Effects of drop sets with resistance training on increases in muscle CSA, strength, and endurance: a pilot study

Abstract

To investigate the effects of a single high-load (80% of one repetition maximum [1RM]) set with additional drop sets descending to a low-load (30% 1RM) without recovery intervals on muscle strength, endurance, and size in untrained young men. Nine untrained young men performed dumbbell curls to concentric failure 2-3 days per week for 8 weeks. Each arm was randomly assigned to one of the following three conditions: 3 sets of high-load (HL, 80% 1RM) resistance exercise, 3 sets of low-load [LL, 30% 1RM] resistance exercise, and a single high-load (SDS) set with additional drop sets descending to a low-load. The mean training time per session, including recovery intervals, was lowest in the SDS condition. Elbow flexor muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) increased similarly in all three conditions. Maximum isometric and 1RM strength of the elbow flexors increased from pre to post only in the HL and SDS conditions. Muscular endurance measured by maximum repetitions at 30% 1RM increased only in the LL and SDS conditions. A SDS resistance training program can simultaneously increase muscle CSA, strength, and endurance in untrained young men, even with lower training time compared to typical resistance exercise protocols using only high- or low-loads.

Resistance Training Load Effects on Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength Gain: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

“…Regarding the assessments, muscle hypertrophy was assessed for the lower limbs in 15 studies ( 3 – 7 , 32 , 35 – 39 , 43 , 44 , 49 , 50 ), followed by 8 studies assessing the upper limbs ( 4 , 7 , 32 , 34 , 45 , 47 , 48 , 50 ) and 5 studies assessing the whole body (e.g., dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry) ( 33 , 40 , 42 , 46 , 53 ), whereas lower-body muscle strength was assessed in 20 studies ( 3 – 7 , 32 , 33 , 35 , 38 – 44 , 46 , 48 , 50 – 52 ), followed by 12 studies assessing upper-body muscle strength ( 2 , 4 , 7 , 33 , 40 , 41 , 43 , 45 , 47 , 48 , 50 , 51 ), all using the 1-RM test. Eighteen studies reported the total volume performed during the intervention ( 4 , 5 , 7 , 32 – 35 , 37 – 45 , 48 , 50 ). The number of studies among the resistance training loads for muscle hypertrophy and muscle strength is shown in the network geometry (Fig.…”

“…Third, although recreationally trained participants were included in our analyses, the strength levels reported in the studies were relatively modest, and certainly, the present results cannot be extrapolated for highly strength-trained individuals (e.g., bodybuilders, collegiate athletes in structured and supervised strength and conditioning programs, and power or strength athletes). Fourth, several studies ( 4 , 5 , 33 , 37 , 38 , 43 – 45 , 50 , 52 ) have performed multiple 1-RM testing throughout the study duration (range, 3–5 times). This may also be considered an issue masking an even greater difference between low- versus moderate- and high-load resistance training programs because of the number of exposures to maximal strength tests and the potential increases in muscle strength not related to the intervention per se ( 71 ).…”

Maximizing Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review of Advanced Resistance Training Techniques and Methods

“…Evidence suggests the beneficial effects of both drop sets and SST in acute increases in triceps brachii muscle thickness [53] in both amateur and well-trained subjects, even with lower training volume versus a traditional set scheme RT. However, studies that have investigated the chronic effects of drop sets did not show a superior hypertrophy response when compared with traditional sets [52,54]. Moreover, the chronic effects of SST on muscle growth have not been examined yet.…”

Are We Exploring the Potential Role of Specialized Techniques in Muscle Hypertrophy?

“…For example, Angleri et al [10] compared the effects of the traditional, pyramid, and drop-set techniques with equal-ized total volume-load in trained men, and observed similar hypertrophy for the three groups. In the same way, Ozaki et al [11] observed similar hypertrophy for the elbow flexors between drop-set and traditional groups after eight weeks of training in untrained young men; in parallel, volume-load was also similar between them. Regarding the rest-pause, Prestes et al [12], also in an experimental design of volume equalized with the traditional RT protocol, observed similar changes in lean mass, and muscle thickness of biceps brachii and pectoralis major, in trained young adults; although anterior mid-thigh hypertrophy was greater for the rest-pause group.…”

“…In this scenario, the objectives of this manuscript were 1) to present the nuance of the evidence that deals with the effectiveness of these specialized resistance training techniques and -primarily -to 2) propose possible ways to explore the hypertrophic potential of such strategies with greater ecological validity without losing the methodological rigor of controlling possible intervening variables; and thus, contributing to increasing the applicability of the findings and improving the effectiveness of hypertrophy-oriented resistance training programs. associated with differences in volume between groups [10][11][12]. While this is a valid scientific approach, it minimizes the ecological validity to training rooms, since the possible advantages that justify the application of these techniques (e.g., make a larger volume) are not explored.…”