Search

Public health guidelines for resistance training emphasize a minimal effective dose intending for individuals to engage in these behaviours long term. However, few studies have adequately examined the longitudinal time-course of strength adaptations to resistance training. Purpose: The aim of this study was to examine the time-course of strength development from minimal-dose resistance training in a large sample through retrospective training records from a private international exercise company. Methods: Data were available for analysis from 14,690 participants (60% female; aged 48 ± 11 years) having undergone minimal-dose resistance training (1x/week, single sets to momentary failure of six exercises) up to 352 weeks (~6.8 years) in length. Linear-log growth models examined strength development over time allowing random intercepts and slopes by participant. Results: All models demonstrated a robust linear-log relationship with the first derivatives (i.e., changes in strength with time) trending asymptotically such that by ~1-2 years strength had practically reached a “plateau.” Sex, bodyweight, and age had minimal interaction effects. However, substantial strength gains were apparent; approximately ~30–50% gains over the first year reaching ~50–60% of baseline 6 years later. Conclusion: It is unclear if the “plateau” can be overcome through alternative approaches, or whether over the long-term strength gains differ. Considering this, our results support public health recommendations for minimal-dose resistance training for strength adaptations in adults.

This document overviews the items included in the SMART-LD scale and explains the grading criteria for each item. One point is awarded for questions that receive an answer of “yes”; zero points are awarded for questions that receive an answer of “no”.

Background: Prescribing repetitions relative to task-failure is an emerging approach to resistance training. Under this approach, participants terminate the set based on their prediction of the remaining repetitions left to task-failure. While this approach holds promise, an important step in its development is to determine how accurate participants are in their predictions. That is, what is the difference between the predicted and actual number of repetitions remaining to task-failure, which ideally should be as small as possible. Objective: Examine the accuracy in predicting repetitions to task-failure in resistance exercises. Design: Scoping review and exploratory meta-analysis. Search and Inclusion: A systematic literature search was conducted with PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and Google Scholar in January 2021. Inclusion criteria included studies with healthy participants who predicted the number of repetitions they can complete to task-failure in various resistance exercises, before or during an ongoing set, which was performed to task-failure. Sixteen publications were eligible for inclusion, of which 13 publications that cover 12 studies were included in our meta-analysis with a total of 414 participants. Results: The main multilevel meta-analysis model including all effects sizes (262 across 12 clusters) revealed that participants tended to under predict the number of repetitions to task-failure by 0.95 repetitions (95% CIs= 0.17 to 1.73), but with considerable heterogeneity (Q(261)= 3060, p< 0.0001; I2 = 97.9%). Meta-regressions showed that prediction accuracy slightly improved when the predictions were made closer to set failure (β= -0.025 [95% CIs= -0.05 to 0.0014]) and when the number of performed to task-failure was lower (12 repetitions, β= 0.47 [95%CIs= 0.44 to 0.49]). Set number trivially influenced prediction accuracy with slightly increased accuracy in later sets (β= -0.07 repetitions [95% CIs= -0.14 to -0.005]). In contrast, participants training status did not seem to influence prediction accuracy (β= -0.006 repetitions [95% CIs= -0.02 to 0.007]) and neither did the implementation of upper or lower body exercises (Upper body – Lower body = -0.58 repetitions [95% CIs -2.32 to 1.16]). Further, there was minimal between participant variation in predictive accuracy (standard deviation = 1.45 repetitions [95% CIs = 0.99 to 2.12]). Conclusions: Participants were imperfect in their ability to predict proximity to task-failure independent of their training background. It remains to be determined whether the observed degree of inaccuracy should be considered acceptable. Despite this, prediction accuracies can be improved if they are provided closer to task-failure, when using heavier loads, or in later sets. To reduce the heterogeneity between studies, future studies should include a clear and detailed account of how task-failure was explained to participants and how it was confirmed.

