Effects of Low- vs. High-Load Resistance Training on Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy in Well-Trained Men

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of low- versus high-load resistance training (RT) on muscular adaptations in well-trained subjects. Eighteen young men experienced in RT were matched according to baseline strength and then randomly assigned to 1 of 2 experimental groups: a low-load RT routine (LL) where 25-35 repetitions were performed per set per exercise (n = 9) or a high-load RT routine (HL) where 8-12 repetitions were performed per set per exercise (n = 9). During each session, subjects in both groups performed 3 sets of 7 different exercises representing all major muscles. Training was performed 3 times per week on nonconsecutive days, for a total of 8 weeks. Both HL and LL conditions produced significant increases in thickness of the elbow flexors (5.3 vs. 8.6%, respectively), elbow extensors (6.0 vs. 5.2%, respectively), and quadriceps femoris (9.3 vs. 9.5%, respectively), with no significant differences noted between groups. Improvements in back squat strength were significantly greater for HL compared with LL (19.6 vs. 8.8%, respectively), and there was a trend for greater increases in 1 repetition maximum (1RM) bench press (6.5 vs. 2.0%, respectively). Upper body muscle endurance (assessed by the bench press at 50% 1RM to failure) improved to a greater extent in LL compared with HL (16.6 vs. -1.2%, respectively). These findings indicate that both HL and LL training to failure can elicit significant increases in muscle hypertrophy among well-trained young men; however, HL training is superior for maximizing strength adaptations.

The role of volume-load in strength and absolute endurance adaptations in adolescent’s performing high- or low-load resistance training

“…In studies of adult populations where effort is controlled between different loading conditions by having participants train to momentary concentric failure LL conditions consistently produce higher volume-load performances compared with HLs (Barcelos et al, 2015;Mitchell et al, 2012;Schoenfeld et al, 2015;. In addition, where relative loadings are kept constant absolute volume-load typically increases over the course of a RT intervention due to participants' increases in strength (Ribeiro et al, 2015).…”

“…However, the absolute difference between the groups was very small and so it is likely that any difference is relatively meaningless. Further, most research to date suggests that when RT is performed to momentary failure adaptations such as strength and absolute endurance are likely to be similar (Barcelos et al, 2015;Mitchell et al, 2012;Schoenfeld et al, 2015;. Most research to date however has seemingly been conducted with adult populations, including the elderly.…”

“…Considering the potential value of increased muscular strength, studies examining the efficacy of RT protocols and indeed the variables important for optimizing such outcomes are of importance. (Micthell et al, 2012;Ogborn & Schoenfeld, 2014;Barcelos et al, 2015;Schoenfeld et al, 2015;. Volume-load changes across the duration of an intervention have indeed been reported as greater in LL RT .…”

Effective utilization of genetic information for athletes and coaches: focus on ACTN3 R577X polymorphism

“…These data suggest that strength and hypertrophy can be optimized via complete motor unit activation using heavy loads. However, a recent study has suggested that low-intensity exercise such as 30-40% 1RM can induce a similar level of muscle hypertrophy as highintensity resistance training [12][13][14]. Mitchell et al [12] have demonstrated an effect of resistance training with low loads (30% 1RM) and high repetitions on muscle hypertrophy.…”

“…However, improvement in the one set and 3 sets groups at 80% 1RM was higher than that in the 3 sets at 30% 1RM group after training. Schoenfeld et al [13] have examined the effect of low-load and high-load training on muscle strength and hypertrophy in well-trained men. They divided subjects into two groups: a low-load training group (n = 9) and a high-load training group (n = 9).…”