IJSM/5162/23.3.

2016/MPS Training & Testing

Effects of Varied Versus Constant Loading Zones on

Muscular Adaptations in Trained Men

Authors B. J. Schoenfeld1, B. Contreras2, D. Ogborn3, A. Galpin4, J. Krieger5, G. T. Sonmez1

Affiliations Affiliation addresses are listed at the end of the article

Key words Abstract 2, and 20–30 RM on Day 3 for 8 weeks. Results

●
▶ loading zones
▼ showed that both groups significantly increased
●
▶ repetition range
The purpose of this study was to compare the markers of muscle strength, muscle thickness,
●

Downloaded by: Universite Laval. Copyrighted material.

▶ muscle hypertrophy
effects of a protocol employing a combination of and local muscular endurance, with no differ-
●
▶ maximal strength
loading zones vs. one employing a constant ences noted between groups. Effect sizes favored
●
▶ muscular endurance
medium-repetition loading zone on muscular VARIED over CONSTANT condition for elbow
adaptations in resistance-trained men. 19 trained flexor thickness (0.72 vs. 0.57), elbow extensor
men (height = 176.9 ± 7.0 cm; body mass = 83.1 ± thickness (0.77 vs. 0.48), maximal bench press
11.8 kg; age = 23.3 ± 2.9 years) were randomly strength (0.80 vs. 0.57), and upper body muscle
assigned to 1 of 2 experimental groups: a con- endurance (1.91 vs. 1.28). In conclusion, findings
stant-rep resistance training (RT) routine (CON- indicate that both varied and constant loading
STANT) that trained using 8–12 RM per set, or a approaches can promote significant improve-
varied-rep RT routine (VARIED) that trained with ments in muscular adaptations in trained young
2–4 RM per set on Day 1, 8–12 RM per set on Day men.

Introduction the preponderance of evidence fails to show a

▼ hypertrophic superiority of one loading zone vs.
Adaptations of resistance training (RT) are another in untrained subjects across an array of
thought to be optimized by proper manipulation populations [6]. Moreover, recent work from our
of program variables [1]. Of these variables, lab reveals similar long-term increases in muscle
intensity of load – defined as the percentage of 1 size between resistance trainings sets involving
repetition maximum (RM) – is perhaps the most ~3RM and ~10RM [5], and ~10RM and ~30 RM in
accepted after revision studied. Resistance training guidelines have used trained men [4].
December 01, 2015 the concept of intensity of load to create distinct It is conceivable that there may be an advantage
“loading zones” that correspond to the optimiza- to combining low, medium, and high repetitions
Bibliography tion of a given fitness outcome: a loading zone of in a long-term training routine. Thus, the pur-
DOI http://dx.doi.org/ 1–5 RM (low repetition range) is purported to pose of this study was to compare the effects of a
10.1055/s-0035-1569369 maximize muscle strength; a loading zone of protocol employing a combination of loading
Published online: 2016
6–12 RM (medium repetition range) is proposed zones vs. one employing a constant medium-rep-
Int J Sports Med
to maximize muscle hypertrophy, and; a loading etition loading zone on muscular adaptations in
© Georg Thieme
Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York of 15 + RM (high repetition range) is claimed to resistance-trained men. We hypothesized that
ISSN 0172-4622 maximize local muscular endurance [2]. greater muscular adaptations would be seen
While these guidelines are generally accepted as when combining loading zones.
Correspondence tenets, their application to program design
Prof. Brad J. Schoenfeld remains somewhat equivocal. The preponder-
Department of Health Sciences ance of evidence does seem to suggest the pres- Materials and Methods
CUNY Lehman College
250 Bedrord Park Blvd West
ence of a strength-endurance continuum, ▼
10468 Bronx
whereby low repetition training with heavy Subjects
United States loads induce maximal strength increases while Subjects were 30 trained, male volunteers
Tel.: + 1/914/391 9357 light-load, high repetition training promotes (height = 176.9 ± 7.0 cm; body mass = 83.1 ± 11.8 kg;
Fax: + 1/914/725 8400 greater increases in muscle endurance [3–5]. age = 23.3 ± 2.9 years) recruited from a university
[email protected] With respect to skeletal muscle growth, however, population with a minimum of 1 year of resist-

