Low Reps or High Reps for Strength Peer Review
An interesting new report published in the Periodical of Forcefulness and Workout Research has provided some insights into efficiently programming different training volumes and intensities.
Titled Furnishings of 4, eight, and 12 Repetition Maximum Resistance Grooming Protocols on Muscle Volume and Strength, authors compared three different resistance grooming protocols (4-RM, 8-RM, and 12-RM) in relation to their muscle book and strength adaptations over a 10-calendar week period. (one)
This study was interesting considering it furthers our knowledge as to how to plan diverse sets, reps, and intensities to facilitate item adaptations when book is equated. Other contempo research has pointed out how cardinal information technology is to assess total training book when achieving adaptations like force and hypertrophy, then information technology was crawly seeing another piece of literature broaden the programming scope.
The Subjects
For this research, 42 salubrious men were split into iv groups that followed different protocols for sets and reps, though everyone had the same number of workouts. The different training groups were as follows:
- High Load:Depression Repetitions | 7 sets of 4 reps (28 total reps)
- Intermediate Load: Intermediate Repetitions | 4 sets of 8 reps (32 full reps)
- Low Load: Loftier Repetitions | 3 sets of 12 reps (36 total reps)
- Control Group
To accurately guess each group'southward starting intensities for their sets, researchers had subjects perform 1-RM tests prior to starting the exercise intervention. In addition, each subject had their pectoralis major measured to assess starting muscle book.
Exercise Protocol
For 10 weeks, the three grooming groups follow bench press training protocol twice a week. Total training volume was calculated by taking load x reps ten sets and once subjects were able to consummate their prescribed sets at the desired intensity, then weight was increased by 2.5kg. Every group rested 3 minutes in-between each set.
Results and Suggestions
Following the 10-calendar week exercise intervention, authors recorded every subjects' ane-RM strength and pectoralis muscle volume once once again to describe comparisons from.
Researchers noted that every group saw similar increases in muscular book (hypertrophy) for the pectoralis major. Additionally, every grouping increased their 1-RM forcefulness, however, the 4-RM and 8-RM groups saw greater increases in relative 1-RM force increases.
The authors hypothesize that the greater increment in relative 1-RM forcefulness in the 4-RM and viii-RM groups was due to the increase in muscle hypertrophy in addition to neuromuscular adaptations brought on by the greater demands that the musculoskeletal organization underwent compared to the 12-RM group that used lighter loads.
Aspects Worth Because
While these results were interesting there are a couple considerations that coaches and athletes should take into account for this report. For starters, authors never provided a training historic period for their subjects, which could skew these results slightly. Were they beginners, intermediates, or avant-garde lifters? All of these populations would have vastly different loads on the bar for the prescribed reps.
Additionally, researchers didn't provide a ton of item nigh the scope of practise and lifestyles outside of the 10-week exercise intervention. For case, what else were the subjects doing in their costless time and could it have manipulated results? After all, researchers only measured pec volume, if the subjects were grooming their deltoids and triceps regularly (demote press primary movers), as well, and so it would be interesting to exam their volume and increment as well.
Takeaways and Suggestions
If we compared this written report to conventional preparation wisdom, so it falls pretty well in-line with what's already used to adapt for forcefulness and hypertrophy. Nonetheless, this report highlights a few interesting points that could exist taken into account when programming.
- Time Efficiency: In the study, every group took 3 minutes of rest in-between sets, so the time taken to complete each workout was drastically dissimilar for the groups (21-min of rest in the 4-RM group versus nine-min of residual in the 12-RM group). Looking at this study, if the goal was forcefulness and hypertrophy and fourth dimension constraints were a business concern, and then the 8-RM group would be superior choice.
- Hypertrophy and Neuromuscular Changes: Both the four-RM and viii-RM produced more relative strength following the 10-week intervention, so information technology was speculated that both hypertrophy and neuromuscular adaptations were at play with this increase. If the goal is to produce greater forcefulness increases, then heavier weights along with hypertrophy will exist needed for maximal gains.
Wrapping Up
This study was interesting because it suggested that an improvement of hypertrophy in addition to potential neuromuscular increases were superior to only focusing on hypertrophy.
When it comes to programming, it appears that conventional wisdom about preparation loads and volume s and how they influence hypertrophy and strength are on the right rail.
References
1. Kubo, K., Ikebukuro, T., & Yata, H. (2020). Effects of 4, 8, and 12 Repetition Maximum Resistance Preparation Protocols on Muscle Volume and Strength. Journal Of Force And Conditioning Research, 1. doi: x.1519/jsc.0000000000003575
Feature image from Maksim Toome / Shutterstock
Source: https://barbend.com/study-rep-range-strength-hypertrophy/
0 Response to "Low Reps or High Reps for Strength Peer Review"
Post a Comment