Cargando…
Progressive overload without progressing load? The effects of load or repetition progression on muscular adaptations
BACKGROUND: Progressive overload is a principle of resistance training exercise program design that typically relies on increasing load to increase neuromuscular demand to facilitate further adaptations. However, little attention has been given to another way of increasing demand—increasing the numb...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
PeerJ Inc.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9528903/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36199287 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.14142 |
_version_ | 1784801389292027904 |
---|---|
author | Plotkin, Daniel Coleman, Max Van Every, Derrick Maldonado, Jaime Oberlin, Douglas Israetel, Michael Feather, Jared Alto, Andrew Vigotsky, Andrew D. Schoenfeld, Brad J. |
author_facet | Plotkin, Daniel Coleman, Max Van Every, Derrick Maldonado, Jaime Oberlin, Douglas Israetel, Michael Feather, Jared Alto, Andrew Vigotsky, Andrew D. Schoenfeld, Brad J. |
author_sort | Plotkin, Daniel |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Progressive overload is a principle of resistance training exercise program design that typically relies on increasing load to increase neuromuscular demand to facilitate further adaptations. However, little attention has been given to another way of increasing demand—increasing the number of repetitions. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the effects of two resistance training programs: (1) increasing load while keeping repetition range constant vs (2) increasing repetitions while keeping load constant. We aimed to compare the effects of these programs on lower body muscle hypertrophy, muscle strength, and muscle endurance in resistance-trained individuals over an 8-week study period. METHODS: Forty-three participants with at least 1 year of consistent lower body resistance training experience were randomly assigned to one of two experimental, parallel groups: A group that aimed to increase load while keeping repetitions constant (LOAD: n = 22; 13 men, nine women) or a group that aimed to increase repetitions while keeping load constant (REPS: n = 21; 14 men, seven women). Subjects performed four sets of four lower body exercises (back squat, leg extension, straight-leg calf raise, and seated calf raise) twice per week. We assessed one repetition maximum (1RM) in the Smith machine squat, muscular endurance in the leg extension, countermovement jump height, and muscle thickness along the quadriceps and calf muscles. Between-group effects were estimated using analyses of covariance, adjusted for pre-intervention scores and sex. RESULTS: Rectus femoris growth modestly favored REPS (adjusted effect estimate (CI(90%)), sum of sites: 2.8 mm [−0.5, 5.8]). Alternatively, dynamic strength increases slightly favored LOAD (2.0 kg [−2.4, 7.8]), with differences of questionable practical significance. No other notable between-group differences were found across outcomes (muscle thicknesses, <1 mm; endurance, <1%; countermovement jump, 0.1 cm; body fat, <1%; leg segmental lean mass, 0.1 kg), with narrow CIs for most outcomes. CONCLUSION: Both progressions of repetitions and load appear to be viable strategies for enhancing muscular adaptations over an 8-week training cycle, which provides trainers and trainees with another promising approach to programming resistance training. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9528903 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | PeerJ Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-95289032022-10-04 Progressive overload without progressing load? The effects of load or repetition progression on muscular adaptations Plotkin, Daniel Coleman, Max Van Every, Derrick Maldonado, Jaime Oberlin, Douglas Israetel, Michael Feather, Jared Alto, Andrew Vigotsky, Andrew D. Schoenfeld, Brad J. PeerJ Anatomy and Physiology BACKGROUND: Progressive overload is a principle of resistance training exercise program design that typically relies on increasing load to increase neuromuscular demand to facilitate further adaptations. However, little attention has been given to another way of increasing demand—increasing the number of repetitions. