Training For Hypertrophy

TRAINING
FOR HYPERTROPHY
FOREWORD
BY JAMES FISHER
Chris
Beardsley says...
For this
collection of reviews, I was delighted when my friend James Fisher
agreed to write a short foreword. James is a very well-known and
highly respected sports scientist working in the areas of both
strength and hypertrophy and he shares my keen interest in promoting
the importance of long-term training studies for a better
understanding of hypertrophy. I hasten to add that James and I don't
always agree on the exact interpretation of the literature (in fact
this is rarely the case!) but I find that because of our
disagreements I learn more from reading what James has to say than I
do from reading people with whom I agree. It was in this spirit of a
desire to learn rather than a desire to be “right” that I asked
James to contribute to this collection of reviews by writing a
foreword.
James Fisher says…
The present piece represents a

sound review of the body of literature surrounding resistance
training for muscular hypertrophy.
What are the problems in the literature?
Unequivocally, this area of

research is hindered with difficulties in comparing studies, whether
that be differing methods of measuring hypertrophy, or the
statistical analyses (which of course are further limited by
under-powered research studies). A vast majority of research
considering resistance training has utilized untrained participants,
potentially to the bias of the scientist seeking significant values
which make their research more attractive to publication.
Where should future research focus?

Further research should certainly
consider trained participants, over longer duration interventions, as
well as the inclusion of more realistic workouts (e.g. full body, or
multiple exercises, as opposed to single exercises).
What is the most important training variable?
In my own review in 2013, and

from the present piece it appears that intensity of effort, or
training to muscular failure appears the most significant
controllable variable; this is supported by the evidence and is
logical in the sequential recruitment according to the well
established size principle with the goal being maximal recruitment of
motor units and thus muscle fibers.
What is the most important uncontrollable
variable?
Of course the most significant,

but uncontrollable variable, is that of our genetics; by
understanding that we are not identical directs us on a path to seek
our own individually prescriptive training routine. Other variables
might affect growth to a varying degree; however limitations in the
literature hinder definitive conclusions. A muscle does not recognize
a difference between resistance types, and a maximal repetition is
maximal whether it is a single repetition or the final repetition in
a set.
How should we move forwards?
In my opinion, reviews of
research such as this provide an excellent foundation which we should
consider with intellectual analysis, addressing the application of
the discussed principles honestly in our training and recording our
progress as we try different methods.
INTRODUCTION
Chris Beardsley says…
Hypertrophy is one
of the most sought-after outcomes that resistance-training programs
are intended to achieve. However, in spite of the great interest in
this area, relatively few long-term training studies have been
performed to assess how the different variables within a
resistance-training program can be manipulated to alter the amount of
hypertrophy that occurs.
What are long-term studies important?

Most of the studies
that are discussed in popular forums relating to hypertrophy are
actually acute investigations of physiological variables. For
example, studies are often performed to assess how different
molecular signaling pathways are activated in response to different
training protocols. Often, these are taken as evidence of the
effectiveness of a particular protocol for achieving increases in
muscular size. However, in reality, physiology is so complex that it
is incredibly hard to be sure that such acute investigations will
actually lead to meaningful changes over longer periods. A great
reminder of this fact is the recent demise of the “hormone
hypothesis” which stated that the level of the post-exercise
anabolic hormone response was able to predict the amount of
hypertrophy that occurred. For many years, researchers believed that
if a workout led to a greater post-exercise anabolic hormone release,
it would cause more hypertrophy. This led some strength and
conditioning coaches to structure their programs around ways of
increasing this post-exercise hormone response. However, recently,
this has been found to be incorrect. There may certainly be some
benefits of acute elevated hormone levels, but their overall
importance for hypertrophy appears to be greatly over-exaggerated.
This error underscores how dangerous it is to base our guidelines for
resistance-training on acute studies and emphasizes the importance of
knowing exactly what the long-term studies say.
What do long-term studies investigate?
Long-term studies
tend to investigate how different training variables can be
manipulated in order to alter the degree of hypertrophy that occurs.
Training variables are those factors that can be altered within a
resistance-training program in an effort to maximize hypertrophy.
Such variables include relative load (i.e. percentage of 1RM), volume
(i.e. number of sets and reps at a given load), whether muscular
failure is reached, frequency (i.e. number of times per week), rest
periods, range-of-motion, repetition speed (or duration), and muscle
action (i.e. eccentric or concentric). Unlike the underlying
mechanisms by which hypertrophy is thought to occur (mechanical
loading, metabolic stress, and muscle damage), these factors can be
very easily measured from one intervention to the next simply by
altering programming and monitoring the results.
What is the point of reviewing long-term studies?
Given that many
researchers have already performed reviews of the literature relating
to hypertrophy, it is fair to ask what a limited review of the
long-term studies can add. Importantly, few previous reviews have
limited themselves to an exclusive discussion of the chronic,
long-term training literature. Inevitably, this means that the
conclusions of the reviews are colored by the acute literature, which
as we noted above, leads to less reliable findings and could
potentially cause coaches to make programming errors as the “hormone
hypothesis” previously did.
What does this review add?
This particular
review was performed in order to show what we know about how
hypertrophy is affected by training variables. As you will see, our
understanding is very much less complete than many would lead you to
believe. In fact, amazing as it may seem, we actually know very
little about how to structure a resistance-training program so that
it causes significantly more hypertrophy than any other program.
What factors do have an effect?
Overall, it seems that the only factors for which
we can make even the most tentative statements are: volume,
range-of-motion and muscular failure. It seems that training with a
higher volume, a greater range of motion and to muscular failure all
seem to lead to greater hypertrophy. With a still smaller degree of
confidence, we might also assert that a higher training frequency (in
trained subjects only) and the use of eccentric muscle actions could
also lead to greater hypertrophy. Finally, however, it is very
difficult to see whether or how relative load, rest periods, and
repetition speed affect the extent to which hypertrophy occurs
following strength training programs.
Therefore, it seems logical that for developing

muscle mass, training programs should focus on increasing volume
(either in individual workouts or by increasing frequency), the use
of full ranges of motion, and training to muscular failure where
possible, acknowledging that recovery requirements may necessitate
switching between periods of training to failure and not training to
failure. Additionally, it is likely most beneficial to use exercises
that involve an eccentric component as well as a concentric
component.
CONTENTS
1.
EFFECTS OF TRAINING VARIABLES ON HYPERTROPHY 5
1.Relative
load 6
2.Volume 9
3.Muscular
failure 11
4.Frequency 12
5.Rest
periods 14
6.Range
of motion 16
7.Repetition
speed 17
8.Muscle
action 19
1. TRAINING FOR HYPERTROPHY
Relative load
Introduction
Whether heavy loads lead to greater hypertrophy
than light loads is a matter of fierce debate, both in the ivory
towers of sports science circles and on strength sports forums
worldwide. Unfortunately, these debates often degenerate into
unproductive arguments because of a lack of knowledge on one or both
sides regarding the real extent of the currently available evidence
from long-term training studies. This short review sets out the
results of the available training studies and makes it clear how much
we know (and how much we don’t know).
What is the background?
When devising guidance or recommendations
regarding resistance-training programs, strength and conditioning
coaches generally refer to three different bands of relative load,
typically described as heavy (1 – 5RM), moderate (6 – 15RM) and
light (15RM+, which corresponds with <65% of 1RM). While the
division between heavy and moderate relative loads is somewhat
arbitrary, it is thought that the division between moderate and light
loads represents a fundamental dividing line. Previous researchers
and coaches have generally assumed that training with light loads of
<65% of 1RM is less effective for hypertrophy than training with
heavy loads, even in beginners. Perhaps surprisingly, although this
is a commonly-held belief, the picture from the available training
studies is not at all conclusive.
Why do we need to know what training studies say?
This review is necessary not because there is a
lack of high-level analysis of the overall literature. After all,
Brad Schoenfeld has provided exhaustive discussions of this area in
at least two of his deservedly lauded review articles (Schoenfeld,
2010
and 2013).
However, in my own discussions with strength and conditioning
professionals and other researchers, I have noted that there is a
lack of awareness of where evidence from the chronic (i.e. long-term)
studies ends and where evidence from acute (i.e. very short-term)
studies begins. While this might seem to some people to be a dry and
unnecessary distinction, it is actually quite an important point.
Chronic studies measuring hypertrophy do actually tell us how a
training variable affects muscular size directly. They measure the
size of the muscle before and after an intervention and, unless there
is a severe flaw in the study, this gives us a firm foundation upon
which to base recommendations. On the other hand, acute studies
measure short-term physiological variables that are thought to
correspond with greater muscular hypertrophy over the long-term. The
problem with this is that the measurement is indirect and the human
physiological system is extremely complex, leading to a very high
risk of error.
Indeed, we are fortunate that we have all observed
a very recent lesson in this respect, as the hormone hypothesis is
now widely thought to be discredited. Formerly, evidence from acute
studies suggested that we should build workouts around their ability
to cause a significant rise in post-workout anabolic hormones. This
is now believed to be unnecessary, or at least largely overrated (see
Schoenfeld, 2013).
Therefore, it seems prudent that we establish very clear statements
regarding what is known about a subject firstly from the chronic
literature, which can be regarded as strong evidence, and secondly
from the acute literature, which should be regarded as weaker (but
still very important) evidence. This review is intended to provide a
summary of the chronic literature.
How does relative load affect hypertrophy?
In preparing this research summary, I am heavily
indebted to the previously performed review by Schoenfeld (2013),
and the reader is referred to that source for more detailed
information. The following studies have assessed the differences in
hypertrophy that result from using heavy vs. light loads in untrained
populations. To my knowledge, no studies have been performed in
trained populations (although Schoenfeld is currently working on a
paper covering research from his laboratory in this respect).
Scheunke (2012)
– the researchers recruited 34 untrained females for a 6-week
program and allocated them into either slow-speed (6 – 10RM with
10-second concentric and 4-second eccentric, or 40 – 60% of 1RM),
normal-speed-strength (6 – 10RM with 1-2-second concentric and
1-2-second eccentric or 80 – 85% of 1RM), normal-speed-endurance
(20 – 30RM with 1-2-second concentric and 1-2-second eccentric or
40 – 60% of 1RM) or control groups. The subjects trained 2 days per
week in week 1 and 3 days per week thereafter, performing leg
presses, squats and knee extensions with 2 minutes inter-set rest
periods. Before and after the 6-week period, the researchers took
muscle fiber biopsies to assess fiber-type composition and muscular
cross-sectional area. The normal-speed-strength increased type I and
type IIA fiber area by 26.6 ± 22.7% and 32.9 ± 20.4%, respectively,
both of which increases were significantly greater than the other
groups. Moreover, the normal-speed-strength group increased type IIX
fiber type area by 41.1 ± 32.7%, which was significantly greater
than the control. This was the only significant difference in the
change in type IIX fiber type between the groups.
Campos (2002)
– the researchers recruited 32 untrained males for an 8-week
resistance-training program and allocated them into a low-rep group
(3 – 5RM for 4 sets of each exercise with 3 minutes of rest between
sets and exercises), an intermediate-rep group (9 – 11RM for 3 sets
with 2 minutes of rest), a high-rep group (20 – 28RM for 2 sets
with 1 minutes rest), and a control group.
Relative load continued...