Schoenfeld BJ et al. Effects of Varied Versus … Int J Sports Med

 Training & Testing IJSM/5162/23.3.2016/MPS

ance training experience training at least 3 days-per-week and ditioning Association Certified Strength and Conditioning Spe-
an average experience of 4.7 ± 3.2 years. All subjects reported cialist and certified personal trainers, to ensure proper
performing a combination of free weights and resistance performance of the respective routines. Attempts were made to
machines as part of their regular programs. This sample size was progressively increase the loads lifted each week by approxi-
justified by a priori power analysis based on previous work from mately 2–5 %; if the subject was unable to perform the given lift
our lab with a target effect size difference of 0.6, alpha of 0.05 within the confines of the target repetition range, the load was
and beta of 0.80, while taking into account the probability of then adjusted to ensure maintenance of the desired loading
dropouts. Moreover, all subjects regularly performed the barbell zone. Prior to training, the CONSTANT group underwent 10 RM
back squat and bench press exercises for at least 1 year prior to testing and the VARIED group underwent 3RM, 10RM, and 25RM
entering the study. Subjects were free from any existing muscu- testing to determine individual initial training loads for each
loskeletal disorders and stated they had not taken anabolic ster- exercise. Repetition maximum testing was consistent with rec-
oids or any other illegal agents known to increase muscle size for ognized guidelines as established by the National Strength and
the previous year. Conditioning Association [13].
A total of 19 subjects completed the study; 9 subjects in CON-
STANT and 10 subjects in VARIED. 11 subjects dropped out prior Dietary intake
to completion: 1 subject experienced a minor joint-related To avoid potential dietary confounding of results, subjects were
injury during training that precluded adequate participation and advised to maintain their customary nutritional regimen and to
the other 10 subjects abandoned participation for various per- avoid taking any supplements other than that provided in the
sonal reasons. Descriptive data for subjects who completed the course of the study. To maximize anabolism, subjects were sup-
study are shown in ● ▶ Table 1. plied with a protein supplement on training days containing 24 g
Subjects were pair-matched according to baseline squat strength protein and 1 g carbohydrate (Iso100 Hydrolyzed Whey Protein
and then randomly assigned to 1 of 2 experimental groups: a Isolate, Dymatize Nutrition, Dallas, TX). The supplement was

Downloaded by: Universite Laval. Copyrighted material.

constant-rep RT routine (CONSTANT) that trained using 8–12 consumed within 1 h post-exercise, as this time frame has been
RM per set (n = 15) or a varied-rep RT routine (VARIED) that purported to help potentiate increases in muscle protein synthe-
trained with 2–4 RM per set on Day 1, 8–12 RM per set on Day 2, sis following a bout of RT [15].
and 20–30 RM on Day 3 (n = 15). Approval for the study was
obtained from the University Institutional Review Board. Writ- Measurements
ten informed consent was obtained from all subjects prior to Muscle thickness
beginning the study. The authors acknowledge having read and Ultrasound imaging was used to obtain measurements of mus-
understood IJSM’s ethical standards document [7] and confirm cle thickness (MT). A trained technician performed all testing
that the study meets the ethical standards of the journal. using a B-mode ultrasound imaging unit (ECO3, Chison Medical
Imaging, Ltd, Jiang Su Province, China). The technician applied a
Resistance training procedures water-soluble transmission gel (Aquasonic 100 Ultrasound
The RT protocol consisted of 7 exercises per session targeting all Transmission gel, Parker Laboratories Inc., Fairfield, NJ) to each
major muscle groups of the body. The exercises performed were: measurement site, and a 5 MHz ultrasound probe was placed
flat barbell press, barbell military press, wide grip lat pulldown, perpendicular to the tissue interface without depressing the
seated cable row, barbell back squat, machine leg press, and skin. When the quality of the image was deemed to be satisfac-
machine knee extension. These exercises were chosen based on tory, the technician saved the image to a hard drive and obtained
their common inclusion in bodybuilding- and strength-type RT MT dimensions by measuring the distance from the subcutane-
programs [13, 14]. Subjects were instructed to refrain from per- ous adipose tissue-muscle interface to the muscle-bone inter-
forming any additional resistance-type or high-intensity anaer- face as per previously established protocol [8]. Measurements
obic training for the duration of the study. were taken on the right side of the body at 3 sites: (1) the elbow
Training for both routines was performed 3 times per week on flexors, (2) elbow extensors, and (3) vastus lateralis. For the
non-consecutive days for 8 weeks. 3 sets were performed for anterior and posterior upper arm, measurements were taken
each exercise. Sets were carried out to the point of momentary 60 % distal between the lateral epicondyle of the humerus and
concentric muscular failure, operationally defined as the inabil- the acromion process of the scapula; for the vastus lateralis,
ity to perform another concentric repetition with proper form. measurements were taken 50 % between the lateral condyle of
Cadence of repetitions was carried out in a controlled fashion, the femur and greater trochanter for the quadriceps femoris.
with a concentric action of approximately 1 s and an eccentric Ultrasound has been validated as a good measurement of mus-
action of approximately 2 s. Subjects were afforded 2 min rest cle volume in these muscles [20, 21], and has been used in
between sets. The load was adjusted for each exercise as needed numerous studies to evaluate hypertrophic changes [19, 22–25].
on successive sets to ensure that subjects achieved failure in the In an effort to ensure that swelling in the muscles from training
target repetition range. All routines were directly supervised by did not obscure results, images were obtained 48–72 h before
the research team, which included a National Strength and Con- commencement of the study, as well as after the final training
session. This is consistent with research showing that acute
Table 1 Descriptive data. increases in muscle thickness return to baseline within 48 h fol-
lowing a RT session [26]. To further ensure accuracy of measure-
Measure VARIED CONSTANT ments, at least 2 images were obtained for each site. If
height (cms) 175.0 ± 8.0 178.3 ± 5.1 measurements were within 10 % of one another, the figures were
weight (kgs) 78.5 ± 8.0 86.8 ± 14.7 averaged to obtain a final value. If measurements were more
age (yrs) 23.9 ± 3.2 23.3 ± 2.9 than 10 % of one another, a third image was obtained and the
training experience (yrs) 4.4 ± 4.0 5.0 ± 3.1 closest of the measures was then averaged. The test-retest intra-