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the effects of two resistance training programs: (1) increasing load while keeping repetition range constant vs (2) increasing repetitions while keeping load constant. We aimed to compare the effects of these programs on lower body muscle hypertrophy, muscle strength, and muscle endurance in resistance-trained individuals over an 8-week study period. METHODS: Forty-three participants with at least 1 year of consistent lower body resistance training experience were randomly assigned to one of two experimental, parallel groups: A group that aimed to increase load while keeping repetitions constant (LOAD: n = 22; 13 men, nine women) or a group that aimed to increase repetitions while keeping load constant (REPS: n = 21; 14 men, seven women). Subjects performed four sets of four lower body exercises (back squat, leg extension, straight-leg calf raise, and seated calf raise) twice per week. We assessed one repetition maximum (1RM) in the Smith machine squat, muscular endurance in the leg extension, countermovement jump height, and muscle thickness along the quadriceps and calf muscles. Between-group effects were estimated using analyses of covariance, adjusted for pre-intervention scores and sex. RESULTS: Rectus femoris growth modestly favored REPS (adjusted effect estimate (CI(90%)), sum of sites: 2.8 mm [−0.5, 5.8]). Alternatively, dynamic strength increases slightly favored LOAD (2.0 kg [−2.4, 7.8]), with differences of questionable practical significance. No other notable between-group differences were found across outcomes (muscle thicknesses, <1 mm; endurance, <1%; countermovement jump, 0.1 cm; body fat, <1%; leg segmental lean mass, 0.1 kg), with narrow CIs for most outcomes. CONCLUSION: Both progressions of repetitions and load appear to be viable strategies for enhancing muscular adaptations over an 8-week training cycle, which provides trainers and trainees with another promising approach to programming resistance training. PeerJ Inc. 2022-09-30 /pmc/articles/PMC9528903/ /pubmed/36199287 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.14142 Text en © 2022 Plotkin et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited. |
spellingShingle | Anatomy and Physiology Plotkin, Daniel Coleman, Max Van Every, Derrick Maldonado, Jaime Oberlin, Douglas Israetel, Michael Feather, Jared Alto, Andrew Vigotsky, Andrew D. Schoenfeld, Brad J. Progressive overload without progressing load? The effects of load or repetition progression on muscular adaptations |
title | Progressive overload without progressing load? The effects of load or repetition progression on muscular adaptations |
title_full | Progressive overload without progressing load? The effects of load or repetition progression on muscular adaptations |
title_fullStr | Progressive overload without progressing load? The effects of load or repetition progression on muscular adaptations |
title_full_unstemmed | Progressive overload without progressing load? The effects of load or repetition progression on muscular adaptations |
title_short | Progressive overload without progressing load? The effects of load or repetition progression on muscular adaptations |
title_sort | progressive overload without progressing load? the effects of load or repetition progression on muscular adaptations |
topic | Anatomy and Physiology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9528903/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36199287 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.14142 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT plotkindaniel progressiveoverloadwithoutprogressingloadtheeffectsofloadorrepetitionprogressiononmuscularadaptations AT colemanmax progressiveoverloadwithoutprogressingloadtheeffectsofloadorrepetitionprogressiononmuscularadaptations AT vaneveryderrick progressiveoverloadwithoutprogressingloadtheeffectsofloadorrepetitionprogressiononmuscularadaptations AT maldonadojaime progressiveoverloadwithoutprogressingloadtheeffectsofloadorrepetitionprogressiononmuscularadaptations AT oberlindouglas progressiveoverloadwithoutprogressingloadtheeffectsofloadorrepetitionprogressiononmuscularadaptations AT israetelmichael progressiveoverloadwithoutprogressingloadtheeffectsofloadorrepetitionprogressiononmuscularadaptations AT featherjared progressiveoverloadwithoutprogressingloadtheeffectsofloadorrepetitionprogressiononmuscularadaptations AT altoandrew progressiveoverloadwithoutprogressingloadtheeffectsofloadorrepetitionprogressiononmuscularadaptations AT vigotskyandrewd progressiveoverloadwithoutprogressingloadtheeffectsofloadorrepetitionprogressiononmuscularadaptations AT schoenfeldbradj progressiveoverloadwithoutprogressingloadtheeffectsofloadorrepetitionprogressiononmuscularadaptations |