Background: Range of motion (ROM) during resistance training is of growing interest and is potentially used to elicit differing adaptations (e.g. muscle hypertrophy and muscular strength and power). To date, attempts at synthesising the data on ROM during resistance training have primarily focused on muscle hypertrophy in the lower body. Objective: Our aim was to meta-analyse and systematically review the effects of ROM on a variety of outcomes including hypertrophy, strength, sport, power and body-fat type outcomes. Following pre-registration and consistent with PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review of PubMed and SportsDISCUS was performed. Data was extracted and a Bayesian multi-level meta-analysis was performed. A range of exploratory sub-group and moderator analyses were performed. Results: The main model revealed a trivial SMD (0.12; 95% CI: –0.02, 0.26) in favour of full ROM compared to partial ROM. When grouped by outcome, SMDs all favoured full ROM, but SMDs were trivial to small (all between 0.05 to 0.2). Sub-group analyses suggested there may be a muscle hypertrophy benefit to partial ROM training at long muscle lengths compared to using a full ROM (–0.28; 95% CI: –0.81, 0.16). Analysis also suggested the existence of a specificity aspect to ROM, such that training in the ROM being tested as an outcome resulted in greater strength adaptations. No clear differences were found between upper- and lower-body adaptations when ROM was manipulated. Conclusions: Overall, our results suggest that using a full or long ROM may enhance results for most outcomes (strength, speed, power, muscle size, and body composition). Differences in adaptations are trivial to small. As such, partial ROM resistance training might present an efficacious alternative for variation and personal preference, or where injury prevents full-ROM resistance training.

The present paper aimed to systematically review case studies on physique athletes to evaluate longitudinal changes in measures of body composition, neuromuscular performance, chronic hormonal levels, physiological adaptations, and psychometric outcomes during pre-contest preparation. We included studies that (1) were classified as case studies involving physique athletes during the pre-contest phase of their competitive cycle; (2) involved adults (18+ years of age) as participants; (3) were published in an English-language peer-reviewed journal; (4) had a pre-contest duration of at least 3 months; (5) reported changes across contest preparation relating to measures of body composition (fat mass, lean mass, and bone mineral density), neuromuscular performance (strength and power), chronic hormonal levels (testosterone, estrogen, cortisol, leptin, and ghrelin), physiological adaptations (maximal aerobic capacity, resting energy expenditure, heart rate, blood pressure, menstrual function, and sleep quality), and/or psychometric outcomes (mood states and food desire). Our review ultimately included 11 case studies comprising 15 ostensibly drug-free athletes (male = 8, female = 7) who competed in various physique-oriented divisions including bodybuilding, figure, and bikini. The results indicated marked alterations across the array of analyzed outcomes, sometimes with high inter-individual variability and divergent sex-specific responses. The complexities and implications of these findings are discussed herein.

Androulakis-Korakakis, P, Gentil, P, Fisher, JP, and Steele, J. Comparison of isolated lumbar extension strength in competitive and noncompetitive powerlifters, and recreationally trained men. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000–000, 2018—Low-back strength has been shown to significantly impact performance in a plethora of sports. Aside from its effect on sport performance, low-back strength is strongly associated with low-back pain. A sport that heavily involves the lower-back musculature is powerlifting. This study looked to compare isolated lumbar extension (ILEX) strength in competitive and noncompetitive powerlifters, and recreationally trained men. Thirteen competitive powerlifters (CPL group; 31.9 6 7.6 years; 173.4 6 5.5 cm; 91.75 6 18.7 kg), 10 noncompetitive powerlifters (NCPL group; 24 6 3.5 years; 179 6 4.8 cm; 92.39 6 15.73 kg), and 36 recreationally trained men (RECT group; 24.9 6 6.5 years; 178.5 6 5.2 cm; 81.6 6 10.0 kg) were tested for ILEX. Isolated lumbar extension strength was measured at every 128 throughout participant’s full range of motion (ROM) and expressed as the following: “strength index (SI)” calculated as the area under a torque curve from multiple angle testing, average torque produced across each joint angle (AVG), and maximum torque produced at a single angle (MAX). Deadlift and squat strength were measured using 1 repetition maximum for the competitive and noncompetitive powerlifters. The following powerlifting characteristics were recorded for the competitive and noncompetitive powerlifters: primary deadlift stance, primary squat bar position, use of belt, use of performanceenhancing drugs, and use of exercises to target the lowerback musculature. Significant between-group effects were found for participant characteristics (age, stature, body mass, and ROM). However, analysis of covariance with participant characteristics as covariates found no significant between group effects for SI (p = 0.824), AVG (p = 0.757), or MAX (p = 0.572). In conclusion, this study suggests that powerlifting training likely has little impact on conditioning of the lumbar extensors.