Schoenfeld BJ et al. Effects of Varied Versus … Int J Sports Med

IJSM/5162/23.3.2016/MPS Training & Testing

Measure VARIED-Pre VARIED-Post ES CONSTANT-Pre CONSTANT-Post ES Table 2 Pre- vs. post-study

outcome measures.
elbow flexor thickness (cm) 44.1 ± 3.0 47.0 ± 2.4 * 0.72 46.1 ± 4.9 48.4 ± 4.8 * 0.57
triceps brachii thickness (cm) 50.2 ± 4.1 53.4 ± 3.6 * 0.77 50.5 ± 4.7 52.6 ± 4.6 * 0.48
vastus lateralis thickness (cm) 58.9 ± 3.6 63.4 ± 4.3 * 1.04 55.9 ± 4.6 60.7 ± 4.5 * 1.12
1RM bench press (kg) 98.6 ± 17.2 110.2 ± 19.4 * 0.80 110.1 ± 8.0 118.5 ± 8.1 * 0.57
1RM back squat (kg) 125.5 ± 20.0 150.7 ± 23.5 * 1.47 116.2 ± 12.6 140.1 ± 14.2 * 1.40
50 % bench press (repetitions) 29.0 ± 3.8 38.1 ± 3.4 * 1.91 30.2 ± 5.8 36.3 ± 4.2 * 1.28
Data are reported as x ± SD. An asterisk (* ) indicates a significant effect from baseline values. ES = effect size

class correlation coefficient (ICC) from our lab for thickness were assessed using independent 2-sided t-tests for unequal
measurement of the forearm flexors, forearm extensors, and variances. In cases of non-normally distributed data, differences
vastus lateralis are 0.986, 0.981, and 0.997, respectively. The were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Pre/post-
standard error of the measurement (SEM) for these measures intervention data were modeled using a linear mixed model for
are 0.16, 0.50, and 0.25 mms, respectively. repeated measures, estimated by a restricted maximum likeli-
hood algorithm. Training intervention (CONSTANT or VARIED)
Muscle strength was included as the between-subject factor, time was included
Upper and lower body strength was assessed by 1RM testing in as the repeated within-subjects factor, time × intervention was
the bench press (1RMBP) followed by the parallel back squat included as the interaction, and subject was included as a ran-
(1RMSQUAT) exercises. Subjects reported to the lab having dom effect. Normality of residuals assumptions were examined
refrained from any exercise other than activities of daily living using graphical plots; all pre/post-intervention data were found
for at least 48 h prior to baseline testing and at least 48 h prior to to meet normality of residuals assumptions. Effect sizes were

Downloaded by: Universite Laval. Copyrighted material.

