Nóbrega, SR, Ugrinowitsch, C, Pintanel, L, Barcelos, C, and Libardi, CA. Effect of resistance training to muscle failure vs. volitional interruption at high- and low-intensities on muscle mass and strength. J Strength Cond Res 32(1): 162-169, 2018-The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of resistance training (RT) at high- and low-intensities performed to muscle failure or volitional interruption on muscle strength, cross-sectional area (CSA), pennation angle (PA), and muscle activation. Thirty-two untrained men participated in the study. Each leg was allocated in 1 of 4 unilateral RT protocols: RT to failure at high and low intensities, and RT to volitional interruption (repetitions performed to the point in which participants voluntarily interrupted the exercise) at high (HIRT-V) and low (LIRT-V) intensities. Muscle strength (1 repetition maximum [1RM]), CSA, PA, and muscle activation by amplitude of the electromyography (EMG) signal were assessed before (Pre), after 6 (6W), and 12 (12W) weeks. 1RM increased similarly after 6W (range: 15.8-18.9%, effective size [ES]: 0.41-0.58) and 12W (range: 25.6-33.6%, ES: 0.64-0.98) for all protocols. All protocols were similarly effective in increasing CSA after 6W (range: 3.0-4.6%, ES: 0.10-0.24) and 12W (range: 6.1-7.5%, ES: 0.22-0.26). PA increased after 6W (∼3.5) and 12W (∼9%; main time effect, p < 0.0001), with no differences between protocols. EMG values were significantly higher for the high-intensity protocols at all times (main intensity effect, p < 0.0001). In conclusion, both HIRT-V and LIRT-V are equally effective in increasing muscle mass, strength, and PA when compared with RT performed to muscle failure.

The aim of the study was to compare the effect of resistance training (RT) frequencies of five times (RT5), thrice- (RT3) or twice- (RT2) weekly in muscle strength and hypertrophy in young men. Were used a within-subjects design in which 20 participants had one leg randomly assigned to RT5 and the other to RT3 or to RT2. 1 RM and muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) were assessed at baseline, after four (W4) and eight (W8) RT weeks. RT5 resulted in greater total training volume (TTV) than RT3 and RT2 (P = .001). 1 RM increased similarly between protocols at W4 (RT5: 55 ± 9 Kg, effect size (ES): 1.18; RT3: 51 ± 11 Kg, ES: 0.80; RT2: 54 ± 7 Kg, ES: 1.13; P < .0001) and W8 (RT5: 62 ± 11 Kg, ES: 1.81; RT3: 57 ± 11 Kg, ES: 1.40; RT2: 60 ± 8 Kg, ES: 1.98; P < .0001) vs. baseline (RT5: 45 ± 9 Kg; RT3: 42 ± 11 Kg; RT2: 46 ± 7 Kg). CSA increased similarly between protocols at W4 (RT5: 24.6 ± 3.9 cm, ES: 0.54; RT3: 22.0 ± 4.6 cm, ES: 0.19; RT2: ES: 0.25; 23.8 ± 3.8 cm; P < .001), and W8 (RT5: 25.3 ± 4.3 cm; ES: 0.69; RT3: 23.6 ± 4.2 cm, ES: 0.58; RT2: 25.5 ± 3.7 cm; ES: 0.70; P < .0001) vs. baseline (RT5: 22.5 ± 3.8 cm; RT3: 21.2 ± 4.0 cm; RT2: 22.9 ± 3.8 cm). Performing RT5, RT3 and RT2 a week result in similar muscle strength increase and hypertrophy, despite higher TTV for RT5.

No abstract

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