Notice: This text was the MASS Analysis Overview cowl story for April 2024 and is a evaluation of a recent study by Chaves et al. If you would like extra content material like this, subscribe to MASS.
Key Factors
- Ladies and men did unilateral leg extensions 2-3 instances per week for 10 weeks. The topics elevated the load lifted as wanted on one leg and elevated the variety of reps per set on the opposite leg.
- The researchers discovered that each strategies of progressive overload led to vital will increase in leg extension 1RM and vastus lateralis cross-sectional space. There have been no vital variations within the pre- to post-study modifications between circumstances.
- Varied progressive overload methods can maximize short-term positive aspects in novice trainees. In additional educated people, particularly these aiming to maximise energy, load development is important. Moreover, selecting between rising load or reps isn’t a binary selection; these progressive overload methods can be utilized at the side of one another.
Each week for years, I stared at my coaching spreadsheet, agonizing over the best way to obtain progressive overload. Ought to I improve the load? Ought to I improve the reps? Ought to I add units? Ought to I shorten the size of the remainder interval? Ought to I carry the identical weight however achieve this with my hat backward to make sure I set a brand new private document? Typically I’d agonize a lot over these particulars that I’d attempt to implement all of them into one coaching block, which was a surefire technique to overcomplicate issues (professional tip: even when it’s not “optimum,” choose a technique, consider in it, and keep it up for at the least a little bit bit). Regardless of my earlier indecision, these are all equally authentic methods to realize progressive overload or to set a PR (nicely, perhaps not the hat adjustment). However is one higher than the opposite?
A earlier between-subjects examine by Plotkin et al (2 – MASS Review) discovered that educated ladies and men had improved energy and muscle dimension to a (principally) related extent when evaluating load and rep development. Nevertheless, energy positive aspects might have been barely higher (+5.9%) with load development compared to rep development. That examine recruited educated people however examined energy on a Smith machine, although members have been extra accustomed to the free-weight squat. Thus, these outcomes can’t be completely extrapolated to different populations or to “particular energy” (testing energy on the educated train). Moreover, one examine is hardly going to discourage people from agonizing over the best way to finest progress coaching to maximise muscle progress. Luckily, a brand new within-subjects design examine by Chaves et al (1) as soon as once more in contrast load and rep progressions for energy and hypertrophy in a mixed-sex inhabitants, however this time they examined particular energy.
Objective and Hypotheses
Objective
The first function of the reviewed examine was to match modifications in leg extension 1RM and vastus lateralis cross-sectional space over 10 weeks of coaching that progressed both the load lifted or reps carried out in untrained women and men.
Hypotheses
The researchers hypothesized that load development would result in higher will increase in each energy and muscle dimension than quantity development. They anticipated that load development would result in higher modifications within the quantity load (units × reps × load lifted) over time, which might in the end translate to higher positive aspects in energy and dimension.
Topics and Strategies
Topics
Thirty-nine ladies (n = 19) and males (n = 20) who had not carried out resistance or cardio coaching for at the least six months participated within the examine. Extra traits of the topics are introduced in Desk 1.
Research Overview and Coaching Protocols
The researchers used a longitudinal within-subjects design through which all topics accomplished every coaching situation. Particularly, over the course of 10 weeks, all topics carried out unilateral leg extension coaching and achieved progressive overload on one leg by rising the load whereas they elevated the reps all through the examine on the opposite leg. Topics educated each legs two to a few instances per week for a complete of 23 coaching periods. The condition-specific protocols and development schemes are introduced in Desk 2.
Outcomes
Researchers assessed vastus lateralis cross-sectional space through ultrasonography and leg extension 1RM earlier than and after the 10-week coaching intervention. Researchers additionally in contrast the load lifted (absolute and % of 1RM), variety of reps carried out, and quantity load between the circumstances.
Findings
General Findings
The researchers discovered that the topics considerably elevated each energy and cross-sectional space (p < 0.0001). There was no vital situation × time interplay for modifications in both energy (p = 0.20) or cross-sectional space (p > 0.87; Desk 3). Moreover, there was no vital distinction in quantity load development between the coaching circumstances (p = 0.19; Determine 1).
The one vital variations that existed have been instantly associated to review design selections. Particularly, the topics lifted heavier masses within the load development situation (p < 0.001; Desk 4) and carried out 292 extra reps within the rep development protocol (1292 ± 302 versus 1000 ± 67 reps; p < 0.001).
Interpretation
The presently reviewed examine from Chaves et al (1) discovered that reaching progressive overload by rising load or rising reps led to related positive aspects in leg extension 1RM and quad hypertrophy. One other current examine by Plotkin et al (2 – MASS Review) additionally in contrast load and rep development and located related outcomes. This interpretation compares these two research and discusses the conditions through which the particular methodology of progressive overload might matter.
