Critical review of current Resistance training methods

[MuscleScience]

After reading and debating over the proper technic for increasing muscle mass I decided to do a extensive literature review. I browsed through about 60 some papers and became instantly frustrated by the ambiguity of terminology and confliction of results. My own personal feeling on the matter was set in stone until I read through the current literature (5 years or newer). I referenced the guide lines for exercise from the two most respected organizations in the prospected field (ACSM, NSCA) and came to the conclusion that not only was I wrong in my belief but so was about everybody else in the recommendations to exercise. NSCA and ACSM make recommendations that not only conflict with each other but also with the literature in there own journals. I finally came across this paper by ASEP (American Society of Exercise Physiologist) that critically looked at ACSM's recommendation on exercise. ACSM for those who are not familiar with it stands for The American College of Sports Medicine. They are the most respected of the Exercise Science/Fitness and Health in the United States. Some may disagree with me and say NSCA is more widespread but I base this of the Significance value that each journal is rated on and not my particular opinion on this matter as I read publications from both journals and find each very respectable.

This is a long read and is an excerpt from the full paper specifically as it is related to Muscle Hypertrophy, if anyone has any questions or wants to debate any issue on this matter feel free. I believe open and respectable debate is the only way to further human knowledge in a responsible manner.

Cheers

Muscle Science



A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ACSM POSITION STAND ON RESISTANCE TRAINING: INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDED TRAINING PROTOCOLS

RALPH N. CARPINELLI1, ROBERT M. OTTO1, RICHARD A. WINETT2
1Human Performance Laboratory, Adelphi University, Garden City, New York 11530 USA
2Center for Research in Health Behavior, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061 USA

ABSTRACT

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ACSM POSITION STAND ON RESISTANCE TRAINING: INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT RECOMMENDED TRAINING PROTOCOLS. Ralph N. Carpinelli, Robert M. Otto, Richard A. Winett. JEPonline 2004;7(3):1-60. In February 2002, the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) published a Position Stand entitled Progression Models in Resistance Training for Healthy Adults. The ACSM claims that the programmed manipulation of resistance-training protocols such as the training modality, repetition duration, range of repetitions, number of sets, and frequency of training will differentially affect specific physiological adaptations such as muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, and endurance. The ACSM also asserts that for progression in healthy adults, the programs for intermediate, advanced, and elite trainees must be different from those prescribed for novices. An objective evaluation of the resistance-training studies shows that these claims are primarily unsubstantiated. In fact, the preponderance of resistance-training studies suggest that simple, low-volume, time-efficient, resistance training is just as effective for increasing muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, and endurance—regardless of training experience—as are the complex, high-volume, time-consuming protocols that are recommended in the Position Stand. This document examines the basis for many of the claims in the Position Stand and provides an objective review of the resistance training literature.

MUSCULAR HYPERTROPHY

The Position Stand recommends high-volume resistance training for maximal muscle hypertrophy (p. 370). A study by McCall et al. (165) is cited to show that acute resistance exercise-induced increases in growth hormone concentration are highly correlated with the magnitude of muscle hypertrophy.

McCall et al. (165) trained 11 males (18-25 years), with recreational resistance training experience, 3x/wk for 12 weeks. Subjects performed three sets of 10 RM for each of eight free weight and machine exercises, four of which primarily involved the elbow flexors. They were instructed to lift to concentric fatigue for each set, with 1-minute rest between sets and exercises. Elbow flexion strength (25 %), and biceps brachii elbow flexor cross-sectional area (12.7 %) significantly increased. There was no significant difference in resting hormone concentrations (growth hormone, testosterone , insulin -like growth factor-Ι, and sex hormone-binding globulin) pre- to post-training, except for a significant decrease in cortisol. McCall et al. (165) claimed that the decrease in resting cortisol concentration was 16.7 % in the training group and a control group, which comprised eight males (19-29 years) who did not participate in resistance training. However, the data in their Table 1 (p. 101) show a decrease of 22.0 % for the training group and 8.4 % for the control group. Resting hormone concentrations of growth hormone, IGF-Ι, testosterone and sex hormone-binding globulin were not significantly correlated with either total biceps brachii hypertrophy or muscle fiber hypertrophy.