Background: Traditionally, the loads in resistance training are prescribed as a percentage of the heaviest load that can be successfully lifted once (i.e., 1 Repetition Maximum [1RM]). An alternative approach is to allow trainees to self-select the training loads. The latter approach has benefits, such as allowing trainees to exercise according to their preferences and negating the need for periodic 1RM tests. However, in order to better understand the utility of the self-selected load prescription approach, there is a need to examine what loads trainees select when given the option to do so. Objective: Examine what loads trainees self-select in resistance training sessions as a percentage of their 1RM. Design: Scoping review and exploratory meta-analysis. Search and Inclusion: We conducted a systematic literature search with PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar in September 2021. We included studies that (1) were published in English in a peer-reviewed journal or as a MSc or Ph.D. thesis; (2) had healthy trainees complete at least one resistance-training session, composed of at least one set of one exercise in which they selected the loads; (3) trainees completed a 1RM test for the exercises that they selected the loads for. Eighteen studies were included in our main meta-analysis model with 368 participants. Results: Our main model indicated that on average participants select loads equal to 53% of their 1RM (95% credible interval [CI] 49–58%). There was little moderating effect of training experience, age, sex, timing of the 1RM test (before or after the selected load RT session), number of sets, number of repetitions, and lower versus upper body exercises. Participants did tend to select heavier loads when prescribed lower repetitions, and vice versa (logit(yi) = − 0.09 [95% CI − 0.16 to − 0.03]). Note that in most of the analyzed studies, participants received vague instructions regarding how to select the loads, and only completed a single session with the self-selected loads. Conclusions: Participants selected loads equal to an average of 53% of 1RM across exercises. Lifting such a load coupled with a low-medium number of repetitions (e.g., 5–15) can sufficiently stimulate hypertrophy and increase maximal strength for novices but may not apply for more advanced trainees. Lifting such a load coupled with a higher number of repetitions and approaching or reaching task failure can be sufficient for muscle hypertrophy, but less so for maximal strength development, regardless of trainees' experience. The self-selected load prescription approach may bypass certain limitations of the traditional approach, but requires thought and further research regarding how, for what purposes, and with which populations it should be implemented.

The aim of this multi-experiment paper was to explore the concept of the minimum effective training dose (METD) required to increase 1-repetition-maximum (1RM) strength in powerlifting (PL) athletes. The METD refers to the least amount of training required to elicit meaningful increases in 1RM strength. A series of five studies utilising mixed methods, were conducted using PL athletes & coaches of all levels in an attempt to better understand the METD for 1RM strength. The studies of this multi-experiment paper are: an interview study with elite PL athletes and highly experienced PL coaches (n = 28), an interview and survey study with PL coaches and PL athletes of all levels (n = 137), two training intervention studies with intermediate-advanced PL athletes (n = 25) and a survey study with competitive PL athletes of different levels (n = 57). PL athletes looking to train with a METD approach can do so by performing ~3–6 working sets of 1–5 repetitions each week, with these sets spread across 1–3 sessions per week per powerlift, using loads above 80% 1RM at a Rate of Perceived Exertion (RPE) of 7.5–9.5 for 6–12 weeks and expect to gain strength. PL athletes who wish to further minimize their time spent training can perform autoregulated single repetition sets at an RPE of 9–9.5 though they should expect that strength gains will be less likely to be meaningful. However, the addition of 2–3 back-off sets at ~80% of the single repetitions load, may produce greater gains over 6 weeks while following a 2-3-1 squat-bench press-deadlift weekly training frequency. When utilizing accessory exercises in the context of METD, PL athletes typically utilize 1–3 accessory exercises per powerlift, at an RPE in the range of 7–9 and utilize a repetition range of ~6–10 repetitions.

