4.4 Article

The influence of volume of exercise on early adaptations to strength training

Journal

JOURNAL OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING RESEARCH
Volume 17, Issue 1, Pages 115-120

Publisher

ALLIANCE COMMUNICATIONS GROUP DIVISION ALLEN PRESS
DOI: 10.1519/00124278-200302000-00019

Keywords

single set; multiple sets; leg muscles; upper-body muscles

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this investigation was to compare the effects of single-set strength training and 3-set strength training during the early phase of adaptation in 18 untrained male subjects (age, 20-30 years). After initial testing, subjects were randomly assigned to either the 3L-1U group (n = 8), which trained 3 sets in leg exercises and I set in upper-body exercises, or the 1L-3U group (n = 10), which trained I set in leg exercises and 3 sets in upper-body exercises. Testing was conducted at the beginning and at the end of the study and consisted of 2 maximal isometric tests (knee extension and bench press) and 6 maximal dynamic tests (1 repetition maximum [1RM] tests). Subjects trained 3 days per week for 6 weeks. After warm-up, subjects performed 3 leg exercises and 4 upper-body exercises. In both groups, each set consisted of 7 repetitions (reps) with the load supposed to induce muscular failure after the seventh rep (7RM load). After 6 weeks of training, 1RM performance in all training exercises was significantly increased (10-26%, p < 0.01) in both groups. The relative increase in 1RM load in the 3 leg exercises was significantly greater in the 3L-1U group than in the 1L-3U group (21% vs. 14%, p = 0.01). However, the relative increase in 1RM load in the 3 upper-body exercises was similar in the 3L-1U group (16%) and the 1L-3U group (14%). These results show a superior adaptation to 3-set strength training, compared with 1-set strength training, in leg exercises but not in upper-body exercises during the early phase of adaptation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available