

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul Universidade Estadual de Londrina
181 PUBLICATIONS 1,896 CITATIONS 218 PUBLICATIONS 1,051 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Plyometric training: how? why? View project

CONCENTRAÇÕES HORMONAIS EM REPOUSO E INDUZIDAS PELO EXERCÍCIO EM HOMENS DE MEIA

IDADE TREINADOS E NÃO TREINADOS EM FORÇA View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Brad J Schoenfeld on 20 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Publish Ahead of Print

DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002326

Effects of different resistance training systems on muscular strength and hypertrophy in

resistance-trained older women

Running head: resistance training with different systems

D
Alex S. Ribeiro 1, Andreo F. Aguiar 1, Brad J. Schoenfeld 2, João Pedro Nunes 3, Edilaine F.

Cavalcanti 3, Eduardo L. Cadore 4, Edilson S. Cyrino 2

TE
Center for Research in Health Sciences. University of Northern Paraná, Londrina, Brazil;

Exercise Science Department, CUNY Lehman College, Bronx, New York;

EP
3
Metabolism, Nutrition, and Exercise Laboratory, Physical Education and Sport Center, Londrina

State University, Londrina, PR, Brazil;

4
Exercise Research Laboratory, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul
C
C

Corresponding author at: Carmela Dutra street 862, Jataizinho, PR, Brazil; Zip code: 86210-000;

Phone: +554391523899; +554332593860; e-mail: alex-silvaribeiro@hotmail.com

A

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 1

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of resistance training (RT) performed in a

pyramid (PR) versus constant (CT) load system on muscular strength and hypertrophy in resistance-

trained older women. Thirty-three older women (69.7±5.9 years, 69.1±15.0 kg, 156.6±6.2 cm, and

28.1±5.4 kg.m-2) were randomized into 2 groups: one that performed RT with a CT load (n = 16)

and another group that performed RT in an ascending PR fashion (n = 17). Outcomes included 1

repetition maximum (RM) tests and assessment of skeletal muscle mass estimated by dual energy

D
X-ray absorptiometry. The study lasted 32 weeks, with 24 weeks dedicated to pre-conditioning, and

8 weeks for the actual experiment. The RT program was carried out 3 days/week; the CT consisted

TE
of 3 sets of 8-12 RM with same load across sets, whereas the PR consisted of 3 sets of 12/10/8 RM

with incremental loads for each set. A significant (P<0.05) change from pre- to post-training was

observed for chest press total strength (CT: pre = 122.8±21.0 kg, post = 128.9±21.4 kg, effect size
EP
[ES] = 0.28; PR: pre = 120.5±22.8 kg, post = 125.8±22.9 kg, ES = 0.24), and muscle mass (CT: pre

= 21.4±3.6 kg, post = 21.7±3.5 kg, ES = 0.09; PR: pre = 20.9±3.4 kg, post = 21.1±3.4 kg, ES =

0.06) without differences between groups. Results suggest that both systems are effective to
C

improve strength and muscle growth, but PR is not superior to CT for inducing improvements in

previously trained older women.

C

Keywords: strength training, aging, training system, skeletal muscle mass.

A

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 2

INTRODUCTION
The age-related reductions in muscular strength and skeletal muscle mass observed in older women

are negatively associated with the health, functional autonomy, and survival of older women (9, 28,

36). Resistance training (RT) is a well-recognized method of exercise for eliciting increases in

muscular strength and hypertrophy, and thus has been promoted as a means to attenuate these

deleterious effects of aging (1, 12).

D
Regular RT enhances muscular strength and hypertrophy through mechanical, metabolic and

hormonal stimuli (1, 30) in a manner that leads to a series of intracellular events that ultimately

TE
regulate gene expression and protein synthesis (30, 31, 35). These stimuli can be manipulated by the

variables that make up the RT prescription. Specific to older women, studies have shown a dose-

response relationship between intensity of load and an increase in muscular strength and
EP
hypertrophy (5, 7, 23, 37). Nevertheless, there is an interdependence between volume and intensity

in which increasing RT intensity results in a decreased training volume. For this reason, the

adoption of RT systems that allow the execution of higher intensities without drastic reductions in
C

volume have been suggested to optimize volume and intensity. The pyramid (PR) system, due to its

inherent characteristic of varying loads and number of repetitions, permits exercise performance at
C

higher intensities without necessarily reducing the volume from a specific loading zone standpoint.

This may promote a favorable anabolic environment for increased strength and muscle hypertrophy,
A

maximizing the combination of mechanical (heavy loads) and metabolic (accumulation of

metabolic byproducts) stimuli (30). In addition, changing the RT methods could also be a factor that

improves the motivation to exercise and, consequently training adherence.