The subjects performed the leg press, squat, and
knee extension 2 days per week for the first 4 weeks and 3 days per
week for the second 4 weeks. The researchers took muscle biopsies
before and after to assess muscular cross-sectional area and
fiber-type composition. The researchers observed increases in the
cross-sectional area of all 3 major fiber types (types I, IIA, and
IIX) in the low-rep and intermediate-rep groups but they did not
observe any significant increases in either the high-rep or control
groups.
Holm (2008)
– the researchers recruited 11 sedentary males for a 12-week
intervention in which each subject trained 3 times per week, with one
leg at 70% of 1RM (heavy load) and the other leg at 15.5% of 1RM
(light load). Before and after the intervention, the researchers
measured muscular cross-sectional area with magnetic resonance
imaging (MRI) scans and also took muscle biopsies. They reported that
quadriceps muscle cross-sectional area increased 8 ± 1% and 3 ± 1%
in the heavy and light legs, respectively, and the difference between
legs was significant.
Popov (2006)
– the researchers recruited 18 young, physically active males for
an 8-week intervention, in which they trained their leg extensor
muscles 3 times per week. A heavy group worked at 80% of MVC and a
light group worked at 50% of MVC. Before and after the intervention,
the researchers measured muscular cross-sectional area using MRI
scans. They found that the heavy group increased muscular
cross-sectional area by 17% and the light group by 9%. However, this
difference was not statistically significant.
Tanimoto (2008)
– the researchers recruited 36 healthy but untrained young males
who performed whole-body resistance training 2 times per week for 13
weeks using 3 sets each of the squat, chest press, lat-pull-down,
abdominal bend, and back extension. The subjects were allocated into
3 groups: light (55 – 60% of 1RM with 3-second eccentric and
concentric actions), heavy (80 – 90% of 1RM with 1-second
concentric and eccentric actions and a 1-second pause) and a control.
Before and after the intervention, the researchers measured muscle
thickness using ultrasound. The researchers found that the increase
in muscle thickness was similar in the light (6.8 ± 3.4% in a sum of
six sites) and heavy groups (9.1 ± 4.2%). However, the heavy group
displayed a non-significant trend to a larger increase than the light
group.
Van Roie (2013)
– the researchers compared the effects of high- and low-load
resistance-training on muscle volume in 56 older adults performing an
intervention of 12 weeks of leg press and leg extension training at
either high (2 × 10–15 reps at 80% of 1RM, low (1 × 80–100 reps
at 20% of 1RM), or low+ (1 × 60 reps at 20% of 1RM, followed by 1 ×
10–20 reps at 40% of 1RM) relative loads. There was no significant
difference in the increase in muscular volume between groups. The
muscular volume of the upper leg increased significantly in the high
(+3.2 ± 3.7%), low (+2.4 ± 2.7%), and low+ (+2.6 ± 3.8%) relative
load groups. There was therefore a non-significant trend in favor of
the higher relative load group.
Tanimoto (2006)
– the researchers recruited 24 healthy but untrained young males
who performed whole-body resistance training 3 times per week for 12
weeks with 3 sets of knee extension exercise. The subjects were
allocated into 3 groups: light-slow (50% of 1RM with 3-second
eccentric and concentric actions), light-normal (50% of 1RM with
1-second eccentric and concentric actions and a 1-second pause), and
heavy (80% of 1RM with 1-second concentric and eccentric actions and
a 1-second pause). Before and after the intervention, the researchers
measured increases in cross-sectional area with MRI. The researchers
found that the quadriceps cross-sectional area increased by 5.4 ±
3.7% in the light-slow group and by 4.3 ± 2.1% in the heavy group
but there was no increase in the light-normal group. There was no
significant difference between the increase in quadriceps
cross-sectional area between the light-slow and the heavy groups.
Leger (2006)
– the researchers recruited 25 healthy but untrained males for
an 8-week intervention of resistance training followed by
de-training. The subjects were allocated into one of two training
groups (low reps or high reps) that were matched for age, height,
weight, VO2-max and muscular strength and endurance. The subjects
performed the same training protocol as described in Campos (2002)
above and the researchers took CT scans to measure muscular
cross-sectional area before and after the intervention. The
researchers observed an increase in quadriceps cross-sectional area
of approximately 10% in both groups with no significant differences
between groups.
Mitchell (2012)
– the researchers recruited 18 healthy but untrained young
males for a 10-week study in which they performed single-leg
resistance-training 3 times per week. The researchers randomly
allocated each of the subjects’ legs to 1 of 3 different training
protocols that differed by volume and by relative load, as follows:
30% of 1RM x 3 sets, 80% of 1RM x 1 set, and 80% of 1RM x 3 sets.
Before and after the intervention, the researchers measured muscle
volume by MRI. The researchers reported that all 3 groups increased
muscular volume significantly and similarly (30%-3 = 6.8 ± 1.8%,
80%-1 = 3.2 ± 0.8%, and 80%-3= 7.2 ± 1.9%), although there was a
trend for the groups performing a greater number of sets to display
non-significantly greater hypertrophy.
Relative load continued...

Ogasawara (2013)
– the researchers recruited 9 young, untrained males for a
6-week, high-load-resistance-training program for the bench press
using 75% of 1RM for 3 sets, 3 times per week, followed by a 12-month
detraining period, followed by a 6-week, low-load-resistance-training
program using 30% of 1RM for 4 sets, 3 times per week.
Before and after each 6-week intervention, the