After correcting for exercise-induced changes in plasma volume, there was no significant exercise-induced change in IGF-Ι, testosterone, or sex hormone-binding globulin (165). There was a significant correlation of acute exercised-induced growth hormone increase and the relative degree of type Ι (r = 0.74) and type ΙΙ (r = 0.71) biceps brachii fiber hypertrophy. However, there was no significant correlation between acute exercised induced changes of the other hormones and the indices of muscular strength or hypertrophy. McCall et al. (165) concluded that only the acute exercise-induced growth hormone elevations were correlated with the magnitude of muscle fiber hypertrophy following training. In reporting additional results from this study (165), McCall et al. (166) noted that there was no correlation between the increase in biceps brachii cross-sectional area and type I (r = 0.197), type II (r = 0.353) or mean (r = 0.191) muscle fiber area. They concluded that the overall muscle hypertrophy was not related to the magnitude of muscle fiber hypertrophy (166).

More importantly, McCall et al. (165) did not compare adaptations or hormonal responses to a lower-volume group; that is, there was no comparison to a group performing fewer exercises per muscle group and fewer sets per exercise. In an attempt to support a high-volume training philosophy, the authors of the Position Stand apparently selected one piece of information from the study by McCall et al. (165) and neglected to report the other results, almost all the results, from this study that did not support the opinion in the Position Stand.

The Position Stand claims that the types of protein synthesized may have a direct impact on various designs of resistance training programs; for example, body building compared with strength training (p. 369). The Position Stand also claims that the total work involved with traditional strength training may not maximize hypertrophy (p. 370). No resistance-training studies are cited. The only reference cited to support both claims is a book by Zatsiorsky (108). There are no references cited in Zatsiorsky’s book to support his opinions, or the opinions in the Position Stand.

The Position Stand recommends 3-6 sets of each exercise to increase muscle hypertrophy in advanced trainees (p. 370). No references are cited to substantiate this volume of training. Contrary to this unsupported recommendation, the previously discussed study by Ostrowski et al. (53) is especially noteworthy because the training program encompassed the modality and protocols recommended in the Position Stand, and the subjects were currently weight training for 1-4 years. The subjects performed free-weight exercises and followed a split routine (2 days upper body and 2 days lower body each week) for 10 weeks. The only difference in training variables among the three programs was the number of sets (1, 2, or 4 sets of each exercise), with all sets performed to muscular fatigue and 3-minutes rest between sets. Ostrowski et al. (53) concluded that the results demonstrated that low, moderate, and high volume protocols showed no significant difference in their effect on body mass, upper-body and lower-body muscular strength, power, and hypertrophy (rectus femoris hypertrophy and triceps brachia thickness) over the 10-week training period in resistance-trained males.

The Position Stand claims that programs for enhancing muscular hypertrophy require moderate to very heavy loads and high volume (p. 370). A book chapter by Kraemer (167) is the only reference cited.

The Position Stand claims that greater muscular hypertrophy in resistance-trained individuals is associated with high-volume, multiple-set programs compared with low-volume, single-set programs (p. 370), and three references (34-35, 37) are cited. The remarkable results from the Experiments by Kraemer (35) are discussed in our Multiple Sets section. Contrary to the claim in the Position Stand, the studies by Kraemer et al. (37) and Marx et al. (34) involved previously untrained participants.