A previous study from our laboratory indicated that in novice older women the PR load-

management system was similarly as effective as constant (CT) load training (25) for inducing

muscular adaptations. However, the adaptive responses to training are individual and dependent on

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 3

an individual’s training experience with RT (2, 10, 11, 26). In untrained individuals, the ability to

compare muscular adaptations to different systems is confounded by the fact they tend to respond

favorably to multiple training stimuli. Therefore, experiments seeking to compare different forms of

training manipulation that include untrained individuals must be interpreted with a degree of

circumspection as results may be primarily a function of the novelty of exercise, and virtually any

training system may provide a sufficient stimulus to bring about training adaptations. Accordingly,

studying the response of individuals with longer term training experience may be necessary to

D
determine the potential advantages of different RT systems. On the other hand, further muscular

adaptations become progressively more difficult as one gains training experience because the so-

TE
called “window of adaptation” decreases during long-term RT (21). Although improvements do not

occur at same rate over long-term periods, the proper manipulation of program variables such as

volume and intensity can limit training plateaus and increase the ability to achieve a higher level of
EP
muscular fitness. Given evidence showing that greater loads are superior for maximizing strength in

advanced lifters (24), it is important to assess whether a system that allows higher loads over the

course of a RT session without a corresponding reduction in training volume enhances long-term

C

gains in muscular strength and hypertrophy.

C

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of different RT systems (PR versus CT load)

on muscular strength and hypertrophy in resistance-trained older women. Based on speculation that
A

varying loads results in a greater training stimulus, we hypothesized that the PR system would elicit

a greater increase in muscular strength and hypertrophy than a CT load training system.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 4

METHODS

Experimental approach to the problem

The study was divided into 3 phases. The first two phases consisted of 12-week periods where

participants underwent a standardized RT program for 24 weeks (weeks 3-14 and 15-26); total

volume was doubled during the second 12-week phase compared to the first one. These phases were

intended to acclimate the participants to the stressors of RT, thereby eliminating the beginner effect

D
for adaptations. In the third phase of the experiment, we sought to verify the effects of PR versus

CT load RT systems in the previously pre-conditioned participants by performing 8-weeks of RT

TE
(weeks 29-36) according to their assigned load-management system. At the beginning of phase 1

and 3, and at the end of the third phase, 2 weeks were used for evaluations consisting of

anthropometric measures (body weight and stature), tests of one repetition maximum (1RM) in
EP
chest press (CP), knee extension (KE), and preacher curl (PC), skeletal muscle mass and body fat

by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and body water by spectral bioelectrical impedance.

The post-training measurements were performed with at least 72 h of interval after the final RT
C

session to avoid the acute effect of the last RT session. The experimental design is displayed in

Figure 1.
C

INSERT FIGURE 1
A

Participants

Initially, 58 older (≥ 60 years old) volunteered to participate in this investigation. Recruitment was

carried out through newspaper and radio advertisings, and home delivery of leaflets in the central

area and residential neighborhoods. All participants completed health history and physical activity

questionnaires and met the following inclusion criteria: 60 years old or more, physically

independent, not receiving hormonal replacement therapy, and not performing any regular physical

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 5

exercise more than once a week over the six months preceding the beginning of the investigation.

Participants also were required to pass a diagnostic, graded exercise stress test with 12-lead ECG

reviewed by a cardiologist, and be deemed to have no cardiovascular restrictions for participation.

After individual interviews, 12 volunteers were dismissed as potential candidates because they did

not meet the inclusion criteria. The remaining 46 older women underwent a pre-conditioning RT

program. After the first 12-week phase, 5 participants dropped out, and after the second 12-week

phase 3 participants dropped out. The remaining 38 older women were then ranked by relative

D
strength (total strength divided by skeletal muscle mass) and randomly allocated into one of two

groups: a group that performed RT with CT load (n = 19) or a group that performed RT in an

TE
ascending PR fashion (n = 19). A blinded researcher was responsible for generating random

numbers (random.org) for group placement. A total of 33 participants completed the experiment

(CT, n = 16, PR, n = 17), and were included in the final analyses. The reasons for withdrawal were
EP
reported as lack of time, difficulty to travel to the University, lack of motivation, and personal

issues. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects after a detailed description of study

procedures was provided. This investigation was conducted according to the Declaration of
C

Helsinki, and was approved by the local University Ethics Committee.

C

Body composition
A

Skeletal muscle mass was estimated by the predictive equation proposed by Kim et al. (15), which

has been validated when compared to magnetic resonance imaging. The appendicular fat-free mass

used for the equation as well as the estimated body fat were determined by DXA scan (Lunar

Prodigy, model NRL 41990, GE Lunar, Madison, WI). Prior to scanning, participants were

instructed to remove all objects containing metal. Scans were performed with the subjects lying in

the supine position along the table’s longitudinal centerline axis. Feet were taped together at the

toes to immobilize the legs while the hands were maintained in a pronated position within the

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 6

scanning region. Subjects remained motionless during the entire scanning procedure. Both

calibration and analysis were carried out by a skilled laboratory technician. The equipment

calibration followed the manufacturer’s recommendations. The software generated standard lines

that set apart the limbs from the trunk and head. These lines were adjusted by the same technician

using specific anatomical points determined by the manufacturer. Analyses during the intervention

were performed by the same technician who was blinded to intervention time point. Previous test-

retest scans resulted in a standard error of measurement of 0.29 kg and intraclass correlation

D
coefficient of 0.997 for skeletal muscle mass and standard error of measurement of 0.90 kg and

intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.980 for percentage of body fat.