researchers measured the muscular cross-sectional area of the triceps
brachii and pectorals major using MRI scans. They reported that in
both interventions, the muscular cross-sectional area increased
significantly for both muscles, with the high-load intervention
increasing triceps brachii and pectorals major cross-sectional area
by 11.9% and 17.6%, respectively, and the low-load intervention
increasing the same muscles by 9.8% and 21.1%, respectively. However,
there were no significant differences between groups.
What is the summary of findings?
In summary, this is not an easy set of studies to
draw strong conclusions from. Moreover, we always need to remember
that all of the above studies were performed in untrained subjects
and not in trained individuals. However, the literature can be
analyzed as follows:
Significant differences – The first 3
studies (i.e. Scheunke, 2012,
Campos, 2002
and Holm, 2008)
found significant differences between high- and low-relative load
groups, with the high relative-load displayed greater increases in
muscular hypertrophy than the low-relative load group.
Non-significant differences – The next 3
studies (i.e. Popov, 2006,
Tanimoto, 2008,
and Van Roie, 2013)
reported marked non-significant differences between the high- and
low-relative load groups, with the high relative-load displaying
greater increases in muscular hypertrophy than the low-relative load
group.
No differences – The final 4 studies
(Tanimoto, 2006,
Leger, 2006,
Mitchell, 2012,
and Ogasawara, 2013)
found no differences.
This complete lack of agreement indicates that it
is very difficult at the present time to make any kind of definitive
assessment whether the use of heavy loads (i.e. >65% of 1RM) is
superior to the use of lighter loads (<65% of 1RM) for producing
muscular hypertrophy in untrained individuals.
What is the bottom line?
It is very difficult at the present time to make
any kind of definitive assessment whether the use of heavy loads
(i.e. >65% of 1RM) is superior to the use of lighter loads (<65%
of 1RM) for producing muscular hypertrophy in untrained individuals.
While there is some evidence that lighter loads are able to produce
hypertrophy, it is possible that this degree of hypertrophy may be
slightly less than that achievable with heavier loads.
What are the practical implications?
When working with untrained beginners, personal
trainers may be able to produce significant hypertrophy using lighter
loads (15RM+ or <65% of 1RM). Such hypertrophy may be similar or
only slightly inferior to that achievable using heavier loads and
this may allow for greater variety and an initially less-challenging
task for the client.
Volume
Introduction
Along
with training to failure, or the importance of heavy loads, the
effect of training volume on hypertrophy is a highly contentious area
for strength and conditioning professionals, bodybuilding coaches and
personal trainers. Here is a summary of what we know…
Chronic
training studies measuring the effect of different training variables
on hypertrophy, including volume, are few and far between.
Additionally, there are various problems associated with this area of
literature, most notably that gains in hypertrophy are much smaller
than gains in strength and that such gains tend to display a great
deal of variability between subjects (e.g. Hubal, 2005).
Moreover, trials tend to involve relatively few subjects over short
durations. These factors indicate that the risk of type II error
(failure to identify a significant difference) is high in chronic
training studies investigating hypertrophy, as Krieger (2010)
in fact noted in a recent meta-analysis. Krieger (2010)
observed that there is a risk that if studies are consistently
performed reporting no-significant effects as a result of a variable,
this could lead to a false impression of the true effect of that
factor, if those studies are deemed to be underpowered. This,
therefore, was the basis for performing a meta-analysis, at the end
of which he concluded that multiple sets are associated with 40%
greater hypertrophy-related effect sizes than single sets, in both
trained and untrained subjects. However, Fisher (2012)
has offered a detailed critique of the meta-analysis by Krieger.
Fisher
suggested that the meta-analysis did not control or analyze the
training status of the individuals concerned, which as observed above
might make a marked difference to the ability to gain muscle mass in
the short-term. Fisher also proposed that different relative loads
were used in the studies, ranging from 6 – 8RM through to 15
repetitions, although as we will see later on the topic of relative
load, this might not be expected to make a substantial difference. On
the technical side, Fisher also draws attention to the fact that
there were wide ranges of measurement methods used in the studies,
some of which have greater validity than others. Finally, Fisher
concludes saying that “researchers should be careful of
meta-analysis that provides a single statistic proving something that
no empirical study within that meta-analysis is able to support”.
Indeed, it is important to note that only two of the eight studies in
the meta-analysis support the use of multiple sets and only then in
lower body training in untrained subjects. However, against this
criticism, we must weigh the high risk of type II error when
measuring hypertrophy, meaning that it is very easy to perform
studies showing no effect.
What is the effect of volume on hypertrophy?
The
following chronic training studies have explored the effects of
different volumes of training in both untrained and trained
individuals. This analysis is divided into two sections. The first
section of eight studies covers those trials included in the
meta-analysis by Krieger (2010).
The second section covers those trials published since that date,
which were not included in that meta-analysis.
Galvão
(2005)
performed a randomized trial in 28 community-dwelling men and women
aged 65 – 78 years. The subjects were allocated to either a 1-set
or a 3-set group and both groups performed progressive resistance
training consisting of seven exercises targeting the major muscle
groups of the upper and lower body on exercise machines two times per
week for 20 weeks using an 8RM load. The researchers reported that
there was no difference between groups in respect of the change in
body composition.
Marzolini
(2008)
compared resistance training in 1-set or 3-set groups, when combined
with aerobic training in 72 individuals with coronary artery disease,
although only 53 subjects with a mean age of 61 ± 2 years completed
the intervention. The 3-set group increased lean mass
non-significantly more than the 1-set group.
McBride
(2003)
compared the effects of a 12-week resistance-training program in
1-set or 6-set groups of 28 untrained males and females, training
twice a week, on lean body mass of the legs and arms measured by dual
energy X-ray absorptiometry. The researchers found no significant
differences in lean muscle mass gains for the legs or arms.
Munn
(2005)
compared the effects on arm circumference in the early phase of
resistance training with 1 or 3 sets and with either fast or slow
speeds. They found that 3 sets of training produced greater increases
in strength than one set but no significant difference between the
groups was found in respect of arm circumference, as measured by a
tape measure.
Ostrowski
(1997)
investigated the effects of different volumes (1 set versus 3
sets) of resistance training on muscle size over a 10-week period in
27 males with 1 – 4 years weight-training experience, training 4
days a week. Ultrasound was used to measure the cross-sectional area
of the rectus femoris as well as to measure the muscle thickness of
the triceps brachii. The researchers reported that there were no
significant between-group differences, although there were
significant increases in cross-sectional area for the rectus femoris
and in muscle thickness for the triceps brachii in each of the
groups.
Volume
continued...
Rønnestad
(2007)
compared the effects of single- and three-set resistance-training on
hypertrophy in 21 untrained males, training 3 days per week for 11
weeks using 7 – 10RM loads. It was found that thigh cross-sectional
area increased more in the three-set group than in the one-set group
(16 vs. 8%) but there was no significant difference between groups in
respect of upper trapezius muscle cross-sectional area.
Rhea
(2002)
compared 1-set and 3-set protocols of resistance-training in 16
recreationally trained young males, training 3 days per week for 12
weeks on the bench press and leg press using 4 – 8RM loads.
However, neither group displayed significant changes in any of the
body composition measures as a result of the training program.
Starkey
(1996)
assessed the effects of different volumes of resistance-training on
muscle thickness in 10 healthy but untrained subjects training 3
times per week using either one set or three sets of bilateral knee
extension and knee flexion exercises, which were performed to fatigue
using 8 – 12 repetitions over a 14 week period. Before and after
the intervention, the researchers assessed muscular thickness at
various points along the leg using B-mode ultrasound. The researchers
found increases in muscle thickness for both groups in the quadriceps
muscles (in the medialis for the 3-set group and in the lateralis for
the 1-set group) and in the hamstrings muscles at 40% and 60% from
greater trochanter to lateral epicondyle of the tibia, for both 1-set
and 3-sets groups.
Since
the date of the most recent meta-analysis performed by Krieger, there
have been at least three further studies performed exploring the
effects of volume on hypertrophy, in various populations, as follows:
Bottaro
(2011)
compared the effects of resistance training volume on the
adaptations of different muscle groups in untrained young males,
randomly assigned into two groups who performed either 3 sets of knee
extension and 1 set of elbow flexion or 1 set of knee extensions and
3 sets of elbow flexion, training 2 days per week for 12 weeks. The
researchers found that muscle thickness of the elbow flexors
increased significantly for both groups while changes in muscle
thickness of the quadriceps were not significant for either group.
They found that although there were no significant differences
between the groups, there was a non-significant trend for the higher
volume group to display a greater increase than the lower volume
group in respect of the elbow flexors (7.2% for the 3-set group and
5.9% for the 1-set group).
Sooneste
(2013)
investigated the differential effects on hypertrophy of training both
arms of the same subject in a crossover-like design with different
training volumes (1 or 3 sets) in 8 sedentary, untrained young
Japanese men. The subjects trained their elbow flexor muscles 2 times
per week for 12 weeks using a seated dumbbell preacher curl with 80%
of 1RM. The researchers reported that the 3-set protocol increased
cross-sectional area significantly more than the 1 set protocol.
Radaelli
(2013)
compared the effects of low- and high-volume strength training on
muscle thickness of the lower- and upper-body in 20 healthy, older
women. The subjects were randomly assigned into two groups:
low-volume and high-volume, where the low-volume group performed
1-set of each exercise, while the high-volume group performed 3-sets
of each exercise, 2 times per week for 13 weeks. The researchers
found that all muscle thickness measurements of the lower- and
upper-body increased similarly in both groups. However, there was a
non-significant trend for the total quadriceps muscle thickness to
increase by more in the high-volume group than in the low-volume
group (14.3 ± 4.1% versus 8.6 ± 2.0%).
In
summary, out of all 11 studies assessing the difference between low-
and high-volumes of training on hypertrophy, 3 have found
statistically significant benefits of using a higher volume, 7 have
found non-significant benefits of using a higher volume (which may or
may not be because of a type II error), and 1 study has found no
benefit at all of using a higher volume, although that study used
perhaps the most unreliable measurement method of hypertrophy (arm
circumference). In trained subjects, the only 2 studies that have
been performed so far have found non-significant benefits of using a
higher volume (which again may or may not be because of a type II
error).