The Position Stand claims that the amount of work and force are associated with gains in muscular hypertrophy (p. 370). Three references (15, 168-169) are cited in an attempt to support that belief. The study by Moss et al. (15) (previously discussed in our Repetition Duration section) reported a small significant increase (2.8 %) in muscle cross-sectional area in a group who trained with 35 % 1 RM compared with no significant gain in muscular hypertrophy for a group that used 90 % 1 RM. The results reported by Moss et al. (15), which showed that a lighter resistance was more effective than a heavier resistance, are contrary to the claim in the Position Stand.

Shinohara et al. (168) instructed five previously untrained males (~23 years) to perform isometric knee-extensor muscle actions for three minutes (2s contraction, 3s relaxation) at 40 % maximal voluntary contraction 3x/wk for four weeks. One limb was subjected to 250 mmHg tourniquet pressure to induce ischemia, while the contra-lateral limb was not restricted. There was a significant increase in maximal voluntary contraction (~26 %) and maximal rate of torque development (~60 %) in the limb subjected to the ischemia, and no significant increase in the unrestricted limb. Shinohara et al. (168) did not report any measurement of muscle hypertrophy. Therefore, this study does not support the claim in the Position Stand.

Smith and Rutherford (169) instructed 10 previously untrained males and females (~20 years) to perform four sets of 10 repetitions of concentric-only leg-press exercise with one limb and eccentric-only muscle actions with the contra-lateral limb (3 seconds each) 3x/wk for 20 weeks. Subjects performed the concentric muscle action with the foot placed on the lower portion of the footplate and the contra-lateral eccentric muscle action with the foot placed on the upper part of the plate. The authors noted that the foot placement resulted in a 35 % greater resistance for the eccentric limb. Isometric strength gains were significantly greater in the concentrically trained limb (43.7 %) compared with the contra-lateral limb (22.9 %). Dynamic (isokinetic) strength significantly increased in two out of eight test velocities in the concentric limb and five out of eight in the eccentric limb, with no significant difference between limbs. There was a significant increase in proximal quadriceps muscle cross-sectional area in the concentric (4.6 %) and eccentric limbs (4.0 %), with no significant difference between limbs. Smith and Rutherford (169) stated that their results suggest that it is not muscle force per se that is the stimulus for increasing muscular strength and hypertrophy. That is, the 35 % greater resistance in the eccentrically trained limb did not produce greater muscular hypertrophy. Therefore, their results do not support the claim in the Position Stand.

In summary, out of the three resistance-training studies (15, 168-169) cited in the Position Stand to support the use of heavier resistance and a greater training volume for muscular hypertrophy, one study (168) did not measure muscle hypertrophy, one study (169) showed no difference in hypertrophic gains with greater resistance, and one study (15), which contradicts the claim in the Position Stand, showed a significantly greater gain in muscular hypertrophy with a lighter resistance. Therefore, the claim in the Position Stand that heavy loads and high-volume resistance training are required for maximal muscular hypertrophy is unsubstantiated (Table 11).


CONCLUSIONS

The ACSM has taken a definitive stand on resistance training. Therefore, the entire burden of proof is on the ACSM and the authors of the Position Stand to support their recommendations with peer-reviewed resistance-training studies that were available throughout the preparation of the Position Stand. They failed to meet that responsibility. Many of the recommendations are without any scientific foundation. The Position Stand fails to meet the standards for a scientifically based, methodologically sound, consensus statement.

We document numerous examples that specifically demonstrate how the authors of the Position Stand selectively reported the results of resistance-training studies. That is, they cite a couple of references that support their opinion and neglect to cite the studies that do not support it. Or, they use one or two results of a study that support their point of view and neglect to report other results from that study that do not support their opinion—a disservice to dedicated researchers at best. A number of their references have absolutely no relevance to their claims.

Readers are encouraged to scrutinize all the original resistance-training studies cited in the Position Stand. That is, carefully read the entire study, look for flaws in the methodology, decide whether the results actually support a particular hypothesis, and try to recognize when the discussion or practical application section conflicts with the reported data.