Body water

TE
Total body water (TBW), intracellular water (ICW) and extracellular water (ECW) content
EP
were assessed using a spectral bioelectrical impedance device (Xitron 4200 Bioimpedance

Spectrum Analyzer), which has been validated for evaluating these measures (13, 18). Before

measurement the participants were instructed to remove all objects containing metal. Measurements
C

were performed on a table that was isolated from electrical conductors, with subjects lying supine

along the table´s longitudinal centerline axis, legs abducted at an angle of 45o, and hands pronated.
C

After cleaning the skin with alcohol, 2 electrodes were placed on surface of the right hand and 2 on

the right foot in accordance with procedures described by Sardinha et al. (29). Subjects were
A

instructed to urinate about 30 minutes before assessment, refrain from ingesting food or drink in the

last four hours, avoid strenuous physical exercise for at least 24 hours, refrain consumption of

alcoholic and caffeinated beverages for at least 48 hours, and avoid the use of diuretics during 7

days prior each assessment. Before each measurement day, equipment was calibrated as per the

manufacturer´s recommendations. The values generated by the equipment software for ICW and

ECW were used for analysis. The TBW was estimated by the sum of ICW and ECW. Based on the

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 7

test-retest, the technical error of measurement, coefficient of variation, and intraclass correlation

coefficient for TBW were 0.5 L, 1.1%, and 0.99 respectively.

Muscular strength

Maximal dynamic strength was evaluated using the 1RM test assessed on CP, KE, and PC

performed in this exact order. Testing for each exercise was preceded by a warm-up set (6-10

D
repetitions), with approximately 50% of the estimated load used in the first attempt of the 1RM.

This warm-up was also used to familiarize the subjects with the testing equipment and lifting

TE
technique. The testing procedure was initiated 2 minutes after the warm-up. The subjects were

instructed to try to accomplish two repetitions with the imposed load in three attempts in both

exercises. The rest period was 3 to 5 min between each attempt, and 5 min between exercises. The
EP
1RM was recorded as the last resistance lifted in which the subject was able to complete only one

single maximal execution (3). Execution technique for each exercise was standardized and

continuously monitored to ensure reliability. All 1RM testing sessions were supervised by 2
C

experienced researchers for greater safety and integrity of the subjects. Verbal encouragement was

given throughout each test. The three 1RM sessions were separated by 48 hours (intraclass
C

correlation coefficient ≥ 0.96). The highest load achieved among the 3 sessions was used for

analysis in each exercise. Total strength was determined by the sum of the 3 exercises.
A

Dietary intake

Participants were instructed by a dietitian to complete a food record on three nonconsecutive

days (two-week days and one weekend day) pre- and post-training. Subjects were given specific

instructions regarding the proper way to record quantities of all food and fluid intake, including the

viewing of food models to enhance tracking precision. Total dietary energy, protein, carbohydrate, and

lipid content were calculated using nutrition analysis software (Avanutri Processor Nutrition Software,

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 8

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Version 3.1.4). All subjects were asked to maintain their normal diet throughout

the study period.

Resistance training program

Supervised RT was performed during the morning hours in the State University facilities. The

protocol was based on recommendations for RT in an older population to improve muscular

D
strength and hypertrophy (1, 12). All participants were personally supervised by physical education

professionals to help ensure consistent and safe performance.

TE
The sessions were performed 3 times per week on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. The RT

program was a whole-body program consisting of 8 exercises, one exercise performed with free
EP
weights and seven with machines executed in the following order: chest press, horizontal leg press,

seated row, knee extension, preacher curl (free weights), leg curl, triceps pushdown, and seated calf

raise.
C

During the first two conditioning phases, all participants performed 1 set of 10-15 repetitions
C

maximum during the first 12-week phase, and then 2 sets of 10-15 repetitions maximum in the

second 12-weeks phase. Afterwards, during the third phase, the participants of the CT group
A

performed 3 sets of 8-12 repetitions maximum with the same load in the 3 sets. The initial loads

used in phase 3 were based on subjects’ values from the previous phase. While the participants of

the PR group performed 3 sets with the load increasing and number of repetitions simultaneously

decreasing for each set, thus, the number of repetitions used in each set was 12/10/8/ repetition

maximum, respectively, with variable resistance. For both systems, the participants carried out

exercises until volitional failure or an inability to sustain exercise performance with proper form.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 9

Participants were instructed to maintain velocity of movement at a ratio of approximately 1:2

seconds (concentric and eccentric phases, respectively). Participants were afforded a 1 to 2 min rest

interval between sets and 2 to 3 min between each exercise. Instructors adjusted the loads of each

exercise according to the subject’s abilities and improvements in exercise capacity throughout the

study in order ensure that the subjects were exercising with as much resistance as possible while

maintaining proper exercise technique. Progression for the CT training group was planned when the

upper limits of the repetitions-zone were completed for two consecutive training sessions and for

D
PR training when the participant could perform two or more repetitions in the last set. For both

systems weight was increased 2-5% for the upper limb exercises and 5-10% for the lower limb

TE
exercises to the next session (1).

During every resistance training session, researchers recorded the load and number of repetitions
EP
performed by participants for each set of the 8 exercises. Afterwards, the volume load for each

exercise was calculated by multiplying the load by the number of repetitions and sets. The total

volume load was the sum of all 8 exercises. Then the sum of the 3 sessions of a week was
C

determined to be the weekly volume load.