In
conclusion, using multiple sets to achieve a higher volume of
training appears to lead to greater hypertrophy than using either
single sets or a smaller volume of training. However, the current
literature is plagued by a lack of high quality studies with
sufficient statistical power and this conclusion can only be drawn
based on a meta-analysis of studies and based on a review of
non-significant trends.
Training
with multiple sets to achieve a higher volume of training appears to
lead to greater hypertrophy, irrespective of training status and age.
Additionally, there appears to be a dose-response to volume of
training to a degree, although it is not clear at what point
increasing doses cease to be increasingly effective. Finally, the law
of diminishing returns seems to apply to hypertrophy training: in
that the first set may be the most important and each successive set
offers a steadily reducing stimulus. Therefore, for those who are
short of time, fewer sets may be appropriate.
Muscular failure
Introduction
Despite great debate in the fitness industry
regarding whether individuals should train to failure or not,
researchers have not investigated this problem thoroughly. In fact,
despite what many people believe, volume-matched, long-term training
studies are very thin on the ground in respect of whether training to
failure (or greater levels of fatigue) is to be preferred for
strength and hypertrophy. Here is a summary of what we know…
Training to momentary muscular failure is a common
concept in the fitness industry and most intermediate and advanced
trainees have a good instinct for when they are approaching it during
a set. Moreover, while many strength athletes do regularly go to
failure in their training, a significant proportion, including some
powerlifters and bodybuilders, do not always go to failure in a given
workout. However, in the research literature exploring strength and
hypertrophy gains following a period of training, it is very common
for all sets to be performed to failure. There is therefore a
discrepancy between what the research literature tells us and what a
given trainee might be doing.
Additionally, as noted above, extremely few
studies have compared volume-matched training protocols in which one
group performed sets to failure while another group performed the
same volume-matched program not to failure. Therefore, in this brief
review, such studies are included as well as a few more that have
explored the difference between volume-matched protocols with
differing levels of fatigue. While this is not ideal, it does provide
a fuller picture and based on the findings of Sundstrup (2012),
which is discussed in more detail below, it is likely to be valid.
Indeed, while some researchers and proponents of training to muscular
failure have suggested that training to failure is necessary in order
to recruit all motor units, the research does not completely support
this view. Sundstrup (2012)
explored the EMG activity of lateral raises during individual reps of
15RM loads performed to failure. They found that a plateau muscle
activity was reached at 10 – 12 reps of the 15RM load, which they
interpreted to mean that training to complete failure is not
necessary to fully recruit the entire motor unit pool, at least in
untrained individuals.
What is the effect of muscular failure on
hypertrophy?
The following training studies have explored the
effect on strength of groups performing exercises to muscular failure
(or just greater degrees of fatigue) in comparison with other
volume-matched groups performing the same exercises not to muscular
failure (or lesser degrees of fatigue), using various different
approaches:
Goto (2005)
investigated the effects of failure within the context of a
volume-equated scheme of resistance-training on quadriceps
hypertrophy of the quadriceps. Although each training group performed
3 sets of 10RM on the lat pull-down and shoulder press, and 5 sets of
10RM on the bilateral knee extension, one group performed the
exercises straight through with 1 minute of rest between sets and
exercises, while another group took another 30 seconds of rest
half-way through each set. The researchers found that the group that
took the inter-set rest displayed less hypertrophy in comparison with
the group who took no rest, indicating that muscular failure may well
be an important modifying factor for muscular hypertrophy. However,
the exact mechanism by which such superior results occur remains
unclear.
Schott (1995)
– the researchers compared the adaptations following two types of
isometric strength training: short, intermittent contractions (lesser
fatigue group) vs. longer, continuous contractions (greater fatigue
group) at 70% of MVIC in which 7 subjects trained 3 times per week
for 14 weeks. The right leg was trained using 4 sets of 10 bouts of
3-second contractions with a 2-second rest period between each
contraction and 2 minutes inter-set rest periods. The left leg was
trained using 4 sets of 30-second contractions with a 1-minute
inter-set rest period. The researchers found that the increase in
muscular cross-sectional area was significantly greater for the
longer, continuous contractions than for the short, intermittent
contractions.
Despite the great interest in this area and
numerous proposals that muscular failure is critical for muscular
strength and size gains by both lay people and researchers, there is
in fact a paucity of literature. Only 2 studies have directly
explored the effects of training to muscular failure or not in
volume-matched trials and these have found beneficial results for
training to muscular failure in comparison with training
not-to-failure.
In conclusion, it is very hard to make a
definitive statement about the effect of muscular failure on
hypertrophy because of the very small number of studies, However,
seems that hypertrophy might be greater when training to failure in
comparison with training not-to-failure where other training
variables are equated.
For strength athletes and bodybuilders, as well as
everyone looking to increase hypertrophy for physique enhancement,
there is some limited evidence that incorporating training to failure
might lead to better gains in hypertrophy.
Frequency
Introduction
Along with training to muscular failure, using
heavy or light loads, and training volume, the effect of training
frequency on hypertrophy is a contentious area. Frequency most often
comes up in the context of discussions about how many times a body
part is trained per week. However, a big problem with manipulating
training frequency is that volume tends to get altered at the same
time. Fortunately, a small number of studies have investigated
training frequency while keeping volume constant. Here is a summary
of what we know…
Like volume, muscular failure and relative load,
training frequency has traditionally been considered important for
hypertrophy. However, matters are often confused on the gym floor
because training frequency is often manipulated for the purposes of
indirectly altering volume. The same issue is present in the
literature. In many research studies investigating frequency, volume
is not equated between the groups, leading to a greater total volume
of training being performed by the high-frequency group. Since volume
may well be a key factor in muscular hypertrophy, this is an
important confounding factor for the study of training frequency.
Nevertheless, a small number of volume-matched studies have been
performed to assess the independent effect of frequency on
hypertrophy, in both trained and untrained populations.
How does frequency
affect hypertrophy in trained subjects?
The following chronic training studies have
explored the effects of different volume-matched frequencies of
training in trained subjects:
McLester (2000)
performed a 12-week investigation involving trained subjects divided
into two groups, one of which performed resistance training 1 day per
week for 3 sets of each exercise at 80% of 1RM with 2 minutes of
inter-set rest. The other group trained 3 days per week for 1 set of
each exercise at 80% of 1RM. The number of sets was set in order to
keep total volume constant. Neither group significantly increased
lean body mass as a result of the training. The researchers found
non-significantly greater increases in lean body mass as a result of
training three times a week compared to once a week per muscle group,
matched for total volume (8% and 1%, respectively).
Häkkinen and Kallinen (1994)
performed a 6-week cross-over investigation involving trained female
subjects. The subjects performed a sequence of two 3-week periods of
resistance-training for the quadriceps, training three times a week.
In one period, the subjects trained once on each training day and in
the other period they trained using an identical volume over two
sessions. Training once each training day, the subjects didn’t
display an increase in quadriceps cross-sectional area, but training
twice each training day, they displayed significant increases in
quadriceps cross-sectional area.
Hartmann (2007)
performed a 3-week investigation into the effects of twice- and
once-daily training sessions with similar training volumes in 10
nationally competitive male weightlifters on muscle cross-sectional
area and performance measures. They reported no increases in muscular
cross-sectional area in either group and no significant differences
between groups. In fact, the once-daily group increased
cross-sectional area to a non-significantly greater extent than the
twice-daily group (3.2% versus 2.1%). However, the duration of the
study was very short and the training status of the subjects was very
high, suggesting that only tiny increases in muscular cross-sectional
area would occur and, given that the sample size was very small, it
would be impossible to detect such changes statistically.
In summary, if we exclude the Olympic
weight-lifting study on the basis that the study design made it hard
for any difference to be detected because of the very short study
duration, small sample of subjects, and high training status of the
subjects, there appears to be a limited trend towards a higher
volume-matched frequency leading to greater hypertrophy in trained
subjects. However, this conclusion is very tentative and further
research is clearly needed in this area.
How does frequency affect hypertrophy in untrained subjects?