testing at the conclusion of the study. Repetition maximum test- calculated as the mean pre-post change divided by the pooled
ing was consistent with recognized guidelines as established by pretest standard deviation [9]. All analyses were performed
the National Strength and Conditioning Association [2]. In brief, using R version 3.1.3 (The R Foundation for Statistical Comput-
subjects performed a general warm-up prior to testing that con- ing, Vienna, Austria). Effects were considered significant at
sisted of light cardiovascular exercise lasting approximately P ≤ 0.05, and trends were declared at 0.05 < P ≤ 0.10. Data are
5–10 min. A specific warm-up set of the given exercise of 5 rep- reported as x ± SD unless otherwise specified. The scale pro-
etitions was performed at ~50 % 1RM followed by one to 2 sets of posed by Hopkins et al. [10] was used to further qualify proba-
2–3 repetitions at a load corresponding to ~60–80 % 1RM. Sub- bilities that reflect the uncertainty in the true p-values as
jects then performed sets of 1 repetition of increasing weight for follows: 0.5 %, most unlikely or almost certainly not; 0.5–5 %,
1RM determination. 3–5 min rest was provided between each very unlikely; 5–25 %, unlikely or probably not; 25–75 %, possi-
successive attempt. All 1RM determinations were made within 5 bly; 75–95 %, likely or probably; 95–99.5 %, very likely; 99.5 %,
attempts. Successful 1RMBP was achieved if the subject dis- most likely or almost certainly.
played a 5-point body contact position (head, upper back and
buttocks firmly on the bench with both feet flat on the floor) and
executed a full lock-out. Subjects were required to reach parallel Results
in the 1RMSQUAT for the attempt to be considered successful as ▼
determined by the trainer. 1RMBP testing was conducted prior Overall attendance for those who completed the study was 93 %
to 1RMSQUAT with a 5-min rest period separating tests. Strength (92.5 % vs. 93.9 % for the VARIED and CONSTANT groups, respec-
testing took place using free weights. 2 research assistants tively). No significant differences were noted between groups in
supervised all testing sessions and an attempt was only deemed any baseline measure. ● ▶ Table 2 summarizes results for all out-

successful when a consensus was reached between the 2. The come variables.
test-retest ICC for the 1RMBP and 1RMSQUAT from our lab are
0.995 and 0.998, respectively. The SEM for these measures are Volume load
1.03 and 1.04 kg, respectively. Volume load data was calculated as load × reps × sets for all sets
performed during the study. Volume load in upper body pushing
Muscle endurance movements was significantly greater for CONSTANT compared
Upper body muscular endurance was assessed by performing to VARIED (p = 0.02; CI = 4632, 50335). No significant differences
bench press using 50 % of the subjects’ initial 1RM in the bench were seen with respect to volume load in either upper body
press (50 %BP) for as many repetitions as possible to muscular fail- pulling movements (p = 0.40; CI = − 18700, 62485) nor in lower
ure with proper form. Successful performance was achieved if the body exercises (p = 0.36; CI = − 61604, 157707). Total volume load
subject displayed a 5-point body contact position (head, upper across all exercises was not different between conditions
back and buttocks firmly on the bench with both feet flat on the (p = 0.14; CI = − 37632, 232487), although the Hopkins et al. [10]
floor) and executed a full lock-out. Muscular endurance testing scale suggests a likelihood that volume load was greater in CON-
was carried out after assessment of muscular strength to mini- STANT. ● ▶ Fig. 1 depicts volume load data across the duration of

mize the effects of metabolic stress on performance of the latter. the study.

Statistical analyses Muscle thickness

Subject demographic, attendance, and volume load data were Ultrasound imaging of the elbow flexors showed that both VAR-
assessed for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Differences IED and CONSTANT increased muscle thickness from baseline to
in demographics, attendance, and volume load between groups post-study by 6.6 % (p < 0.001; ES = 0.72) and 5.0 % (p < 0.001;

Schoenfeld BJ et al. Effects of Varied Versus … Int J Sports Med

 Training & Testing IJSM/5162/23.3.2016/MPS

Discussion
180 000
Weekly Load Volume
▼
The present study sought to directly investigate muscular adap-
160 000
tations between resistance training protocols using different
140 000 loading zones vs. a constant “hypertrophy-type” loading zone in
120 000
trained individuals. Emerging research indicates that there is a
fiber type-specific hypertrophic response to training in different
100 000
loading zones: light-load training promotes superior increases
80 000 in type I fiber cross-sectional area, while using heavier loads has
60 000 a greater effect on type II growth [11–13]. Moreover, disparate
responses in intracellular anabolic signalling and myogenic gene
40 000
expression have been noted following heavy- vs. light-load
20 000
resistance training, conceivably related to variances in mechani-
0 cal and metabolic stress between loading zones [14]. These find-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
ings raise the possibility that there may be an advantage to
Constant Varied
combining low, medium, and high repetitions in a long-term
Fig. 1 Graphical representation of weekly volume load for VARIED and training routine. However, our results show no significant differ-
CONSTANT conditions over the course of the study. ences between the 2 conditions, indicating that both strategies
are equally suitable for increases in muscle hypertrophy,
strength, and endurance. These findings refute our initial
ES = 0.57), respectively. No significant between-group differ- hypothesis that the VARIED approach would elicit superior mus-
ences were noted for changes in this outcome (p = 0.33; CI = − 1.9, cular gains.