C

Statistical analyses
A

Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures was applied for comparisons.

When the F-ratio was significant, Bonferroni’s post hoc test was employed to identify the mean

differences. The Cohen`s d effect size (ES) was calculated as post-training mean minus pre-training

mean divided by the pooled pre-training standard deviation (6), where an ES of 0.00 - 0.19 was

considered trivial, 0.20-0.49 was considered as small, 0.50-0.79 as moderate and > 0.80 as large (6).

For all statistical analyses, significance was accepted at P < 0.05. The data were analyzed using

STATISTICA software version 10.0 (STATSOFT INC., TULSA, OK, USA).

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 10

RESULTS

Adherence to the program was satisfactory, with all subjects participating in ≥ 85% of the total

sessions throughout the experiment, that is ≥ 31 sessions during phase 1 (CT = 33.7 ± 1.4, PR =

33.1 ± 1.3, P > 0.05), ≥ 31 sessions during phase 2 (CT = 32.6 ± 1.2, PR = 32.5 ± 1.1, P > 0.05),

and ≥ 20 sessions during phase 3 (CT = 22.7 ± 1.2, PR = 22.5 ± 1.1, P > 0.05).

D
There were no significant (P > 0.05) main effects for macronutrient daily intake, indicating that the

relative daily intake of carbohydrate (CT: pre = 3.9 ± 1.0 g/kg, post = 4.2 ± 2.5 g/kg; PR: pre = 3.5

TE
± 1.2 g/kg, post = 3.8 ± 1.7 g/kg), protein (CT: pre = 1.0 ± 0.5 g/kg, post = 1.1 ± 0.5 g/kg; PR: pre =

0.9 ± 0.4 g/kg, post = 0.9 ± 0.4 g/kg), and lipids (CT: pre = 0.8 ± 0.4 g/kg, post = 0.7 ± 0.6 g/kg;

PR: pre = 0.7 ± 0.3 g/kg, post = 0.6 ± 0.3 g/kg) were not different between groups and did not
EP
change over time. No differences between groups were observed for any outcome analyzed. The

general characteristics of both groups at pre-training are presented in Table 1. Table 2 presents the

participants’ scores at baseline.

C

INSERT TABLE 1

INSERT TABLE 2
C

Table 3 depicts the training load and volume load at the initial and ending weeks of the RT
A

program. As expected, the PR presented higher (P < 0.05) training load (in kg) values than CT;

however, PR presented lower (P < 0.05) volume of load (load x repetitions) compared to CT. Both

groups increased training load CT and volume of load without any group by time interaction,

indicating that the progression was similar between groups.

INSERT TABLE 3

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 11

The muscular strength and body composition outcomes for both groups at pre- and post-training are

presented in Table 4. There was no significant interaction (P > 0.05) for any outcome analyzed.

However, a significant (P < 0.05) change from pre- to post training was observed for CP, KE, PC,

total strength, skeletal muscle mass, lower limb lean soft tissue, trunk lean soft tissue, TBW, and

ICW, with both groups showing similar increases over time. No main effects were noted for upper

limb lean soft tissue, body fat, and ECW (P > 0.05), but findings for upper limb lean soft tissue

bordered an effect for time (P = 0.07).

D
INSERT TABLE 4

TE
Table 5 presents the effect size values for both groups as well as the differences between them. All

differences between groups were of trivial magnitude.

EP
INSERT TABLE 5
C

DISCUSSION

The main and novel finding of this study was that RT performed in a PR system was not superior to
C

a CT load system for promoting adaptations in muscular strength and hypertrophy in previously

well-trained older women. We had hypothesized that the PR system would augment results. The
A

rationale for such a hypothesis was based on the dose-response relationship between intensity and

neuromuscular improvements that has been shown to exist in older adults (5, 7, 23, 37). Since the

PR system allows the use of higher intensities of load during the final sets of an exercise without

impairing volume in the target repetition range (i.e. 8-12 repetition maximum), it was thought that

the PR system would stimulate greater neuromuscular adaptations. However, contrary to our

hypothesis, the results of this study failed to demonstrate a superiority of the PR over the CT load

system.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 12

To the authors’ knowledge this is the first study comparing different RT systems in trained older

women. That said, other studies have been carried out that shed additional light on the topic.

Angleri et al. (4) investigated the effect of a crescent (ascending) PR system consisting of ~15

repetition in the first set (65% 1RM), ~12 repetition in the second set (70% 1RM), ~10 repetitions

in the third set (75% 1RM), ~8 repetitions in the fourth set (80% 1RM), and ~6 repetitions in the

fifth set (85% 1RM) in two lower limb exercises (45o leg press and knee extension) in 32 trained

men (27.0 ± 3.9 years) during 12 weeks. The results observed indicate that the ascending PR system

D
induced similar muscle hypertrophy compared to a traditional training approach (CT load) in young

resistance-trained men. Moreover, a previous study from our laboratory (25) using a crossover

TE
design investigated 25 untrained older women (67.6 ± 5.1 years) who performed 8 weeks of an

ascending PR system consisting of 12 repetitions in the first set, 10 repetitions in the second set, and

8 repetitions in the third set. Training included a total of 8 exercises targeting the major muscles of
EP
the upper and lower body. Results indicated that the ascending PR produce similar improvements in

muscle mass (estimated by DXA) and muscular strength (1RM) compared to CT load system.