Introduction: Understanding the impact of lockdown upon RT, and how people adapted their RT behaviours, is expected to have implications for strategies to maintain engagement in positive health behaviours such as this during- restrictive pandemic-related public health measures. Further, doing so will provide a baseline for investigation of the long-term effects of these measures upon behaviours and perceptions and facilitate future follow-up study.Objectives: To determine how the onset of coronavirus (COVID-19), and the associated ‘lockdown’, affected resistance training (RT) behaviours, in addition to motivation, perceived effectiveness, enjoyment, and intent to continue, in those who regularly performed resistance training RT prior to the pandemic.Methods: We conducted an observational, cross-sectional study using online surveys in multiple languages (English, Danish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Slovakian, Swedish, and Japanese) distributed across social media platforms and through authors professional and personal networks. Adults (n = 5389 after data cleaning; median age = 31 years [interquartile range (IQR) = 25, 38]), who were previously engaged in RT prior to lockdown (median prior RT experience = 7 years [IQR = 4, 12]) participated. Outcomes were self-reported RT behaviours including: continuation of RT during lockdown, location of RT, purchase of specific equipment for RT, method of training (e.g. alone, supervision etc.), full-body or split routine, types of training, repetition ranges, exercise number, set volumes (per exercise and muscle group), weekly frequency of training, perception of effort, whether training was planned/recorded, time of day, and training goals. Secondary outcomes included motivation, perceived effectiveness, enjoyment, and intent to continue RT.Results: A majority of individuals (82.8%) maintained participation in some form of RT during- lockdown. Marginal probabilities from generalised linear models and generalised estimating equations of engaging in certain RT behaviours were largely similar from pre- to during- lockdown (particularly numbers of exercises, sets per exercise or muscle group, and weekly frequencies). There was reduced probability of training in privately owned gyms (~59% to ~7%) and increased probability of training at home (~18% to ~89%); greater probability of training using a full-body routine (~38% to ~51%); reduced probability of resistance machines (~66% to ~13%) and free weight use (~96% to ~81%), and increased probability of bodyweight training (~62% to ~82%); reduced probability of moderate repetition ranges (~62-82% to ~55-66%) and greater probability of higher repetition ranges (~27% to ~49%); and moderate reduction in the perception of effort experienced during- training (r = 0.31). Further, individuals were slightly less likely to plan or record training during- lockdown and many changed their training goals as a result of lockdown. Additionally, perceived effectiveness, enjoyment, and likelihood of continuing current training were all lower during- lockdown.Conclusions: Those engaged in RT prior to lockdown appeared mostly able to maintain these behaviours with only slight adaptations in both the location and types of training performed. However, people employed less effort, had lower motivation, and perceived training as less effective and enjoyable, reporting that their likelihood of continuing current training was similar or lower than pre- lockdown. These results have implications for strategies to maintain engagement in positive health behaviours such as RT during- restrictive pandemic-related public health measures.

Public health guidelines for resistance training emphasize a minimal effective dose intending for individuals to engage in these behaviors long-term. However, few studies have adequately examined the longitudinal time-course of strength adaptations to resistance training. The aim of this study was to examine the time-course of strength development from minimal dose resistance training in a large sample through retrospective training records from a private international exercise company. Data was available for analysis from 14,690 participants (60% female; aged 48±11 years) having undergone minimal dose resistance training (1x/week, single sets to momentary failure of six exercises) up to 352 weeks (~6.8 years) in length. Linear-log growth models examined strength development over time allowing random intercepts and slopes by participant. All models demonstrated a robust linear-log relationship with the first derivatives (i.e., changes in strength with time) trending asymptotically such that by ~1-2 years strength had practically reached a ‘plateau’. Sex, bodyweight, and age had minimal interaction effects. However, substantial strength gains were apparent; approximately ~30-50% gains over the first year reaching ~50-60% of baseline 6 years later. It is unclear if the ‘plateau’ can be overcome through alternative approaches, or whether over the long-term strength gains differ. Considering this, our results support public health recommendations for minimal dose resistance training for strength adaptations in adults.