Downloaded by: Universite Laval. Copyrighted material.

0.7). Based on the Hopkins et al. [10] scale, there was a possible To our knowledge, the present study is the first to assess site-
benefit in favor of VARIED. specific changes in muscle size between different loading zones
Ultrasound imaging of the triceps brachii showed that both VAR- rotated on a weekly basis using resistance-trained subjects.
IED and CONSTANT increased muscle thickness from baseline to Results did not indicate a significant difference in growth
post-study by 6.4 % (p < 0.01; ES = 0.77) and 4.2 % (p < 0.001; (between training conditions) for any of the muscles assessed.
ES = 0.48), respectively. No significant between-group differ- Kraemer et al. [15] compared muscular adaptations in a 3 day-
ences were noted for changes in this outcome (p = 0.22; CI = − 3.3, per-week protocol using constant loading (8–10RM) or varied
0.8). Based on the Hopkins et al. [10] scale, there was a likely loading (4–6RM on day 1; 8–10RM on day 2; 12–15RM on day
benefit in favor of VARIED. 3). Body composition was assessed by the 3-site skinfold tech-
Ultrasound imaging of the vastus lateralis showed that both nique. After 9 months of training, the absolute change in fat-free
VARIED and CONSTANT increased muscle thickness from base- mass was significantly greater in the varied- vs. the constant-
line to post-study by 7.6 % (p < 0.001; ES = 1.04) and 8.6 % loading condition (3.3 ± 1.7 kg vs. 1.6 ± 2.4 kg), and there was a
(p < 0.001; ES = 1.12), respectively. No significant between-group statistical trend for an interaction in fat-free mass values favor-
differences were noted for changes in this outcome (p = 0.74; ing varied training over time. Alternatively, Hunter et al. [16]
CI =  − 2.1, 2.8). Based on the Hopkins et al. [10] scale, it is unlikely investigated the effects of varied vs. constant loading on body
either condition offered a benefit over the other. composition changes, as measured by air displacement plethys-
mography, in a cohort of elderly men and women over the course
Maximal strength of 6 months. The protocol was set up so one group trained at
Both VARIED and CONSTANT showed a significant increase in 80 % 1RM each session while another trained at 50 %, 65 %, and
1RMBENCH from baseline to post-study by 12.0 % (p < 0.001; 80 % 1RM across the 3 weekly training days. Increases in fat-free
ES = 0.80) and 7.9 % (p < 0.01; ES = 0.57), respectively. No signifi- mass were similar between conditions at the end of the study
cant between-group differences were noted for changes in this period.
outcome (p = 0.21; CI =  − 18.8, 4.5). Based on the Hopkins et al. When attempting to reconcile findings between studies, there
[10] scale, there was a likely benefit in favor of VARIED. are notable differences in the subject populations. For one, sub-
Both VARIED and CONSTANT showed a significant increase in jects in Kraemer et al. [15] were young women while those in
1RMSQUAT from baseline to post-study by 20.1 % (p < 0.001; Hunter et al. [17] were older men and women; in contrast, the
ES = 1.47) and 20.3 % (p < 0.001; ES = 1.40), respectively. No sig- present study used healthy young men. Moreover, both Kraemer
nificant between-group differences were noted for changes in et al. [15] and Hunter et al. [17] employed untrained subjects
this outcome (p = 0.78; CI = − 23.2, 17.8). Based on the Hopkins et whereas subjects in our study were experienced lifters. Both
al. [10] scale, it is unlikely that either condition offered a benefit acute exercise and short-term (6–10 weeks) training studies
over the other. clearly demonstrate that gender, age, and exercise training his-
tory influence numerous aspects of the RT-induced anabolic
Muscle endurance response [18].
Both the VARIED and CONSTANT groups showed a significant While significant hypertrophic differences were not found
increase in 50 %BENCH from baseline to post-study by 31.4 % between training approaches in the present study, the greater
(p < 0.001; ES = 1.91) and 20.2 % (p = 0.001; ES = 1.28), respec- effect sizes seen for increases in upper body muscle thickness
tively. No significant between-group differences were noted for indicate a potential benefit for VARIED. Given the study’s rela-
changes in this outcome (p = 0.15; CI = − 7.3, 1.3). Based on the tively short duration (8 weeks) and factoring in missed sessions,
Hopkins et al. [10] scale, there was a likely benefit in favor of subjects in VARIED trained in each loading zone for a total of 7–8
VARIED. sessions over the course of the study period. It is therefore pos-