Therefore, the current results expand on previous findings and allow generalizability of results to
C

previously trained older women. Collectively, these findings indicate that the PR system is a viable

strategy to enhance muscle hypertrophy across different populations. Although PR did not show
C

superior muscular adaptations compared to CT, from a practical standpoint it may enhance

motivation by varying the training stimulus and thus potentially improve exercise adherence.
A

There is evidence that higher intensities of load are superior for maximizing strength development

in resistance-trained individuals (17, 33). There are several notable differences between these

studies and ours. For one, both aforementioned studies investigated the adaptive response in well-

trained young adult men, while we used older women. Moreover, Schoenfeld et al. (33) and

Mangine et al. (17) made a direct comparison of different training intensities where one group

trained with heavier loads versus another with lighter loads, while we compared a system that

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 13

allows higher intensities of load in the final sets of PR versus a CT loading scheme throughout sets

in CT group. Based on these findings, we speculate that the repetition zone range applied in the PR

training was not sufficient to elicit a greater mechanical stress stimulus compared to the CT system.

Nevertheless, it is important to mention that the zone of repetitions used in our experiment is a

popular strategy for promoting muscle hypertrophy. Further studies using the PR system with a

wider repetitions zone range (e.g. 15, 10, 5 RM) and thus producing a greater mechanical and

metabolic stimulus are warranted.

D
Our results showed that the PR group trained with higher load than CT, mainly due the final set of

TE
each exercise since it was performed as an ascending PR; however, this difference did not elicit

superior results for hypertrophy or strength. Studies indicate that when repetitions are performed

until volitional concentric failure under work-based conditions, the training load may not be a
EP
defining variable for maximizing muscle hypertrophy (20, 33, 34). In addition, although the

literature indicates a clear dose-response between training volume and muscle growth (16, 32),

increases in muscle mass were similar between groups despite a greater volume load performed by
C

PR. The beneficial effects of increasing volume follow an inverted-U curve, whereby once a given

threshold is reached any further increases in volume would have no further effect and at some point,
C

could lead to a regression in gains. Therefore, it is possible that the volume threshold was achieved

in the PR system, making the discrepancies in volume of load irrelevant in terms of producing a
A

hypertrophic response. Alternatively, it can be speculated that although the differences were

statistically significant, the absolute differences were not of sufficient magnitude to enhance results.

The gains in skeletal muscle mass and strength observed in this investigation occurred without

alterations in subjects’ habitual nutritional intake. These results suggest that the protein and energy

intake observed throughout the progressive RT in this study was sufficient to support muscular

improvements. However, the protein intake of participants was below current recommendations for

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 14

protein intake in older individuals to build muscle mass (14). Therefore, the participants

conceivably could have achieved even greater muscular increases had more protein been ingested,

although not all studies indicate a necessity for higher protein doses in older individuals (22, 27,

38). It is also important to mention that food records have been shown to be unreliable for

determining energy intake in the general public (8, 19).

This study is not without its limitations. First, the duration of the study was fairly short,

D
encompassing 8 weeks of regimented RT. We therefore cannot determine if results would diverge

over a longer training intervention. Second, the findings are specific to older women and cannot

TE
necessarily be extrapolated to other populations; whether results would differ for younger

individuals, men, or those with previous resistance training experience remains to be elucidated.

Third, we did not control for the sleeping time of the participants, which could impact their
EP
response to training. Fourth, the subjects had 24 weeks consistent RT experience. While this would

seem sufficient to negate any beginner effects on muscular adaptations, the findings cannot

necessarily be generalized to those who have been training consistently for longer periods of time.
C

Finally, our relatively low sample size could have increased the probability of type II error.
C

We conclude that both RT system are effective to improve muscular strength and muscle growth,

but
A

the PR training system is not superior to CT for eliciting improvements in muscular strength and

muscle growth in previously trained older women.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 15

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

Based on the results reported in this study, practitioners can decide which system to use based on

personal preference and responsiveness. From a practical point of view, PR training can be used as

an effective alternative to optimize neuromuscular adaptations at similar magnitude of CT load RT

in resistance-trained older women, and may enhance motivation and thus promote better adherence

to exercise.

D
REFERENCES

1.

TE
American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression models in resistance

training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41: 687-708, 2009.
EP
2. Ahtiainen, JP, Pakarinen, A, Alen, M, Kraemer, WJ, and Hakkinen, K. Muscle hypertrophy,

hormonal adaptations and strength development during strength training in strength-trained

and untrained men. Eur J Appl Physiol 89: 555-563, 2003.

C

3. Amarante do Nascimento, M, Borges Januario, RS, Gerage, AM, Mayhew, JL, Cheche Pina,

FL, and Cyrino, ES. Familiarization and reliability of one repetition maximum strength
C

testing in older women. J Strength Cond Res 27: 1636-1642, 2013.

4. Angleri, V, Ugrinowitsch, C, and Libardi, CA. Crescent pyramid and drop-set systems do
A

not promote greater strength gains, muscle hypertrophy, and changes on muscle architecture

compared with traditional resistance training in well-trained men. Eur J Appl Physiol 117:

359-369, 2017.