Assuming that the goals of healthy, advanced trainees are realistically within their genetic potential, there is very little evidence to suggest that intermediate or advanced trainees need to spend several hours a day performing resistance training or obsessively manipulating the training variables to attain specific goals such as muscular hypertrophy. If the goal is not within their genetic capability, no amount of resistance training will produce the desired results. For example, Van Etten et al. (170) recruited 21 previously untrained males (~36 years) and based on their initial body build expressed as a fat-free mass index (fat-free mass.height-2), classified them as a solid group or a contrasting slender group. All the subjects performed 1-3 sets of 10-15 repetitions for each of 14 exercises 2x/wk for 12 weeks. Absolute strength (~13 %) as well as strength relative to fat-free mass (~13 %) significantly increased at all angular velocities and movements tested, with no significant difference between groups for any of these changes. Both groups showed comparable decreases in fat mass (11.3 and 10.5 %, solid and slender groups, respectively). The entire group of trainees showed a significant increase in fat-free mass (1.0 kg). However, when analyzed separately the solid group significantly increased fat-free mass (1.6 kg), while the slender group did not change significantly (0.3 kg). The difference between groups was significant. The solid group also showed a significantly greater increase in body build (0.75 kg.m-2) compared with the slender group (0.26 kg.m-2). Van Etten et al. (170) concluded that the potential to increase free-fat mass, as well as the difference between groups in initial fat-free mass, are genetically determined. Unfortunately, genetic limitations of muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, and endurance are never addressed in the Position Stand.

Table 1 (p. 374) in the Position Stand, which is entitled: Summary of Resistance Training Recommendations: An Overview of Different Program Variables Needed for Progression with Different Fitness Levels (http://www.acsm-msse.org/pt/pt-core/...edia/0202.pdf), presents an outline of the ACSM’s highly complex recommendations. The training protocols include the types of exercise (single and multiple joint), order of exercise, a specific percent of the 1 RM, repetition duration, range of repetitions, number of sets for each exercise, rest time between sets and exercises, frequency of training, and so-called periodization programs. The ACSM claims that the training protocols should vary for novice, intermediate and advanced trainees, and are dependent on specific goals such as enhanced muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, and endurance. If obsessive manipulation of these training variables really had a significant effect on specific outcomes, it would be evident in the preponderance of resistance-training studies. However, as we have specifically documented in each of the previous sections, there is very little scientific evidence to suggest that any particular program described in Table 1 (p. 374) of the Position Stand will elicit a specific adaptation such as increased muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, or endurance (Table 12).

Because most advanced trainees would like to improve year round in all of the aforementioned variables (muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, and endurance), following the ACSM’s recommendations is not only a daunting task for most healthy adults, but also a deterrent for compliance even in the most dedicated trainees or for elite athletes who devote a great amount of time training for their specific sport. Many people would be forced to relinquish almost every other form of physical activity in order to achieve—according to the Position Stand—a hypothetical 10 % improvement. It appears that the intention of this Position Stand is to recommend what is required for trainees to determine how much exercise they can tolerate, rather than guiding people to establish the amount of exercise required to stimulate the desired adaptations that will improve health and enhance muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, and endurance.

The Position Stand claims that a general program of resistance training used by a novice will not have the same effect in an advanced trainee, but the majority of the references cited did not involve advanced trainees. Although there are eight studies (10, 33-34, 36, 38, 95, 121, 151) out of 139 citations in our summary Table 12 that actually support the primary claim or recommendation in the Position Stand (a mere 5.8 %), three of those studies used subjects who had undisclosed recreational experience with resistance training (36), basic experience (either 3-6 months or minimal of 6 months) in resistance training (38), or were enrolled (time not reported) in a college weight-training class (151). The other five studies involved previously untrained subjects (10, 33-34, 95, 121). Consequently, none of the eight studies (10, 33-34, 36, 38, 95, 121, 151) that support the primary recommendation in the Position Stand actually involved advanced trainees.