Schoenfeld BJ et al. Effects of Varied Versus … Int J Sports Med

IJSM/5162/23.3.2016/MPS Training & Testing

sible that longer training periods, like those used by Kraemer et the possibility that there is a degree of offset of the strength
al. [15], might be necessary for significant differences to mani- adaptations of high-load training with the endurance adapta-
fest. This hypothesis warrants further investigation. It is also tions promoted with low-load training, such that VARIED pro-
interesting that volume load was consistently lower across all vides a subdued response relative to exclusive training in each
conditions (push, pull, leg, total) in VARIED as compared to CON- RM zone. Unfortunately, due to limitations in the experimental
STANT; however, only the reduction in push volume load was design, we cannot determine whether such a response occurred,
statistically significant. Nevertheless, this data suggests the pos- as a low (2–4RM) and high (20–30RM) repetition experimental
sibility that VARIED loading may allow for comparable hyper- group was not included.
trophic adaptations with less volume load than training at a The study had several notable limitations. First, muscle thick-
constant 8–12 RM repetition range. ness measurements were obtained only at the mid-portion of
With respect to muscular strength, 1RMBENCH and 1RMSQUAT each muscle. While this measure is commonly used as a proxy of
improved equally between the training groups over the study whole-muscle growth, research shows that hypertrophy often
period. These findings are consistent with those of Hunter et al. manifests in a regional-specific manner, with greater protein
[17] who found that varied and constant loading approaches accretion occurring at the proximal and/or distal aspects of a
produced similar increases in 1RM in the leg press, chest press, given muscle [24, 25]. We therefore cannot rule out the possibil-
elbow flexion, and seated press. In contrast, Kraemer et al. [15] ity that subjects may have experienced differential changes in
demonstrated significantly greater increases in absolute l-RM proximal or distal muscle growth in one condition vs. the other
leg press and shoulder press for varied vs. constant loading after that would not have gone undetected by the testing methods
9 months of training. The majority of the existing data regarding employed. Second, we did not perform muscle biopsies and thus
the specificity of strength development have tested single repe- cannot discern whether the conditions studied resulted in dif-
tition ranges against each other. While data on VARIED loading ferent fiber-type specific adaptations. This has potentially
may be mixed, it appears that low repetition (high intensity of important implications both for maximizing whole muscle

Downloaded by: Universite Laval. Copyrighted material.

