Our results demonstrated that both HI- and LI-RE to muscular failure resulted in similar and significant increases in RPE and pain levels, regardless of exercise intensity. In addition, non-muscular failure BFR-RE also increased RPE and pain response; however, to a lower extent as compared to either HI-RE or LI-RE.

Scarpelli, MC, Nóbrega, SR, Santanielo, N, Alvarez, IF, Otoboni, GB, Ugrinowitsch, C, and Libardi, CA. Muscle hypertrophy response is affected by previous resistance training volume in trained individuals. J Strength Cond Res 36(4): 1153–1157, 2022—The purpose of this study was to compare gains in muscle mass of trained individuals after a resistance training (RT) protocol with standardized (i.e., nonindividualized) volume (N-IND), with an RT protocol using individualized volume (IND). In a within-subject approach, 16 subjects had one leg randomly assigned to N-IND (22 sets·wk−1, based on the number of weekly sets prescribed in studies) and IND (1.2 × sets·wk−1 recorded in training logs) protocols. Muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) was assessed by ultrasound imaging at baseline (Pre) and after 8 weeks (Post) of RT, and the significance level was set at p < 0.05. Changes in the vastus lateralis CSA (difference from Pre to Post) were significantly higher for the IND protocol (p = 0.042; mean difference: 1.08 cm2; confidence interval [CI]: 0.04–2.11). The inferential analysis was confirmed by the CI of the effect size (0.75; CI: 0.03–1.47). Also, the IND protocol had a higher proportion of individuals with greater muscle hypertrophy than the typical error of the measurement (chi-square, p = 0.0035; estimated difference = 0.5, CI: 0.212–0.787). In conclusion, individualizing the weekly training volume of research protocols provides greater gains in muscle CSA than prescribing a group standard RT volume.

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of resistance training to muscle failure (RT-F) and non-failure (RT-NF) on muscle mass, strength and activation of trained individuals. We also compared the effects of these protocols on muscle architecture parameters. A within-subjects design was used in which 14 participants had one leg randomly assigned to RT-F and the other to RT-NF. Each leg was trained 2 days per week for 10 weeks. Vastus lateralis (VL) muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), pennation angle (PA), fascicle length (FL) and 1-repetition maximum (1-RM) were assessed at baseline (Pre) and after 20 sessions (Post). The electromyographic signal (EMG) was assessed after the training period. RT-F and RT-NF protocols showed significant and similar increases in CSA (RT-F: 13.5% and RT-NF: 18.1%; P < 0.0001), PA (RT-F: 13.7% and RT-NF: 14.4%; P < 0.0001) and FL (RT-F: 11.8% and RT-NF: 8.6%; P < 0.0001). All protocols showed significant and similar increases in leg press (RT-F: 22.3% and RT-NF: 26.7%; P < 0.0001) and leg extension (RT-F: 33.3%, P < 0.0001 and RT-NF: 33.7%; P < 0.0001) 1-RM loads. No significant differences in EMG amplitude were detected between protocols ( P > 0.05). In conclusion, RT-F and RT-NF are similarly effective in promoting increases in muscle mass, PA, FL, strength and activation.

The aim of this study was to compare if an acute exercise session of high-load resistance training (HL-RT, e.g. 70% of 1 repetition-maximum, 1 RM) induces a higher magnitude of muscle damage compared with a RT protocol with low-loads (e.g. 20% 1 RM) associated with partial blood flow restriction (LL-BFR), and investigate the recovery in the days after the protocols. We used an unilateral crossover research design in which 10 young women (22(2) y; 162(5) cm; 66(11) kg) performed HL-RT and LL-BFR in a randomized, counterbalanced manner with a minimum interval of 2 weeks between protocols. Indirect muscle damage markers were evaluated before and once a day for 4 days into recovery. Main results showed decreases of 8-12% at 24-48 h in maximal voluntary isometric and concentric contraction torques (P < 0.03), and changes in muscle architecture markers (P < 0.03) for HL-RT and LL-BFR, with no differences between protocols (P > 0.05). Moreover, delayed onset muscle soreness increased only after LL-BFR (P < 0.001). We conclude that an acute bout of low volume HL-RT or LL-BFR to failure resulted in edema-induced muscle swelling, but do not induce major or long-lasting decrements in muscle function and the level of soreness promoted from LL-BFR was mild.

The aim of the present study was to compare hemodynamic responses between blood flow-restricted resistance exercise (BFR-RE), high-intensity resistance exercise (HI-RE) and low-intensity resistance exercise (LI-RE) performed to muscular failure. 12 men (age: 20±3 years; body mass: 73.5±9 kg; height: 174±6 cm) performed 4 sets of leg press exercises using BFR-RE (30% of 1-RM), HI-RE (80% of 1-RM) and LI-RE (30% of 1-RM) protocols. Systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), heart rate (HR), stroke volume (SV), cardiac output (CO) and total peripheral vascular resistance (TPR) were measured on a beat-to-beat continuous basis by a noninvasive photoplethysmographic arterial pressure device. The HI-RE and LI-RE showed higher values (<0.05) in all of the sets than the BFR-RE for SBP, DBP, HR. Additionally, HI-RE showed higher SBP (4 set) and DBP (all sets) (<0.05) values than the LI-RE. However, the SV, CO and TPR showed significantly greater values for LI-RE compared to HI-RE and BFR-RE (<0.05). In conclusion, the results of this study indicate that the BFR-RE promotes a lower hemodynamic response compared to the HI-RE and LI-RE performed to muscular failure.