The following chronic training studies have
explored the effects of different volume-matched frequencies of
training in untrained subjects:
Calder (1994)
performed a 20-week investigation in 30 young women in 3 groups
who performed either whole-body training, upper-lower split training
or no training (a control). The whole-body group performed 4 upper (5
sets of 6 – 10RM) and 3 lower body (5 sets of 10 – 12RM)
resistance exercises in single sessions twice a week. The upper-lower
split group did the upper body exercises on 2 days a week and the
lower body exercises on 2 other days of the week. The researchers
reported that trunk lean tissue mass increased in the whole body and
upper-lower split groups by 3.4 and 2.7%, respectively, leg lean mass
by 4.9% and 1.7%, and whole body lean mass by 4.1 and 2.6%,
respectively. The leg lean mass increase was significant only in the
whole body group.
Benton (2011)
investigated the effects of 8 weeks of 3 versus 4 days per week of
volume-matched resistance-training on body composition in middle-aged
women.
Frequency
continued...
The 3-day group completed 3 sets of 8 exercises
arranged as a whole-body routine and the 4-day group completed 3 sets
of 6 upper body exercises or 6 sets of 3 lower body exercises,
arranged as an upper-lower split routine. Both groups of subjects
performed 72 sets per week of 8 – 12 repetitions at 50 – 80% of
1RM. Although both groups displayed significant increases in lean
mass (1.1 ± 0.3 kg), there were no significant differences between
groups. However, the 3-day per week group displayed a
non-significantly greater increase in lean mass than the 4-day per
week group (3.1% versus 1.5%, respectively).
Candow and Burke (2007)
investigated the effects of 6 weeks of 2 versus 3 days per week
of volume-matched resistance-training on lean tissue mass in
untrained subjects, who performed either 3 sets of 10 repetitions to
fatigue twice a week or 2 sets of 10 repetitions three times a week.
Although both groups increased lean tissue mass significantly, there
were no significant or even any non-significant differences between
groups (2.9 and 3.0% increases in lean mass for the lower and higher
frequency groups, respectively).
Arazi and Asadi (2011)
divided healthy but untrained males into four groups: one group
performing one session of total-body resistance training (12
exercises, once a week), another group performing total-body
resistance training divided into two sessions (6 exercises, twice a
week), an upper-lower split group performing three sessions per week
(4 exercises, three times a week), and a control group. All groups
performed the same volume and number of exercises, which comprised
the leg press, leg curl, leg extension, calf raise, lat pull-down,
lat pull-row, bench press, pec fly, arm curl, dumbbell arm curl,
triceps push-down, and dumbbell triceps extension. The total-body
twice a week group and the upper-lower split group displayed
significant improvements in thigh circumference while the total-body
once a week group and the upper-lower split group displayed
significant increases in arm circumference. While there were no
significant differences between groups, there was a non-significant
trend for the higher frequency groups to increase arm and thigh
circumference to a greater extent than the low frequency group.
In summary, in untrained subjects a higher
volume-matched training frequency seems to have no effect or may even
have a detrimental effect on hypertrophy. Whether this difference
between untrained and trained subjects is indeed an effect of
training status or simply a function of there being conflicting
results between studies is unclear.
There appears to be a very limited trend towards a
higher volume-matched frequency leading to greater hypertrophy in
trained subjects. However, this conclusion is very tentative and
further research is clearly needed in this area. On the other hand,
in untrained subjects a higher volume-matched training frequency
seems to have no effect or may even have a detrimental effect on
hypertrophy.
For trained individuals, increasing frequency may
lead to slightly greater hypertrophy, whether in conjunction with
increasing volume or simply by redistributing the same volume over a
greater number of sessions. On the other hand, for untrained
individuals, increasing frequency may not be as effective for
hypertrophy and sticking to a more traditional number of sessions
(e.g. three times per week) may be the best course of action.
Rest periods
Introduction
Many training variables seem to have an important
effect on the extent to which a resistance-training protocol can
cause hypertrophy. Such variables include volume, relative load,
range of motion, exercise selection, whether or not the exercise is
taken to failure, repetition speed, and inter-set rest period
duration. However, while some of these variables have been
extensively researched in long-term studies (e.g. volume), other
areas, including inter-set rest period duration, have not. To bring
you up to speed with where the research is at when it comes to how
inter-set rest periods affect strength and size gains, here’s a
brief review of the long-term studies that are currently available.
How does rest period affect gains in hypertrophy?
The effect of rest period duration on gains in
muscular strength and size has been reviewed previously (see De
Salles, 2009).
However, at the time that review was written, there were no studies
that had studied the long-term effects of rest period duration on
muscular size gains! Consequently, conclusions drawn for muscular
hypertrophy in that review were based on acute studies of hormones
and metabolites. Since then, two studies have been performed, as
follows:
Ahtiainen (2005)
– The researchers explored the effects of rest period duration on
the hormonal and neuromuscular adaptations following a 6-month period
of resistance-training. The researchers recruited 13 recreationally
resistance-trained male subjects. The study was divided into two
separate 3-month training periods in a crossover design. In one
3-month period, the subjects performed a training protocol using a
short rest (2 minutes) and in the other they used a long rest (5
minutes). Before and after the interventions, the researchers
measured hormonal concentrations as well as maximal isometric leg
extension torque, unilateral leg press 1RM, and muscle
cross-sectional area of the quadriceps femoris using magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI) scans. The training protocol involved leg
presses and squats with 10RM sets and were matched for volume (i.e.
load x sets x reps) but were different in respect of the relative
load used and the rest period durations. The researchers observed
significant increases in quadriceps muscle cross-sectional area (4%)
over the 6-month strength-training period. However, both 3-month
training periods resulted in similar gains in muscle mass but no
statistically significant changes were observed in hormone
concentrations.
Buresh (2009)
– The researchers wanted to compare the effects of short (1
minute) and long (2.5 minutes) rest periods on strength and muscular
cross-sectional area during a 10-week training period. They recruited
12 untrained male subjects who performed a training routine of 3 sets
using a load that led to failure on the third set of each exercise,
including the squat and bench press exercises. The researchers found
that arm cross-sectional area increased more with long rest periods
(12.3 ±7.2%) than with short rest periods (5.1 ± 2.9%) but they did
not notice any significant differences in respect of leg muscle
cross-sectional area.
These studies found conflicting results. Ahtiainen
(2005)
found no differences in muscular hypertrophy when short (2 minutes)
vs. long (4 minutes) rest periods were used in a volume-matched
program of resistance-training. On the other hand, Buresh (2009)
found that hypertrophy was greater when using long (2.5 minutes)
versus short (1 minute) rest periods when volume was dictated by
muscular failure and therefore lower in the short-rest group. The
differences between these studies may again arise because of the
failure of the short-rest period in the latter study to achieve
sufficient training volume. Slightly longer rest periods than 1
minute (e.g. 90 – 120 seconds) may therefore be preferable in order
to maintain optimal workloads while maintaining some metabolic
stress, which is thought to be beneficial for hypertrophy based on
acute studies (Schoenfeld, 2013).
However, the exact duration of rest period that leads to the optimal
recovery of strength between sets is outside the scope of this
review. Moreover, persisting working with short rest periods may lead
to beneficial adaptations which permit higher volumes while using
short rests, as the next sections will demonstrate. Therefore, it
remains difficult to assess whether rest period has any significant
effect on hypertrophy irrespective of volume based on the current
long-term studies. It seems appropriate to recommend that individuals
seeking hypertrophy do not prejudice training volume too much by
reducing rest periods to the point where it is difficult to perform
as much work as they would otherwise be able to with longer rest
periods.
How does reducing rest periods affect
hypertrophy?
A rather interesting couple of studies have been
initiated since the review by De Salles et al. in 2009, which involve
the use of reducing rest periods over the sequence of
resistance-training sets.
De Souza (2010)
– The researchers compared the effect on strength and hypertrophy
of 8 weeks of resistance-training using either (1) constant rest
intervals, or (2) decreasing rest intervals. They recruited 20 young,
recreationally-trained subjects and allocated them to one or other of
the training groups, who performed resistance-training including the
bench press and squat exercises. In the first 2 weeks of training,
the subjects performed 3 sets of 10 – 12RM with 2-minute rests.
Rest periods
continued...
In the following 6 weeks of training, the subjects
performed 4 sets of 8 – 10RM and while the constant-rest group
rested 2-minutes between sets, the decreasing-rest group rested with
progressively shorter rests (2 minutes decreasing to 30 seconds) over
the 6 weeks of training. Before and after the intervention, the
researchers measured 1RM bench press and squat, as well as isokinetic
peak knee extension and flexion torque and muscular cross-sectional
area.. The researchers found that total training volume of the bench
press and squat were significantly lower for the decreasing-rest
group compared to the constant-rest group (bench press 9.4% lower,
and squat 13.9% lower). However, they found that there were no
significant differences in the arm or thigh cross-sectional area
increases (arm 13.8 vs. 14.5%, thigh 16.6 vs. 16.3%) between the two
training groups.
Souza-Junior (2011)
– The researchers compared the effect on strength and
hypertrophy of 8 weeks of resistance-training and creatine
supplementation using either (1) constant rest intervals, or (2)
decreasing rest intervals. They recruited 22 young,
recreationally-trained males and allocated them to one or other of
the training groups, who performed resistance-training including the
bench press and squat exercises. In the first 2 weeks of training,
the subjects all performed exercises with 2-minute rests. In the
following 6 weeks of training, while the constant-rest group rested
2-minutes between sets, the decreasing-rest group rested with
progressively shorter rests (2 minutes decreasing to 30 seconds) over
the 6 weeks of training. Before and after the intervention, the
researchers measured 1RM bench press and squat, as well as isokinetic
peak knee extension and flexion torque and arm and thigh muscular
cross-sectional area. The researchers found that total training
volume of the bench press and squat were significantly lower for the
decreasing-rest group compared to the constant-rest group. The
researchers found that both groups displayed significant increases in
arm and thigh muscular cross-sectional area but there were no
significant differences between groups for either variable.
These two studies comparing fixed with reducing
rest periods found identical results, which were that the duration of
rest periods had no effect on muscular hypertrophy. However, the
period of time was quite short for measuring hypertrophy differences
(6 weeks for the 2 different protocols). Similarly, Ahtiainen (2005)
found no differences in muscular hypertrophy when short (2 minutes)
vs. long (4 minutes) rest periods were used but this study differed
in that a volume-matched program was used. On the other hand, Buresh
(2009)
found that hypertrophy was greater when using long (2.5 minutes)
versus short (1 minute) rest periods when volume was dictated by
muscular failure and therefore lower in the short-rest group. Exactly
why Buresh (2009)
found different results to these two studies is unclear but again may
relate to the progressive adaptations achieved by steadily decreasing
rest periods rather than maintaining short rest periods from the
outset.
Studies comparing short and long fixed rest
periods have reported conflicting results in respect of hypertrophy.
However, training volume was not always equated and the groups that
used shorter rest periods often trained with lower volume, which
makes them hard to compare. Studies comparing fixed with reducing
rest periods have found that the duration of rest periods had no
effect on muscular hypertrophy, even when volume was lower.
While the research is extremely limited and very
conflicting, it seems wise that when using constant rest periods,
care should be taken not to reduce volume at the expense of using
short rest periods, as this may lead to sub-optimal volume, which
appears to be a relevant training variable for hypertrophy.
Range of motion
Introduction
Most lifters instinctively know that larger range
of motion (ROM) translates to greater gains in strength and
hypertrophy, most of the time. However, surprisingly, it is not until
recently that research has demonstrated this to be the case. Here is
a brief review of how ROM during resistance-training exercises
affects gains in strength and size.
How does ROM affect gains in hypertrophy?
The following studies have compared increases in
hypertrophy between two or more different groups as a result of a
chronic (i.e. long-term) training intervention. As you will note,
there are far fewer studies in this area, as a result of the greater
difficulty in measuring muscular cross-sectional area than strength.
Raastad (2008, conference proceedings) –
The researchers reported that they compared the effects of parallel
and quarter back squats over a 12-week period and found that the full
back squats produced higher increases in quadriceps muscle
cross-sectional area than quarter back squats.
Pinto (2012)
– The researchers compared partial ROM vs. full ROM upper-body
resistance training on strength. They recruited 40 young males with
no resistance-training experience and allocated them randomly to one
of three groups: full ROM, partial ROM, and a control. The subjects
in the training groups performed a preacher curl exercise, 2 days per
week for 10 weeks in a periodized program. The full ROM group
performed the exercise with full ROM (0 to 130 degrees, where 0
degrees is full elbow extension) ROM and the partial ROM group
performed the exercise with partial ROM (50 to 100 degrees) ROM.
Before and after the intervention, the researchers measured the
muscle thickness of the elbow flexors using ultrasound. The
researchers found that both the full ROM and partial ROM groups
significantly increased muscle thickness by 9.52% and 7.37%,
respectively. However, the difference in hypertrophy between the two
groups was not significant.
Bloomquist (2013)
– The researchers compared the effects of short ROM and long
ROM squat training on thigh muscle cross-sectional area. They
recruited 24 young male subjects with little experience of
resistance-training and allocated them to either a short ROM squat
group or a long ROM squat group. Both groups performed a periodized
program that included both sets to failure and sets not to failure
for 3 – 4 sets of 3 – 10 reps. The short ROM squat group
performed the squat from 0 – 60 degrees of knee flexion (0 degrees
being full knee extension) while the long ROM squat group performed
the squat from 0 – 120 degrees of knee flexion. The researchers
found that the long ROM squat group increased front thigh muscle
cross-sectional area at all measured sites while the short ROM squat
group increased front thigh muscle cross-sectional area only at the
two most proximal sites. However, the increases in the long ROM group
were significantly greater at all front thigh sites than in the short
ROM group. Additionally, the researchers found that the long ROM
squat group increased back thigh muscle cross-sectional area at the
second most proximal site whereas the short ROM squat group did not.
McMahon (2013)
– The researchers compared the effects of training and detraining
using long and short ROMs. They recruited 26 recreationally active
subjects and allocated them to either a long ROM group, a short ROM
group, or a control group. Both training groups performed 8 weeks of
resistance-training and 4 weeks detraining, involving isoinertial
resistance training with either a short muscle length (0 – 50
degrees knee flexion) or with a long muscle length (0 – 90 degrees
knee flexion), 3 times per week at 80% of 1RM using the squat, leg
press and leg extension. Before and after, the researchers measured
anatomical cross-sectional area of the vastus lateralis at 25%, 50%,
75% of femur length. The researchers found that vastus lateralis
anatomical cross-sectional area increased significantly following
training at all sites in both training groups. They also noted a
trend for the long ROM group to display greater relative gains in
vastus lateralis anatomical cross-sectional area compared to the
short ROM group at all sites. However, the difference between groups
was only significant at the end of the 8-week training intervention
at 75% of femur length, with the long ROM group displaying a 59 ±
15% increase compared to the short ROM group showing only a 16 ± 10%
increase.
In summary, Pinto (2012)
found that there was no significant difference in muscle thickness as
a result of full ROM and partial ROM training of the elbow flexors,
although they did observe a trend towards increased hypertrophy in
the full ROM group. On the other hand, Bloomquist (2013),
McMahon (2013)
and Raastad (2008, conference proceedings) each reported that a long
ROM group displayed greater hypertrophy of the thigh muscles than a
short ROM group following squat training.