load) ranges (approximately 3–5 RM) may be superior for hypertrophy as well as muscular performance, and hence war-
strength development specific to the exercise at which subjects rants further study. Third, although subjects were advised to
are trained [3, 4, 19, 20]. Campos et al. [3] compared training at maintain their usual dietary regimen, we were unable to assess
low (3–5RM), intermediate (9–11 RM) and high (20–28RM), compliance. Thus, it remains possible that variances in either
finding that while all RM zones increased muscular strength, the energy or macronutrient consumption unduly influenced
increase following low repetition training (3–5RM) was approx- results. Finally, due to experimental constraints it was not pos-
imately double the change that occurred following both the sible to include additional experimental groups that trained
intermediate and high repetition conditions. This data suggests exclusively at each of the repetition ranges used in the VARIED
the transition from intermediate (9–11 RM) to low repetitions protocol. Consequently, the comparisons above are specific to
(3–5 RM) may represent the threshold for which enhanced constant loading at an 8–12 RM. We cannot exclude the possibil-
strength adaptations could be expected. In the present design it ity that a differential response would have occurred regarding
is possible that the volume of exercise performed at or above both maximal strength and endurance had experimental groups
this threshold was insufficient to increase strength beyond that been included that trained at either the higher or lower loading
which occurred in the CONSTANT loading in an intermediate, zone.
8–12RM range.
To our knowledge, the present study is the first to evaluate
changes in local muscular endurance following a varied vs. con- Conclusion
stant training approach. Although no significant differences ▼
were seen between conditions, the relative increases in 50 %BENCH Training with a variety of repetition ranges has been theorized
markedly favored VARIED and the probability of these results to provide an optimal hypertrophic stimulus to both type I and
were likely based on the Hopkins et al. [10] scale. Moreover, the II fibers, and possibly augment the hypertrophic response as
effect size was substantially greater for VARIED as well. Studies compared to training in fixed repetition ranges in isolation [26]
that have compared differing training intensities in isolation The present results suggest that comparable hypertrophic,
have generally supported the strength-endurance continuum, strength, and endurance adaptations occur when a varied train-
suggesting that higher repetition training favors the develop- ing protocol is compared against a fixed loading program at 8–12
ment of muscular endurance [3, 19, 21]. Training with low inten- RM; however, trends suggest that improved muscular endur-
sity and high repetitions results in greater time-under-tension ance may occur in protocols that employ high repetition ranges.
[22], and greater time-under-tension is associated with an Of interest, VARIED loading schemes may provide comparable
increased acute mitochondrial protein synthetic response to adaptations with reduced volume-load, indicating a training
strength training [23]. Such mitochondrial adaptations, if coinci- stimulus of greater efficiency as compared to training exclu-
dent with muscle fiber phenotypic adaptations towards more sively in a fixed repetition range.
oxidative fiber types (Type I, IIa), may confer a distinct advantage
to the development of muscular endurance. The present data
does not allow for firm conclusion regarding fiber-type specific Acknowledgements
responses; however, at the functional level the data are consist- ▼
ent with the strength-endurance continuum in that the VARIED Acknowledgements: This study was supported by a grant from
condition, which included high repetition training (20–30RM), Dymatize Nutrition. The authors gratefully acknowledge the
resulted in superior adaptations in muscular endurance. It is contributions of Robert Harris, Andrew Alto, Marvin Alba,
also possible that such adaptations in VARIED were attenuated Romaine Fearon, Fanny Chen, Lucas Campos, Geronimo Branni-
relative to training exclusively at 20–30RM. We cannot exclude gan, Gabriel Irizarry and Jason Peters in their indispensable role

Schoenfeld BJ et al. Effects of Varied Versus … Int J Sports Med

 Training & Testing IJSM/5162/23.3.2016/MPS

as research assistants in this study. We also would like to express 13 Netreba AI, Popov DV, Liubaeva EV, Bravyĭ IaR, Prostova AB, Lemesheva
IuS, Vinogradova OL. Physiological effects of using the low intensity
our gratitude to Dymatize Nutrition for providing the protein
strength training without relaxation in single-joint and multi-joint
supplements used in this study. movements. Ross Fiziol Zh Im I M Sechenova 2007; 93: 27–38
14 Popov DV, Lysenko EA, Bachinin AV, Miller TF, Kurochkina NS, Kravchenko
Conflict of interest: The authors have no conflict of interest to IV, Furalyov VA, Vinogradova OL. Influence of resistance exercise inten-
sity and metabolic stress on anabolic signaling and expression of
declare. myogenic genes in skeletal muscle. Muscle Nerve 2015; 51: 434–442
15 Kraemer WJ, Hakkinen K, Triplett-Mcbride NT, Fry AC, Koziris LP,
Ratamess NA, Bauer JE, Volek JS, McConnell T, Newton RU, Gordon SE,
Affiliations
1 Cummings D, Hauth J, Pullo F, Lynch JM, Fleck SJ, Mazzetti SA, Knutt-
Department of Health Sciences, CUNY Lehman College, Bronx, United States
2
Sport Performance Research Institute, Aukland University of Technology, gen HG. Physiological changes with periodized resistance training in
Aukland, New Zealand women tennis players. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003; 35: 157–168
3
Health Sciences, McMaster University, W. Hamilton, Canada 16 Hunter GR, Wetzstein CJ, McLafferty CL Jr, Zuckerman PA, Landers KA,
4
Neuromuscular and Neurometabolic Unit, Cal State Fullerton, Fullerton, Bamman MM. High-resistance versus variable-resistance training in
United States older adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2001; 33: 1759–1764
5
Weightology.net, Issaquah, United States 17 Hunter GR, Brock DW, Byrne NM, Chandler-Laney PC, Del Corral P,
Gower BA. Exercise training prevents regain of visceral fat for 1 year
following weight loss. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2010; 18: 690–695
References 18 Schoenfeld BJ. The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their appli-
1 American College of Sports Medicine. American College of Sports cation to resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 2010; 24: 2857–2872
Medicine position stand. Progression models in resistance training 19 Mitchell CJ, Churchward-Venne TA, West DD, Burd NA, Breen L, Baker
for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2009; 41: 687–708 SK, Phillips SM. Resistance exercise load does not determine training-
2 Baechle TR, Earle RW. Essentials of strength training and condition- mediated hypertrophic gains in young men. J Appl Physiol 2012; 113:
ing. 2008 71–77
3 Campos GER, Luecke TJ, Wendeln HK, Toma K, Hagerman FC, Murray 20 Holm L, Reitelseder S, Pedersen TG, Doessing S, Peterson SG, Flyvbjerg
TF, Ragg KE, Ratamess NA, Kraemer WJ, Staron RS. Muscular adap- A, Andersen JL, Aagaard P, Kjaer M. Changes in muscle size and MHC
tations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: composition in response to resistance exercise with heavy and light