5. Borde, R, Hortobagyi, T, and Granacher, U. Dose-response relationships of resistance

training in healthy old adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med, 2015.

6. Cohen, J. A power primer. Psychol Bull 112: 155-159, 1992.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 16

7. Csapo, R and Alegre, LM. Effects of resistance training with moderate vs heavy loads on

muscle mass and strength in the elderly: a meta-analysis. Scand J Med Sci Sports, 2015.

8. de Vries, JH, Zock, PL, Mensink, RP, and Katan, MB. Underestimation of energy intake by

3-d records compared with energy intake to maintain body weight in 269 nonobese adults.

Am J Clin Nutr 60: 855-860, 1994.

9. Delmonico, MJ, Harris, TB, Visser, M, Park, SW, Conroy, MB, Velasquez-Mieyer, P,

Boudreau, R, Manini, TM, Nevitt, M, Newman, AB, and Goodpaster, BH. Longitudinal

D
study of muscle strength, quality, and adipose tissue infiltration. Am J Clin Nutr 90: 1579-

1585, 2009.

TE
10. Deschenes, MR and Kraemer, WJ. Performance and physiologic adaptations to resistance

training. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 81: 3-16, 2002.

11. Flann, KL, LaStayo, PC, McClain, DA, Hazel, M, and Lindstedt, SL. Muscle damage and
EP
muscle remodeling: no pain, no gain? J Exp Biol 214: 674-679, 2011.

12. Garber, CE, Blissmer, B, Deschenes, MR, Franklin, BA, Lamonte, MJ, Lee, IM, Nieman,

DC, and Swain, DP. American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Quantity and
C

quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal, and

neuromotor fitness in apparently healthy adults: guidance for prescribing exercise. Med Sci
C

Sports Exerc 43: 1334-1359, 2011.

13. Goncalves, EM, Matias, CN, Santos, DA, Sardinha, LB, and Silva, AM. Assessment of total
A

body water and its compartments in elite judo athletes: comparison of bioelectrical

impedance spectroscopy with dilution techniques. J Sports Sci 33: 634-640, 2015.

14. Jager, R, Kerksick, CM, Campbell, BI, Cribb, PJ, Wells, SD, Skwiat, TM, Purpura, M,

Ziegenfuss, TN, Ferrando, AA, Arent, SM, Smith-Ryan, AE, Stout, JR, Arciero, PJ,

Ormsbee, MJ, Taylor, LW, Wilborn, CD, Kalman, DS, Kreider, RB, Willoughby, DS,

Hoffman, JR, Krzykowski, JL, and Antonio, J. International Society of Sports Nutrition

Position Stand: protein and exercise. J Int Soc Sports Nutr 14: 20, 2017.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 17

15. Kim, J, Wang, Z, Heymsfield, SB, Baumgartner, RN, and Gallagher, D. Total-body skeletal

muscle mass: estimation by a new dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry method. Am J Clin

Nutr 76: 378-383, 2002.

16. Krieger, JW. Single vs. multiple sets of resistance exercise for muscle hypertrophy: a meta-

analysis. J Strength Cond Res 24: 1150-1159, 2010.

17. Mangine, GT, Hoffman, JR, Gonzalez, AM, Townsend, JR, Wells, AJ, Jajtner, AR, Beyer,

KS, Boone, CH, Miramonti, AA, Wang, R, LaMonica, MB, Fukuda, DH, Ratamess, NA,

D
and Stout, JR. The effect of training volume and intensity on improvements in muscular

strength and size in resistance-trained men. Physiol Rep 3, 2015.

TE
18. Matias, CN, Santos, DA, Goncalves, EM, Fields, DA, Sardinha, LB, and Silva, AM. Is

bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy accurate in estimating total body water and its

compartments in elite athletes? Ann Hum Biol 40: 152-156, 2013.

EP
19. Mertz, W, Tsui, JC, Judd, JT, Reiser, S, Hallfrisch, J, Morris, ER, Steele, PD, and Lashley,

E. What are people really eating? The relation between energy intake derived from

estimated diet records and intake determined to maintain body weight. Am J Clin Nutr 54:
C

291-295, 1991.

20. Morton, RW, Oikawa, SY, Wavell, CG, Mazara, N, McGlory, C, Quadrilatero, J, Baechler,
C

BL, Baker, SK, and Phillips, SM. Neither load nor systemic hormones determine resistance

training-mediated hypertrophy or strength gains in resistance-trained young men. J Appl

A

Physiol (1985) 121: 129-138, 2016.

21. Newton, RU and Kraemer, WJ. Developing explosive muscular power: implications for a

mixed methods training strategy. Strength Cond J 16: 20-31, 1994.

22. Pennings, B, Koopman, R, Beelen, M, Senden, JM, Saris, WH, and van Loon, LJ.

Exercising before protein intake allows for greater use of dietary protein-derived amino

acids for de novo muscle protein synthesis in both young and elderly men. Am J Clin Nutr

93: 322-331, 2011.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 18

23. Raymond, MJ, Bramley-Tzerefos, RE, Jeffs, KJ, Winter, A, and Holland, AE. Systematic

review of high-intensity progressive resistance strength training of the lower limb compared

with other intensities of strength training in older adults. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 94: 1458-

1472, 2013.