This ACSM Position Stand was published with so little supporting scientific evidence because the entire peer-review system failed. That is, the ACSM’s Writing Group for the Position Stand failed to support their opinions with sufficient evidence; the reviewers of the Position Stand, presumably with expertise in resistance training and exercise physiology, failed to challenge a single reference; the ACSM Pronouncements Committee, Board of Trustees, and Administrative Council failed to monitor the review process effectively; and the Editor-in-Chief of Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise chose to publish a document that is bereft of scientific evidence to support the claims and recommendations. Thus, it is our opinion that the problems within the ACSM are far more egregious than a highly flawed Position Stand.

RECOMMENDATIONS

What is really known about the science of resistance training is contrary to the opinions expressed in the Position Stand. That is, the preponderance of research strongly suggests that gains in muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, and endurance are the result of the following simple guidelines:

• Select a mode of exercise that feels comfortable throughout the range of motion. There is very little evidence to support the superiority of free weights or machines for increasing muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, or endurance.
• Choose a repetition duration that will ensure the maintenance of consistent form throughout the set. One study showed a greater strength benefit from a shorter duration (2s/4s) and one study showed better strength gains as a result of a longer duration (10s/4s), but no study using conventional exercise equipment reports any significant difference in muscular hypertrophy, power, or endurance as a result of manipulating repetition duration.
• Choose a range of repetitions between three and 15 (e.g., 3-5, 6-8, 8-10, etc.). There is very little evidence to suggest that a specific range of repetitions (e.g., 3-5 versus 8-10) or time-under-load (e.g., 30s versus 90s) significantly impacts the increase in muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, or endurance.
• Perform one set of each exercise. The preponderance of resistance-training studies shows no difference in the gains in muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, or endurance as a result of performing a greater number of sets.
• After performing a combination of concentric and eccentric muscle actions, terminate each exercise at the point where the concentric phase of the exercise is becoming difficult, if not impossible, while maintaining good form. There is very little evidence to suggest that going beyond this level of intensity (e.g., supramaximal or accentuated eccentric muscle actions) will further enhance muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, or endurance.
• Allow enough time between exercises to perform the next exercise in proper form. There is very little evidence to suggest that different rest periods between sets or exercises will significantly affect the gains in muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, or endurance.
• Depending on individual recovery and response, choose a frequency of 2-3 times/week to stimulate each targeted muscle group. One session a week has been shown to be just as effective as 2-3 times/week for some muscle groups. There is very little evidence to suggest that training a muscle more than 2-3 times/week or that split routines will produce greater gains in muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, or endurance.

In reality, progression in resistance training is simply adding enough resistance, which is a consequence of getting stronger—not a requisite—to stay within the desired range of repetitions and maintain a specific degree of effort. This is achieved while maintaining the precise exercise form for each aspect of the chosen protocol. Complex manipulation of any or all of the previously discussed resistance-training variables in an attempt to enhance gains in muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, or endurance in novice, intermediate or advanced trainees is primarily based on unsubstantiated opinions, and lacks sufficient scientific evidence - empirical or theoretical - for support.

[MuscleScience]

bump

[resonator]

"Perform one set of each exercise."

lol Let me know how that works for ya

[BlackWidow]

One set of each exercise ?? I pray to God that you are true... lol

[MuscleScience]

"Perform one set of each exercise."

lol Let me know how that works for ya

yeah i think the same thing too, I went through a lot of the research and there are actually a couple of papers that have people exercising 1, 3, and 5 set programs and the 1 set only had just as much strenght and muscle hyperthropy as the other two groups.

I will still be doing my 3 sets for each exercise though.

[Mista Massive]

guys, i honestly believe that one good set is better than 3 sets any day of the week.

what i do is 2 sets, of one exercise, then 1 set of another.

i managed to put on 44 lbs in 9 months. i started training in march. WITH NO GEAR!!!!