Resistance training produces an array of health benefits, as well as the potential to promote muscular adaptations of strength, size, power and endurance. The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) regularly publish a position stand making recommendations for optimal achievement of the desired training goals. However, the most recent position stand (as well as previous ones) has come under heavy criticism for misrepresentation of research, lack of evidence and author bias. Therefore this paper proposes a set of scientifically rigorous resistance training guidelines, reviewing and summarising the relevant research for the purpose of proposing more logical, evidence-based training advice. We recommend that appreciably the same muscular strength and endurance adaptations can be attained by performing a single set of ~8-12 repetitions to momentary muscular failure, at a repetition duration that maintains muscular tension throughout the entire range of motion, for most major muscle groups once or twice each week. All resistance types (e.g. free-weights, resistance machines, bodyweight, etc.) show potential for increases in strength, with no significant difference between them, although resistance machines appear to pose a lower risk of injury. There is a lack of evidence to suggest that balance from free weights or use of unstable surfaces shows any transference to sporting improvement, and explosive movements are also not recommended as they present a high injury risk and no greater benefit than slow, controlled weight training. Finally, we consider genetic factors in relation to body type and growth potential.

The hypothesis of specific lumbar extensor deconditioning as being a causal factor in LBP is presently well supported. It is by no means the only causative factor and further research should more rigorously test this hypothesis addressing the methodological issues highlighted regarding previous studies. However, its role suggests specific exercise may be a worthwhile preventative and rehabilitative approach.

The results suggest that both FullROM and LimROM are equally effective in increasing full ROM lumbar extension strength and producing clinically meaningful improvement in perceived pain and disability.

It is well known that physical activity and exercise is associated with a lower risk of a range of morbidities and all-cause mortality. Further, it appears that risk reductions are greater when physical activity and/or exercise is performed at a higher intensity of effort. Why this may be the case is perhaps explained by the accumulating evidence linking physical fitness and performance outcomes (e.g. cardiorespiratory fitness, strength, and muscle mass) also to morbidity and mortality risk. Current guidelines about the performance of moderate/vigorous physical activity using aerobic exercise modes focuses upon the accumulation of a minimum volume of physical activity and/or exercise, and have thus far produced disappointing outcomes. As such there has been increased interest in the use of higher effort physical activity and exercise as being potentially more efficacious. Though there is currently debate as to the effectiveness of public health prescription based around higher effort physical activity and exercise, most discussion around this has focused upon modes considered to be traditionally ‘aerobic’ (e.g. running, cycling, rowing, swimming etc.). A mode customarily performed to a relatively high intensity of effort that we believe has been overlooked is resistance training. Current guidelines do include recommendations to engage in ‘muscle strengthening activities’ though there has been very little emphasis upon these modes in either research or public health effort. As such the purpose of this debate article is to discuss the emerging higher effort paradigm in physical activity and exercise for public health and to make a case for why there should be a greater emphasis placed upon resistance training as a mode in this paradigm shift.

No abstract

No abstract

The aim of this study was compare changes in upper body muscle strength and size in trained men performing resistance training (RT) programs involving multi-joint plus single-joint (MJ+SJ) or only multi-joint (MJ) exercises. Twenty young men with at least 2 years of experience in RT were randomized in 2 groups: MJ+SJ (n = 10; age, 27.7 ± 6.6 years) and MJ (n = 10; age, 29.4 ± 4.6 years). Both groups trained for 8 weeks following a linear periodization model. Measures of elbow flexors and extensors 1-repetition maximum (1RM), flexed arm circumference (FAC), and arm muscle circumference (AMC) were taken pre- and post-training period. Both groups significantly increased 1RM for elbow flexion (4.99% and 6.42% for MJ and MJ+SJ, respectively), extension (10.60% vs 9.79%, for MJ and MJ+SJ, respectively), FAC (1.72% vs 1.45%, for MJ and MJ+SJ, respectively), and AMC (1.33% vs 3.17% for MJ and MJ+SJ, respectively). Comparison between groups revealed no significant difference in any variable. In conclusion, 8 weeks of RT involving MJ or MJ+SJ resulted in similar alterations in muscle strength and size in trained participants. Therefore, the addition of SJ exercises to a RT program involving MJ exercises does not seem to promote additional benefits to trained men, suggesting MJ-only RT to be a time-efficient approach.

No abstract