24. Rhea, MR, Alvar, BA, Burkett, LN, and Ball, SD. A meta-analysis to determine the dose

response for strength development. Med Sci Sports Exerc 35: 456-464, 2003.

25. Ribeiro, AS, Schoenfeld, BJ, Fleck, SJ, Pina, FLC, Nascimento, MA, and Cyrino, ES.

D
Effects of traditional and pyramidal resistance training systems on muscular strength,

muscle mass, and hormonal responses in older women: a randomized crossover trial. J

TE
Strength Cond Res 31: 1888-1896, 2017.

26. Ribeiro, AS, Tomeleri, CM, Souza, MF, Pina, FL, Schoenfeld, BJ, Nascimento, MA,

Venturini, D, Barbosa, DS, and Cyrino, ES. Effect of resistance training on C-reactive
EP
protein, blood glucose and lipid profile in older women with differing levels of RT

experience. Age (Dordr) 37: 109, 2015.

27. Rossato, LT, Nahas, PC, de Branco, FMS, Martins, FM, Souza, AP, Carneiro, MAS, Orsatti,
C

FL, and de Oliveira, EP. Higher protein intake does not improve lean mass gain when

compared with RDA recommendation in postmenopausal women following resistance

C

exercise protocol: A randomized clinical trial. Nutrients 9, 2017.

28. Ruiz, JR, Sui, X, Lobelo, F, Morrow, JR, Jr., Jackson, AW, Sjostrom, M, and Blair, SN.
A

Association between muscular strength and mortality in men: prospective cohort study. BMJ

337: a439, 2008.

29. Sardinha, LB, Lohman, TG, Teixeira, PJ, Guedes, DP, and Going, SB. Comparison of air

displacement plethysmography with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and 3 field methods

for estimating body composition in middle-aged men. Am J Clin Nutr 68: 786-793, 1998.

30. Schoenfeld, BJ. The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their application to resistance

training. J Strength Cond Res 24: 2857-2872, 2010.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 19

31. Schoenfeld, BJ. Is there a minimum intensity threshold for resistance training-induced

hypertrophic adaptations? Sports Med 43: 1279-1288, 2013.

32. Schoenfeld, BJ, Ogborn, D, and Krieger, JW. Dose-response relationship between weekly

resistance training volume and increases in muscle mass: A systematic review and meta-

analysis. J Sports Sci 35: 1073-1082, 2017.

33. Schoenfeld, BJ, Peterson, MD, Ogborn, D, Contreras, B, and Sonmez, GT. Effects of low-

vs. high-load resistance training on muscle strength and hypertrophy in well-trained men. J

D
Strength Cond Res 29: 2954-2963, 2015.

34. Schoenfeld, BJ, Ratamess, NA, Peterson, MD, Contreras, B, Sonmez, GT, and Alvar, BA.

TE
Effects of different volume-equated resistance training loading strategies on muscular

adaptations in well-trained men. J Strength Cond Res 28: 2909-2918, 2014.

35. Schoenfeld, BJ, Wilson, JM, Lowery, RP, and Krieger, JW. Muscular adaptations in low-
EP
versus high-load resistance training: a meta-analysis. Eur J Sport Sci: 1-10, 2014.

36. Srikanthan, P and Karlamangla, AS. Muscle mass index as a predictor of longevity in older

adults. Am J Med 127: 547-553, 2014.

C

37. Steib, S, Schoene, D, and Pfeifer, K. Dose-response relationship of resistance training in

older adults: a meta-analysis. Med Sci Sports Exerc 42: 902-914, 2010.
C

38. Welle, S and Thornton, CA. High-protein meals do not enhance myofibrillar synthesis after

resistance exercise in 62- to 75-yr-old men and women. Am J Physiol 274: E677-683, 1998.
A

Figure legend

Figure 1 Experimental design of the study.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Table 1 General characteristics of the sample after the 24-week pre-conditioning phase. Data are

expressed as mean and standard deviation.

Constant (n = 16) Pyramid (n = 17) P-value

Age (years) 69.1 ± 6.1 70.4 ± 5.9 0.91

Body mass (kg) 67.9 ± 14.2 70.3 ± 16.1 0.63

Height (cm) 158.2 ± 5.8 155.1 ± 6.4 0.72

D
Body mass index (kg.m-2) 27.0 ± 5.2 29.0 ± 5.4 0.89

TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Table 2 General characteristics of the participants at baseline.