The research in this area is very limited but
there is some evidence that a greater ROM leads to greater
hypertrophy than a smaller ROM.
It seems likely that full ROM exercises lead to
the greatest gains in hypertrophy and should therefore be preferred
in the first instance, unless the exercise is being altered to focus
on a different muscle group (e.g. partial bench press for the
triceps).
Repetition speed
Introduction
Repetition speed is less frequently discussed than
the more contentious topics of training to muscular failure, using
heavy or light loads, high versus low training volume, and high
versus low training frequency. However, the use of explosive
repetitions and the use of slow, controlled tempos both have their
stalwart supporters. Some strength and conditioning coaches recommend
using fast bar speeds. Others suggest that by slowing down the
repetition and extending its duration, “time-under-tension” can
be increased, which has been proposed to lead to greater hypertrophy.
A small number of studies have investigated the effect of repetition
speed on hypertrophy.
Various researchers as well as strength and

conditioning coaches have proposed that repetition speed may be
important for hypertrophy. In essence, there are two ways in which a
weight can be lifted: (1) with maximal velocity, and (2) with a
controlled, sub-maximal tempo. Of course, within the second category,
a variety of different lifting tempos could be used, ranging from
very slow (even SuperSlow) to very fast.
A number of studies have compared the resulting

hypertrophy between groups that used fast and slow repetition speeds.
Some researchers and strength and conditioning coaches who subscribe
to the view that longer repetition speeds are superior for
hypertrophy have suggested that a better term would be “repetition
duration” in order to emphasize the importance of the
“time-under-tension” aspect. However, it is important to
recognize that, emphasis aside, the two variables are inherently very
strongly and inversely correlated. For most conventional
resistance-training exercises, the distance over which the weight
travels is essentially fixed by anthropometry and therefore when
repetition duration is reduced, repetition speed must be increased
proportionally and vice versa.
What is the
effect of repetition speed on hypertrophy?
At least six studies have been performed comparing
the effect of repetition velocity or repetition duration on the rate
of hypertrophy in untrained subjects. To my knowledge, no studies
have been performed in trained populations.
Tanimoto and Ishii (2006)

compared slow and fast repetitions in a 12-week knee extension
exercise intervention comprising 3 sets, 3 times a week. The slow
repetition group lifted with a 3-second eccentric and concentric
action and a 1-second pause but no relaxation using a 50% of 1RM
load, while the fast repetition group lifted with a 1-second
eccentric and concentric action and a 1-second relaxation but no
pause, using an 80% of 1RM load. Both of these groups improved
muscular cross-sectional area significantly and while there was no
significant difference between groups, the slow repetition group
displayed a small non-significantly greater increase (5.4 ± 3.7%
versus 4.3 ± 2.1%).
Tanimoto (2008)
performed a similar study but with five exercises (squat, chest
press, latissimus dorsi pull-down, abdominal bend, and back
extension). Both of these groups improved total body muscular
cross-sectional area significantly and while there was no significant
difference between groups, the fast repetition group displayed a
non-significantly greater increase (9.1 ± 4.2% versus 6.8 ± 3.4%).
Neils (2005)
compared conventional (2-second concentric and 4-second eccentric
contractions) and SuperSlow (10-second concentric and 5-second
eccentric contractions) resistance-training over an 8-week
intervention, training 3 days per week. The SuperSlow group used 50%
of 1RM and the conventional group used 80% of 1RM. While there were
no significant changes in lean body mass in either group, in the
SuperSlow group, lean body mass increased by 0.3kg while in the
conventional group it reduced by 0.2kg.
Keeler (2001)
performed a similar study that nevertheless reported contrasting
results. They compared the effects of traditional Nautilus-type
(2-second concentric and 4-second eccentric contractions) or
SuperSlow (10-second concentric and 5-second eccentric contractions)
resistance-training on body composition in sedentary women, training
3 times per week for 10 weeks. There were no significant differences
in respect of lean body mass gains between the groups, although the
traditional group displayed a non-significantly greater increase than
the SuperSlow group (+0.5kg versus -0.4kg).
Young and Bilby (1993)

compared the effect of repetition speed in a 7.5-week trial in
which subjects performed 4 sets of 8 – 12RM with the half squat
exercise, 3 times per week with either fast or slow repetitions. The
fast-repetition group performed a controlled eccentric phase followed
by an explosive concentric phase while the slow-repetition group
performed both concentric and eccentric phases in a slow and
controlled manner. Muscle thickness was measured with ultrasound and
while both groups displayed a significant increase in several parts
of the leg musculature, there were no significant differences between
the groups. For the sum of all measurements, muscle thickness
increased by non-significantly more in the fast-repetition group than
in the slow-repetition group (3.9% versus 3.2%).
Repetition
speed continued...
Nogueira (2009)
compared the effects of 10 weeks of either traditional slow and heavy
resistance-training or fast and light power training on the rate of
hypertrophy in elderly males, training twice a week, during 10 weeks.
The two groups performed the same volume of work comprising 3 sets of
8 repetitions of the same exercises with relative loads of 40 – 60%
of 1RM. It was found that muscle thickness as measured by ultrasound
increased significantly in both groups in the biceps brachii but only
increased significantly in the power training group in the rectus
femoris. The increase in muscle thickness of the biceps brachii was
greater in the power training group than in the resistance-training
group.

