4.4 Article

Progression of volume load and muscular adaptation during resistance exercise

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 111, Issue 6, Pages 1063-1071

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00421-010-1735-9

Keywords

Strength training; Volume load; FAMuSS; Muscle mass; Periodization

Funding

  1. NIH, NICHD, NCMRR [5-T32-HD007422]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Volume load (VL) is suggested to influence the adaptation of muscle to resistance exercise (RE). We sought to examine the independent association between total VL and hypertrophy and strength following a progressive RE protocol of equated sets and intensity. Total VL was calculated in 83 subjects (n = 43 males, n = 40 females; age = 25.12 +/- A 5.5 years) who participated in unilateral arm RE for 12 weeks. Subjects were tested for biceps muscle volume (MRI of the upper arm), isometric maximal voluntary contraction (MVC), and dynamic biceps strength (1RM), at baseline and following RE. Linear regression analysis revealed that sex was a significant predictor of hypertrophy (beta = 0.06; p = 0.01) and strength (beta = 0.14; p = 0.04), and that males had greater increases. Total VL was independently associated with hypertrophy only among females (beta = 0.12; p < 0.01). For males, only baseline strength was (inversely) related to hypertrophy (beta = -0.12; p = 0.04). VL was strongly associated with changes in 1RM strength improvement for both males (beta = 0.66; p < 0.01) and females (beta = 0.26; p = 0.02), but only related to MVC among females (beta = 0.20; p = 0.02). Findings reveal that VL was independently associated with hypertrophy only among females. For males baseline strength was independently and inversely related to changes in muscle mass. Conversely, VL was found to be strongly associated with changes in 1RM for both males and females, controlling for age, body mass, and baseline strength.

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