In resistance training, the use of predicting proximity to momentary task failure (MF, i.e., maximum effort), and repetitions in reserve scales specifically, is a growing approach to monitoring and controlling effort. However, its validity is reliant upon accuracy in the ability to predict MF which may be affected by congruence of the perception of effort compared with the actual effort required. The present study examined participants with at least 1 year of resistance training experience predicting their proximity to MF in two different experiments using a deception design. Within each experiment participants performed four trials of knee extensions with single sets (i.e., bouts of repetitions) to their self-determined repetition maximum (sdRM; when they predicted they could not complete the next repetition if attempted and thus would reach MF if they did) and MF (i.e., where despite attempting to do so they could not complete the current repetition). For the first experiment (n = 14) participants used loads equal to 70% of a one repetition maximum (1RM; i.e., the heaviest load that could be lifted for a single repetition) performed in a separate baseline session. Aiming to minimize participants between day variability in repetition performances, in the second separate experiment (n = 24) they used loads equal to 70% of their daily isometric maximum voluntary contraction (MVC). Results suggested that participants typically under predicted the number of repetitions they could perform to MF with a meta-analytic estimate across experiments of 2.0 [95%CIs 0.0 to 4.0]. Participants with at least 1 year of resistance training experience are likely not adequately accurate at gauging effort in submaximal conditions. This suggests that perceptions of effort during resistance training task performance may not be congruent with the actual effort required. This has implications for controlling, programming, and manipulating the actual effort in resistance training and potentially on the magnitude of desired adaptations such as improvements in muscular hypertrophy and strength.

BACKGROUND:Increases in muscular strength may increase sports performance, reduce injury risk, are associated with a plethora of health markers, as well as exerting positive psychological effects. Due to their efficiency and effectiveness in increasing total body muscular strength, multi-joint exercises like the powerlifts, i.e.: the squat (SQ), bench-press (BP) and deadlift (DL), are widely used by active individuals as well as athletes in the pursuit of increasing strength. To date, the concept of a minimum dose, i.e. "what is the minimum one needs to do to increase 1-repetition maximum (1RM) strength?" has not been directly examined in the literature, especially in the context of the powerlifts. This review aims to explore the current available evidence around the minimum effective training dose required to increase 1RM strength in trained individuals in an attempt to enhance the practical guidelines around resistance-training as well as provide active individuals, athletes and coaches with more flexibility when designing a training protocol.METHODS:One reviewer independently conducted the search in a PRISMA systematic approach using PubMed, SportDiscus and Google Scholar databases. The databases were searched with the following search terms/phrases and Boolean operators: "training volume" AND "powerlifting" OR "1RM strength" OR "powerlifters", "low volume" AND "powerlifting" OR "powerlifting" OR "1RM strength", "high vs low volume" AND "powerlifting" OR "1RM strength", "minimum effective training dose 1RM". Meta-analyses were performed to estimate the change in 1RM strength for the lowest dose group in the included studies.RESULTS:From the initial 2629 studies, 6 studies met our inclusion criteria. All identified studies showed that a single set performed minimum 1 time and maximum 3 times per week was sufficient to induce significant 1RM strength gains. Meta-analysis of 5 studies showed an estimated increase for overall 1RM of 12.09 kg [95% CIs 8.16 kg-16.03 kg], an increase of 17.48 kg [95% CIs 8.51 kg-26.46 kg] for the SQ, and 8.25 kg [95% CIs 0.68 kg-15.83 kg] for the BP. All of the included studies contained details on most of the variables comprising "training dose", such as: weekly and per session sets and repetitions as well as intensity of effort. Specific information regarding load (%1RM) was not provided by all studies.CONCLUSIONS:The results of the present systematic review suggest that performing a single set of 6-12 repetitions with loads ranging from approximately 70-85% 1RM 2-3 times per week with high intensity of effort (reaching volitional or momentary failure) for 8-12 weeks can produce suboptimal, yet significant increases in SQ and BP 1RM strength in resistance-trained men. However, because of the lack of research, it is less clear as to whether these improvements may also be achievable in DL 1RM strength or in trained women and highly trained strength athletes.REGISTRATION:This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018108911).