In summary, only one out of the six studies found
a significant effect of repetition speed on hypertrophy. That study
reported that a fast repetition speed was superior for hypertrophy
than a slow repetition speed in elderly males. Whether this is
applicable to younger populations is unclear. Of the remaining five
studies, three reported a non-significant effect that a fast
repetition speed was superior for hypertrophy than a slow repetition
speed in various populations of untrained subjects while two studies
reported the opposite effect. It is therefore likely that repetition
speed is not a strong modifying factor of hypertrophy in untrained
individuals. If it has any effect at all, it is likely that a fast
repetition speed is marginally superior to a slow repetition speed.
Whether different effects would be observed in trained subjects is
unknown from the literature at the present time.

The research in this area suggests that repetition
speed has little, if any, effect on hypertrophy. However, repetition
speed may be important for other outcomes, such as speed and power.
Personal trainers may recommend slower, more

controlled repetitions for achieving hypertrophy with their clients
if they wish, as repetition speed seems to have little effect in
untrained subjects for body composition goals. Individuals may make
use of either fast or slow repetition speeds for the purposes of
hypertrophy, depending on their personal preferences and other goals.
However, for strength and power gains, a faster speed may be
necessary.
Muscle action
Introduction
Many strength and conditioning coaches have
previously recommended using eccentric muscle actions for enhancing
hypertrophy. But how much support is there for this claim?
Fortunately, a small number of studies have directly compared the
effects of eccentric-only with concentric-only training on
hypertrophy. Here is a summary of what we know…
Although some strength and conditioning coaches

have recommended using eccentric-only muscle actions for maximizing
hypertrophic gains, and even though eccentric-only training is common
in rehabilitation circles, few lifters actually make use of
eccentric-only training for bodybuilding. However, there are a number
of theoretical bases upon which eccentric-only training might lead to
superior results to concentric-only or stretch-shortening cycle
training, as follows:
Eccentric muscle actions are thought to lead

to greater exercise-induced muscle damage than concentric muscle
actions. Exercise-induced muscle damage may be one mechanism by
which hypertrophy is stimulated (see Schoenfeld, 2010).
However, whether this factor is as important as has previously been
reported is a matter of debate at present (see further Schoenfeld,
2012).
Eccentric-only training involves a lower
energy cost for the same amount of mechanical tension (e.g.
Peñailillo, 2013).
In this way, lifters are able to perform a greater volume of work
while taxing their work capacity to the same degree.
Eccentric-only training enables lifters to

move a larger amount of weight than during concentric-only or
stretch-shortening cycle muscle actions with the same percentage of
1RM (e.g. Flanagan, 2013,
and Moir, 2013),
which may lead to greater mechanical tension for the same relative
load.
Eccentric muscle actions appear to

preferentially target the fast-twitch muscle fibers (e.g.
Hortobagyi, 2000,
and Hortobagyi, 1996),
which have greater capacity for growth.
Since these large differences between eccentric

and concentric muscle actions exist, researchers have often been
unable to control other key variables, such as volume and relative
load. Often in studies, the same absolute load is used, which means
that the relative load is lower in the eccentric condition (as
muscles are stronger eccentrically than concentrically).
Alternatively, where the same relative load is used, the researchers
often use the same set/rep scheme, which means that the volume of
work performed is higher in the eccentric condition (as muscles are
stronger eccentrically than concentrically). These mismatches between
the variables make it difficult to compare the effects of
eccentric-only and concentric-only resistance-training programs.
Therefore, it is important when comparing studies to note whether the
relative loads and volumes were matched.
What is the effect of muscle action on

hypertrophy?
At least 15 studies have been performed comparing

the effect of eccentric and concentric muscle actions on the rate of
hypertrophy in mainly untrained subjects, as shown below, although
one or two studies in the list were performed in trained populations.
Vikne (2006)
investigated the effects of 12 weeks of either concentric or
eccentric training of the elbow flexors using a bespoke elbow flexion
training machine in 17 resistance-trained males. The subjects trained
2 – 3 times per week with varying loads. The exercise sessions
alternated between maximum or medium loads. The maximum load was
based on a repetition maximum (4 – 8RM) while the medium training
load was set to 85 – 90% of the maximum load. Over a 2-week period
of training, each subject completed 3 workouts with the maximum load
and 2 workouts with the medium load. Inter-set rest periods were 3 –
6 minutes. In the eccentric condition, the subjects lowered the
weight over 3 – 4 seconds while the concentric condition, the
subjects used maximum effort. The number of sets was increased from 3
– 5 over the intervention. Therefore, the relative loads used were
similar across the two conditions but it is likely that the volumes
were not matched. Before and after the intervention, the researchers
measured muscular cross-sectional area using a CT scan. The
researchers reported that the mean anatomical elbow-flexor
cross-sectional area did not change in the concentric group (+3%) but
increased significantly in the eccentric group (11%).
Higbie (1996)
investigated the effects of 10 weeks of unilateral concentric or
eccentric isokinetic training at 60 degrees/s on quadriceps
cross-sectional area in 54 untrained female subjects, as measured by
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. The subjects trained 3 days
per week for 10 weeks with 3 sets of 10 reps and 3-minute inter-set
rest periods. The isokinetic efforts were performed maximally and
therefore it is likely that the relative load was similar but that
the volume was different, although these variables were not directly
measured by the researchers. Using the MRI scans, the researchers
measured 7 slices of the quadriceps from 20 – 80% of femur length
and they reported that the mean increases in quadriceps
cross-sectional area for the eccentric and concentric groups ranged
from 6.0 – 7.8% and 3.5 – 8.6%, respectively.
Muscle action
continued...
For the sum of the all 7 slices, mean increases in
quadriceps cross-sectional area increased by 6.6 and 5.0% in the
eccentric and concentric groups, respectively. The increase was
significantly greater in the eccentric condition than in concentric
condition.
Komi and Buskirk (1972)

