Can changes in resistance exercise workload influence internal load, countermovement jump performance and the endocrine response?

Abstract

This study examined the influence of differing volume load and intensity (%1 repetition maximum[%1RM]) resistance exercise workouts on session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE) countermovement jump (CMJ) performance and endocrine responses. Twelve participants performed a workout comprising four exercises (bench press, back squat, deadlift and prone bench pull) in randomised order as either power (POW); 3 sets × 6 repetitions at 45%1RM × 3 min inter-set rest, strength (ST); 3 sets × 3 repetitions at 90%1RM × 3 min inter-set rest, or hypertrophy (HYP); 3 sets × 10 repetitions at 70%1RM × 1 min inter-set rest in a randomised-crossover design. CMJ performance and endocrine responses were measured immediately pre-, post-, 12, 24, 48 and 72 h post-exercise. POW sRPE (3.0 ± 1.0) was lower than ST (4.5 ± 1.0) (P = 0.01), and both were lower than HYP (8.5 ± 1.0) (P = 0.01). Duration of CMJ decrement was longer (P ≤ 0.05) for HYP (72 h) compared to POW (12 h) and ST (24 h). Testosterone concentration was greater (P ≤ 0.05) immediately post-exercise in HYP compared to POW and ST. In conclusion, less inter-set rest, greater volume load and intensity (%1RM) may increase sRPE, duration of CMJ performance decrement and testosterone responses in resistance exercise.

The effects of traditional, superset, and tri-set resistance training structures on perceived intensity and physiological responses

“…Findings showed that as training efficiency increased, there are associated increases in RPE and decreases in session perceived load. For session intensity, findings are consistent with previous research showing that increased training efficiency coincides with increases in perceived exertion (Hiscock et al 2017 ). However, when factored with time (i.e., session perceived load), SS and TRI may induce lower perceived total training loads (refer to Table 2 ).…”

“…However, when factored with time (i.e., session perceived load), SS and TRI may induce lower perceived total training loads (refer to Table 2 ). While previous research has not directly investigated the effects of resistance training efficiency on session perceived load, it should be noted that protocols that increase training efficiency have indicated lower total session perceived load (Hiscock et al 2017 ). This suggests that session perceived load may not be sensitive to increases in resistance training efficiency when intensity and volume are held constant and highlight the relative shortcomings of this method of athlete monitoring.…”

“…In addition to reduced training time and altered perception of intensity, resistance training methods that have varying rates of efficiency are also known to promote divergent metabolic and endocrine responses (Hiscock et al 2017 ; Schoenfeld 2010 ; Walker et al 2011 ). It has been suggested that the cause of this variation is in part a result of the resistance training efficiency imposed (McCaulley et al 2009 ).…”

“…This increase in metabolic perturbation, evidenced by lowered pH and higher lactate concentrations ([LAC]), may then provoke augmented endocrine outcomes (i.e., increased testosterone and cortisol secretion) (Hooper et al 2017 ). While previous research has examined relationships between resistance training efficiency, and metabolic and endocrine responses (Hiscock et al 2017 ; McCaulley et al 2009 ), the effect of enhanced efficiency due to SS and TRI resistance training structuring has not been considered. To this end, the physiological responses due to these training methods are not well understood.…”

“…To this end, the physiological responses due to these training methods are not well understood. Furthermore, changes in training efficiency are also known to affect neuromuscular function (Hiscock et al 2017 ). McCaulley et al ( 2009 ) previously suggested that increased resistance training efficiency may cause a reliance upon anaerobic glycolysis and an accumulation of metabolites (i.e., [LAC]) which may damage contractile properties within the muscle (McCaulley et al 2009 ).…”