Constant (n = 16) Pyramid (n = 17)

Muscular strength
Chest press (kg) 38.1 ± 6.8 39.8 ± 8.9
Knee extension (kg) 44.8 ± 13.0 43.2 ± 10.6
Preacher curl (kg) 19.0 ± 3.4 19.6 ± 3.5
Total strength (kg) 102.0 ± 21.2 102.7 ± 19.9
Skeletal muscle mass (kg) 20.4 ± 2.5 20.3 ± 3.8

D
Body composition
Upper limb LST (kg) 4.32 ± 0.5 4.30 ± 0.7

TE
Lower limb LST (kg) 13.80 ± 1.7 13.73 ± 2.6
Trunk LST (kg) 22.39 ± 2.3 22.30 ± 3.4
Body fat (%) 37.8 ± 9.0 39.5 ± 6.2
Total body water (L) 30.7 ± 4.6 29.5 ± 5.8
Intracellular water (L) 17.1 ± 3.0 17.0 ± 4.1
EP
Extracellular water (L) 13.6 ± 1.7 12.9 ± 2.4
ICW / SMM 0.83 ± 0.07 0.83 ± 0.12
Note: LST = lean soft tissue. ICW / SMM = ratio between intracellular water and skeletal muscle

mass.
C
C
A

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Table 3 Training load and volume of load (kg x repetitions) at first and last week of the resistance training program in older women. Data are

expressed as mean and standard deviation

Constant (n = 16) Pyramid (n = 17) P-value

D
Week 1 Week 8 ∆% ES Week 1 Week 8 ∆% ES

Training load (kg) 1634.0 ± 226.7§ 1941.1 ± 240.0*§ 18.8 1.38 1782.5 ± 218.8 2126.0 ± 231.0* 19.3 1.54 0.32

TE
Volume of load (kg) 19608.7 ± 2721.0§ 23294.2 ± 2880.9*§ 18.8 1.50 17068.5 ± 2184.9 20502.3 ± 2307.4* 20.1 1.40 0.53

Note: * P < 0.05 vs. Week 1. § P < vs. Pyramid group.

EP
C
C
A

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Table 4 Muscular strength and body composition outcomes in older women at pre-and post-training according to
resistance training system. Data are expressed as mean and standard deviation.
Constant (n = 16) Pyramid (n = 17) Between groups

P-value

Pre-training Post-training ∆% Pre-training Post-training ∆%

D
Muscular strength

Chest press (kg) 44.5 ± 6.7 45.8 ± 6.6* 2.9 45.2 ± 9.0 46.3 ± 9.0* 2.4 0.60

TE
Knee extension (kg) 54.0 ± 12.8 57.6 ± 12.5* 6.7 50.8 ± 11.8 54.0 ± 12.3* 6.3 0.74

Preacher curl (kg) 24.3 ± 3.8 25.5 ± 4.6* 4.9 24.4 ± 5.0 25.4 ± 4.7* 4.1 0.84

Total strength (kg) 122.8 ± 21.0 128.9 ± 21.4* 5.0 120.5 ± 22.8 125.8 ± 22.9* 4.4 0.61

EP
Body composition

Skeletal muscle mass (kg) 21.4 ± 3.6 21.7 ± 3.5* 1.4 20.9 ± 3.4 21.1 ±3.4* 1.0 0.09

Upper limb LST (kg) 4.40 ± 0.6 4.44 ± 0.6 0.9 4.35 ± 0.9 4.38 ± 0.8 0.7 0.71

Lower limb LST (kg) 14.23 ± 2.6

C 14.38 ± 2.3* 1.1 13.91 ± 2.3 14.02 ± 2.43* 0.8 0.06
C
Trunk LST (kg) 22.46 ± 2.4 22.86 ± 2.5* 1.8 23.20 ± 3.7 23.57 ± 3.7* 1.6 0.56

Body fat (%) 36.2 ± 10.6 35.9 ± 10.6 -0.8 38.4 ± 6.8 38.5 ± 7.5 0.3 0.30
A
Total body water (L) 31.3 ± 4.9 31.6 ± 5.2* 1.0 31.2 ± 6.8 31.7 ± 6.6* 1.6 0.88

Intracellular water (L) 17.4 ± 3.1 17.9 ± 3.2* 2.9 17.7 ± 4.6 18.0 ± 4.5* 1.7 0.18

Extracellular water (L) 13.8 ± 1.9 13.7 ± 2.1 -0.7 13.4 ± 2.3 13.6 ± 2.2 1.5 0.14

ICW / SMM 0.81 ± 0.09 0.82 ± 0.10 1.2 0.83 ± 0.11 0.84 ± 0.10 1.2 0.67

Note: LST = lean soft tissue. ICW / SMM = ratio between intracellular water and skeletal muscle mass. * P < 0.05 vs. Week 1.

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Table 5 Effects sizes values according to groups.

Constant (n = 16) Pyramid (n = 17) Differences

Muscular strength
Chest press 0.17 0.14 0.03
Knee extension 0.29 0.26 0.03
Preacher curl 0.27 0.23 0.05
Total strength 0.28 0.24 0.04
Body composition
Skeletal muscle mass 0.09 0.06 0.03

D
Upper limb LST 0.05 0.04 0.01
Lower limb LST 0.06 0.04 0.02
Trunk LST 0.13 0.12 0.01

TE
Body fat -0.03 0.01 -0.05
Total body water 0.05 0.09 -0.04
Intracellular water 0.13 0.08 0.05
Extracellular water -0.05 0.10 -0.14
EP
ICW / SMM 0.10 0.10 0.00
Note: LST = lean soft tissue. ICW / SMM = ratio between intracellular water and skeletal

muscle mass. Differences = constant effect size minus pyramid effect size. Effect size

classification = 0.00 - 0.19 trivial, 0.20 - 0.49 small, 0.50 - 0.79 moderate and ≥ 0.80 large.
C
C
A

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

 D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

View publication stats