The present study looked to examine reduced volume &lsquo, daily max&rsquo, (near max loads) training compared to higher volume periodized training in powerlifters preparing for competition. Ten competitive powerlifters were split into 2 groups (MAX group and PER group) and participated in a 10-week training intervention either following a &ldquo, daily max&rdquo, training protocol or a traditional periodized training protocol while preparing for competition. All participants underwent 1RM testing for squat (SQ), bench press (BP) and deadlift (DL) prior to the 10-week intervention. The MAX group performed single sets of single repetitions using a load equating to an RPE rating of 9&ndash, 9.5 while the PER group performed higher volume periodized training with loads ranging from 70%1RM up to 93%1RM as well as a taper at the final weeks of the training intervention. Both groups were tested after the 10-week training intervention at the Greek IPF-affiliate National Championships. In the PER group, powerlifting (PL) total increased for P1 and P3 by 2% and 6.5% respectively while P2 experienced no change. In the MAX group PL total increased for P1 and P2 by 4.8% and 4.2% respectively while it decreased by 0.5%, 3.4% and 5% for P3, P4 and P5 respectively. In the MAX group peri PL total increased for P1&ndash, 4 by 3.6%, 4.2%, 4.5% and 1.8% respectively while it decreased by 1.2% for P5. The results of this pilot study show that single-set, single-rep, RPE based &lsquo, training may be a favorable strategy for some beginner-intermediate powerlifters preparing for competition while it may lead to performance decreases for others. Further, it suggests that performance may be comparable to traditional periodized training during shorter training cycles, though future work with larger samples is needed to further test this. Practically &lsquo, training may be useful for PL athletes looking to maintain strength during periods with limited training time available.

Androulakis-Korakakis, P, Langdown, L, Lewis, A, Fisher, JP, Gentil, P, Paoli, A, and Steele, J. Effects of exercise modality during additional "high-intensity interval training" on aerobic fitness and strength in powerlifting and strongman athletes. J Strength Cond Res 32(2): 450-457, 2018-Powerlifters and strongman athletes have a necessity for optimal levels of muscular strength while maintaining sufficient aerobic capacity to perform and recover between events. High-intensity interval training (HIIT) has been popularized for its efficacy in improving both aerobic fitness and strength but never assessed within the aforementioned population group. This study looked to compare the effect of exercise modality, e.g., a traditional aerobic mode (AM) and strength mode (SM), during HIIT on aerobic fitness and strength. Sixteen well resistance-trained male participants, currently competing in powerlifting and strongman events, completed 8 weeks of approximately effort- and volume-matched HIIT in 2 groups: AM (cycling, n = 8) and SM (resistance training, n = 8). Aerobic fitness was measured as predicted V[Combining Dot Above]O2max using the YMCA 3 minutes step test and strength as predicted 1 repetition maximum from a 4-6RM test using a leg extension. Both groups showed significant improvements in both strength and aerobic fitness. There was a significant between-group difference for aerobic fitness improvements favoring the AM group (p ≤ 0.05). There was no between-group difference for change in strength. Magnitude of change using within-group effect size for aerobic fitness and strength was considered large for each group (aerobic fitness, AM = 2.6, SM = 2.0; strength, AM = 1.9, SM = 1.9). In conclusion, our results support enhanced strength and aerobic fitness irrespective of exercise modality (e.g., traditional aerobic and resistance training). However, powerlifters and strongman athletes wishing to enhance their aerobic fitness should consider HIIT using an aerobic HIIT mode.