Downloaded by: Universite Laval. Copyrighted material.

specificity of repetition maximum training zones. Eur J Appl Physiol loading intensity. J Appl Physiol 2008; 105: 1454–1461
2002; 88: 50–60 21 Rana SR, Chleboun GS, Gilders RM, Hagerman FC, Herman JR, Hikida RS,
4 Schoenfeld BJ, Peterson MD, Ogborn D, Contreras B, Sonmez GT. Effects Kushnick MR, Staron RS, Toma K. Comparison of early phase adapta-
of low- versus high-load resistance training on muscle strength and tions for traditional strength and endurance, and low velocity resist-
hypertrophy in well-trained men. J Strength Cond Res 2015 ance training programs in college-aged women. J Strength Cond Res
5 Schoenfeld BJ, Ratamess NA, Contreras B, Sonmez GT, Alvar BA. Effects 2008; 22: 119–127
of different volume-equated resistance training loading strategies on 22 Burd NA, West DW, Staples AW, Peterson MD, Atherton PJ, Baker JM,
muscular adaptations in well-trained men. J Strength Cond Res 2014; Moore DR, Holwerda AM, Parise G, Rennie MJ, Baker SK, Phillips SM.
28: 2909–2918 Low-load high volume resistance exercise stimulates muscle protein
6 Schoenfeld BJ, Wilson JM, Lowery RP, Krieger JW. Muscular adaptations synthesis more than high-load low volume resistance exercise in
in low- versus high-load resistance training: A meta-analysis. Eur J young men. PLoS One 2010; 5: e12033
Sport Sci 2014; 1–10 23 Burd NA, Andrews RJ, West DW, Little JP, Cochran AJ, Hector AJ,
7 Harriss DJ, Atkinson G. Ethical standards in sport and exercise science Cashaback JG, Gibala MJ, Potvin JR, Baker SK, Phillips SM. Muscle time
research: 2016 update. Int J Sports Med 2015; 36: 1121–1124 under tension during resistance exercise stimulates differential mus-
8 Schoenfeld BJ, Ratamess NA, Contreras B, Tiryaki-Sonmez G. Peterson cle protein sub-fractional synthetic responses in men. J Physiol 2012;
MD, Peterson MD, Influence of resistance training frequency on mus- 590: 351–362
cular adaptations in well-trained men. J Strength Cond Res 2015 24 Wakahara T, Fukutani A, Kawakami Y, Yanai T. Nonuniform muscle
9 Morris B. Estimating effect sizes from pretest-posttest-control group hypertrophy: its relation to muscle activation in training session. Med
designs. Organizational Research Methods 2008; 11: 364–386 Sci Sports Exerc 2013; 45: 2158–2165
10 Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM, Hanin J. Progressive sta- 25 Wakahara T, Miyamoto N, Sugisaki N, Murata K, Kanehisa H, Kawakami
tistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Y, Fukunaga T, Yanai T. Association between regional differences in
Sports Exerc 2009; 41: 3–13 muscle activation in one session of resistance exercise and in muscle
11 Netreba A, Popov D, Bravyy Y, Lyubaeva E, Terada M, Ohira T, Okabe hypertrophy after resistance training. Eur J Appl Physiol 2012; 112:
H, Vinogradova O, Ohira Y. Responses of knee extensor muscles to 1569–1576
leg press training of various types in human. Ross Fiziol Zh Im I M 26 Ogborn D, Schoenfeld BJ. The role of fber types in muscle hypertrophy:
Sechenova 2013; 99: 406–416 Implications for loading strategies. Strength Cond J 2014; 36: 20–25
12 Netreba AI, Popov DV, Bravyi I, Misina SS, Vinogradova OL. Physiological
effects of low-intensity strength training without relaxation. Fiziol
Cheloveka 2009; 35: 97–102

Schoenfeld BJ et al. Effects of Varied Versus … Int J Sports Med