investigated the effects of eccentric or concentric training in 31
untrained male subjects. The subjects performed 6 maximal isokinetic
elbow flexion contractions with either eccentric or concentric muscle
actions, 4 times per week for 7 weeks. Before and after the
intervention, the researchers measured the girth of the upper right
and left arms. They reported that the eccentric-only group increased
right upper arm girth by a greater amount than the concentric-only
group (0.57 ± 0.68cm versus 0.09 ± 0.04cm). The increase in the
eccentric-only group was significant while the increase in the
concentric-only group was not significant.
Seger (1998)
investigated the effects of 10 weeks of either eccentric or
concentric isokinetic training at 90 degrees/s on knee extensor
muscular adaptations in 10 moderately-trained male physical education
students. Since isokinetic efforts were used, it is likely that the
relative load was similar but that the volume was different. The
researchers found that the cross-sectional area of the quadriceps
increased by around 3 – 4% in both groups but only reached
statistical significance in the eccentric training group.
Farthing (2003)
investigated the effects of isokinetic concentric and eccentric
training of the elbow flexors at two different velocities (180 and 30
degrees/s) in 36 subjects (13 male and 23 female) with little
experience of resistance-training. The subjects trained their elbow
flexors using an isokinetic dynamometer 3 times per week for 8 weeks
at a set velocity (either 180 or 30 degrees/s) for 2 – 6 sets of 8
reps with maximal effort with 1 minute of intra-set rest. The
researchers measured muscular cross-sectional area before and after
the intervention using ultrasound. The researchers reported that the
eccentric fast training condition resulted in greater muscle
thickness change (13 ± 2.5%) than the concentric slow (5.3 ± 1.5%)
and concentric fast (2.6 ± 0.7%) conditions, and non-significantly
greater muscle thickness change than the eccentric slow training
condition (7.8 ± 1.3%).
Hortobagyi (1996)
investigated whether maximal eccentric-only training would lead
to greater gains in muscle size than concentric-only training. They
therefore recruited 15 untrained subjects who performed 36 sessions
of isokinetic concentric-only or eccentric-only unilateral knee
extension resistance-training for a 12-week period. The researchers
reported that type I fiber areas did not change significantly in
either group but type II fiber area increased approximately 10 times
more in the eccentric-only training group compared to the
concentric-only training group.
Hortobagyi (2000)
investigated the effects of 3 weeks of knee immobilization
followed by 12 weeks of retraining with eccentric-only,
concentric-only or stretch-shortening cycle muscle actions in 48
untrained males and females. The subjects performed 12 weeks of
maximum effort isokinetic concentric-only or eccentric-only or
stretch-shortening cycle quadriceps knee extension training of the
left leg at 60 degrees/s. The subjects performed 4 – 6 sets of 8 –
12 repetitions with a 1-minute inter-set rest period. The researchers
reported that immobilization reduced type I, IIa and IIx muscle fibre
areas by 13, 10 and 10%, respectively. They reported that hypertrophy
of type I, IIa and IIx fibers was 10, 16 and 16% after eccentric-only
training but only 4, 5 and 5% after concentric-only training. They
reported that increases in type IIa and IIx fibers were greater than
the increases in type I fibers after eccentric training.
Ben-Sira (1995)
investigated the effects of eccentric-only, concentric-only,
conventional and supra-maximal eccentric-only resistance training on
thigh girth in 60 untrained young female students. The subjects
performed knee extension exercise 2 times per week for 8 weeks. The
subjects in the conventional group performed 3 sets of 10 bilateral
reps with 65% of 1RM. The supra-maximal eccentric-only group
performed the eccentric phase only of 3 sets of unilateral 5 reps
with 130% of 1RM. Therefore, these two groups were work-matched
although it is unclear whether they were matched in terms of relative
load. The concentric-only and eccentric-only groups performed only
the concentric or eccentric phases of 3 sets of 10 bilateral reps
with 65% of 1RM. These groups were work matched with each other but
were not matched in terms of relative load. The researchers found no
meaningful changes in thigh girth and changes ranged from -0.7 -
+0.5% over the four training groups.
Reeves (2009)
investigated the effects of bilateral eccentric-only and
conventional leg press and knee extension resistance-training in 19
untrained older adults. The subjects were divided into two groups who
both trained 3 times per week for 14 weeks at 80% of the
muscle-action specific 5RM, performing 2 sets of 10 repetitions.
Thus, the relative load was matched between the two groups. However,
the training volume was not matched between the two groups, although
the researchers did not discern any significant differences between
groups in this respect. Before and after the intervention, the
researchers measured vastus lateralis muscle thickness using
ultrasonography. The researchers reported that muscle thickness
increased to a similar extent in both groups (by 12 ± 13% in the
concentric group and by 11 ± 10% in the eccentric group).
Muscle action
continued...
Nickols-Richardson (2007)
investigated the effects of 5 months of either unilateral concentric
or eccentric isokinetic resistance-training in young female subjects.
The training intervention was performed 3 days per week and comprised
1 – 5 sets of 6 reps of isokinetic knee and elbow extension and
flexion at 60 degrees/s with 1 minute of intra-set rest. Before and
after the intervention, the researchers measured body composition
using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans. They found that the
concentric group gained 0.6kg (1.5%) of lean mass, while the
eccentric group gained 0.7kg (1.7%). While these increases were
significant, there were no differences in the increase in lean mass
between the two groups.
Blazevich (2007)
investigated the effect of 10 weeks of either concentric-only or
eccentric-only slow speed (30 degrees/s) isokinetic knee extensor
training on muscular adaptations in 21 men and women. The subjects
performed 4 – 6 sets of 6 maximal knee extension reps with a
1-minute inter-set rest period 3 times a week on an isokinetic
dynamometer at 30 degree/s, using either concentric-only or
eccentric-only muscle actions. The isokinetic efforts were performed
maximally and therefore it is likely that the relative load was
similar but that the volume was different, although these variables
were not directly measured by the researchers. Before and after the
intervention, the researchers measured muscle volume, anatomical
cross-sectional area and physiological cross-sectional area using
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans as well as muscle thickness
using ultrasound. The researchers found that both groups increased
muscular size but they reported no differences between groups. Since
the researchers did not report any values for the groups separately,
it is unclear whether there was a non-significant trend for one of
the groups to increase muscular size by more than the other group.
Smith (1995)
investigated the effects of 20 weeks of either concentric-only or
eccentric-only unilateral knee extension resistance-training in 10
young males and females on strength and hypertrophy. All subjects
trained using both types of loading protocol, one for each leg. The
training program involved a heavier load for the eccentric group but
it was not clear whether this represented the same relative load as
for the concentric group. Before and after the intervention, the
researchers measured muscle cross-sectional area near the knee and
hip using computed tomography (CT) scans. The researchers found
significant increases in muscle cross-sectional area occurred near
the hip for both the eccentric-only and concentric-only conditions
but there were no significant differences between the two conditions
(4.0% versus 4.6%).
Jones (1987)
compared the increases in the size of the quadriceps muscle
following 12 weeks of either eccentric-only or concentric-only
unilateral knee extension resistance-training in 6 young males and
females. The training was performed 3 times per week and comprised 4
sets with a 6RM load, representing around 80% of 1RM for each muscle
action. A 1-minute inter-set rest period was provided. The
researchers noted that the load used for the eccentric condition was
around 145% of the load used in the concentric condition. Before and
after the intervention, the researchers measured the quadriceps
cross-sectional area with mid-thigh X-ray computerized tomography
(CT) scans. The researchers reported that the changes quadriceps
cross-sectional area were not significantly different between the
eccentric-only and concentric-only training groups (3.5% versus
5.7%).
Franchi (2014)
investigated the effects of 10 weeks of either concentric or
eccentric resistance-training in 12 young males on vastus lateralis
volume, as measured by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. The
subjects performed 4 sets leg presses for 8 – 10 repetitions with
80% of either concentric or eccentric 1RM. Thus the relative load was
matched between the two studies. However, the load and volume used in
the eccentric-only group was 1.2-fold greater than in the
concentric-only group. The researchers reported that the increases in
muscular volume were similar in both groups, although there was a
trend towards a greater increase in the concentric group compared to
the eccentric group (8% versus 6%).
Mayhew (1995)
investigated the effects of concentric and eccentric training on
hypertrophy in 20 untrained male and female subjects. The subjects
performed either concentric or eccentric isokinetic contractions at
30 degrees/s of the quadriceps muscles for 5 sets of 10 repetitions
at 90% of maximal concentric power, 3 times per week for 4 weeks.
Therefore, in this study, training volume was equated but the
relative load used in each condition differed – the proportion of
eccentric-1RM in the eccentric condition was lower than the
proportion of concentric-1RM in the concentric condition. Before and
after the intervention, the researchers measured the fiber area of
the type I and type II fibers. The researchers found that with the
same load, performing concentric contractions led to significantly
greater type II muscle hypertrophy than training with eccentric
contractions (25.7% versus 18.0%) and also displayed a trend towards
greater type I hypertrophy (14.3% versus 12.3%).

Most of the studies used the same relative load
but different volumes of training. In most of these cases, the
eccentric-training groups used greater volumes because their relative
loads were greater. However, there were also many differences between
the studies, with some using isokinetic training methods and others
using conventional loading protocols.
Muscle action
continued...
There was no clear-cut difference between
eccentric-only training and concentric-only training at either the
significant or non-significant levels. However, there was a strong
trend for eccentric-only training to display greater hypertrophy. Out
of the 15 studies, 7 found a significantly beneficial effect of
eccentric-only training while 1 found a significantly beneficial
effect of concentric-only training. Of the 7 studies that reported
non-significant effects, the results of 4 studies displayed either no
differences, or were unreported. The remaining 3 studies that
reported non-significant effects displayed a beneficial trend in
favour of concentric-only training. Nevertheless, a previous review
and meta-analysis concluded that eccentric-only training does in fact
lead to greater hypertrophy than concentric-only training (Roig,
2009).
As may well be the case with training volume, it could therefore be
the case that the presence of type II errors prevents the individual
studies from observing the underlying effects. However, in contrast
to training volume, the studies comparing eccentric and concentric
muscle actions have found conflicting results at the non-significant
level.

It seems possible that eccentric muscle actions
may lead to greater hypertrophy than concentric muscle actions but
the literature is far from being conclusive.
For strength athletes, bodybuilders and physique

athletes Eccentric-only training may lead to slightly greater
hypertrophy than concentric-only training. Individuals seeking
hypertrophy should make use of eccentric muscle actions in their
programming to maximize increases in muscular size.

Training For Hypertrophy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Training For Hypertrophy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Training For Hypertrophy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TRAINING

The present piece represents a

What are the problems in the literature?

Unequivocally, this area of

Where should future research focus?

What is the most important training variable?

In my own review in 2013, and

Of course the most significant,

What are long-term studies important?

Therefore, it seems logical that for developing

1. TRAINING FOR HYPERTROPHY

Relative load continued...

Relative load continued...

Before and after each 6-week intervention, the

What is the bottom line?

How does frequency affect hypertrophy in untrained subjects?

What is the bottom line?

Various researchers as well as strength and

A number of studies have compared the resulting

Tanimoto and Ishii (2006)

Young and Bilby (1993)

What is the summary of findings?

What is the bottom line?

Personal trainers may recommend slower, more

What is the background?

Although some strength and conditioning coaches

Eccentric muscle actions are thought to lead

Eccentric-only training enables lifters to

Eccentric muscle actions appear to

Since these large differences between eccentric

What is the effect of muscle action on

At least 15 studies have been performed comparing

Komi and Buskirk (1972)

What is the summary of findings?

What is the bottom line?

What are the practical implications?

For strength athletes, bodybuilders and physique

You might also like