Comparability of Chaves et al (1) and Plotkin et al (2)
On the floor, the protocols in each research and the findings from each research (1, 2) have been related, however essential variations existed. Relating to the similarities, Plotkin et al (2) used a virtually an identical protocol that consisted of a load development group beginning with 4 × 8-12RM (9-12 RM was used within the current examine), and the load was elevated when failure was reached outdoors of the goal rep vary. Plotkin et al had the rep development group full 4 units to failure with a 10RM every session and elevated reps as they might, which was an identical to the current examine. Moreover, each research reported that group-level positive aspects in energy and muscle tended to be related between development protocols. Nevertheless, Plotkin et al reported that energy elevated “barely” extra (+5.9%) within the load development group, and that the rep development group skilled a 1.8% higher change within the sum of all rectus femoris web site muscle thicknesses. Subsequently, it’s crucial to debate methodological variations to find out why there might have been barely completely different findings and what this implies for the lifter. The three methodological variations to debate are: 1) coaching standing of the topics, 2) train choice, and three) the examine design.
The very first thing to think about is whether or not the share variations in favor of load (energy) and rep (hypertrophy) development in Plotkin et al (2) are actual variations. I feel there may be advantage to say that people usually gained extra energy from load development in Plotkin et al’s examine, however in all probability not sufficient advantage to say that rep development was superior for hypertrophy. Within the presently reviewed examine from Chaves et al (1), there was primarily no distinction on the group degree (+1.4% in favor of load development) for leg extension 1RM when progressing load. Though load is clearly the first driver of energy positive aspects (3), the topics within the present examine have been both untrained or had not educated for at the least six months, whereas these in Plotkin et al had educated for practically 4 years, on common. Though load might play a task in energy acquire for untrained members, it appears to matter extra for educated people (3). Moreover, Glass et al (4 – MASS Review) noticed strong energy positive aspects in untrained people who used solely ~40-60% of 1RM. Subsequently, it’s attainable that the novice coaching standing of topics within the presently reviewed examine explains the shortage of between-condition variations in energy positive aspects.
Chaves et al (1) had members prepare a low-skilled motion, the leg extension, whereas Plotkin et al (2) utilized the free-weight again squat for coaching periods. It’s attainable that the topics in Plotkin et al skilled enhanced energy advantages due using a extremely expert free-weight train. Apparently, Plotkin et al really examined energy on the Smith machine squat regardless of coaching with a free-weight squat; nonetheless, it’s attainable that the Smith machine squat was related sufficient to the free-weight squat in order that heavier loading in coaching for the load development group was extra helpful. I’m a bit torn on whether or not or not I actually assume coaching the free-weight squat with heavier loading was extra helpful for Smith machine energy, so I’d in all probability lean extra into the coaching standing argument to elucidate the doubtless higher energy positive aspects in Plotkin et al.
Lastly, the Plotkin et al (2) examine had a between-subjects design, whereas the current examine by Chaves et al (1) had a within-subjects design. I’ve previously written about the variations between these two examine designs in higher depth. Briefly, a between-subjects examine, akin to Plotkin et al, compares two teams of topics, through which one group performs one coaching program and the opposite group performs a special coaching program. Importantly, the person response to coaching is very variable (5), and this design doesn’t enable the researcher to find out how a person would reply to the opposite protocol. Subsequently, in an underpowered examine (which is many, if not most, coaching research), if one group had considerably higher positive aspects than one other group, on common, it’s attainable that many in a single group didn’t reply nicely to that protocol fairly than the protocol itself being inferior for everybody. For instance, within the examine by Plotkin et al, the vary of improve in Smith squat 1RM was +5.8-55.7 kg (load development group) and +4.0-33.2 (rep development group); thus, we have no idea if some people would have responded higher or worse within the reverse protocol. In distinction, Chaves et al (1) used a within-subjects design. Sadly, Chaves et al didn’t report particular person topic knowledge; subsequently, we nonetheless have no idea how people responded to every protocol. Nevertheless, the variations between teams for energy positive aspects (1.2%) and muscle progress (0.6%) have been very small; thus, it could be shocking if there have been massive variations in within-individual charges of progress.
It also needs to be famous that whereas a within-subjects design does enable us to look at how a person responds to each protocols, there is a crucial limitation of this design because it pertains to energy positive aspects. Particularly, coaching one limb will result in the “cross-education” impact, which is the advance in energy of the other limb that’s educated (6). Whereas I wrote about this in depth here, knowledge present that if people prepare one limb and never the opposite they are going to improve energy about 7-10% within the untrained limb, on common, in 4-12 weeks when coaching with ≥60% of 1RM (7, 8). Subsequently, it’s attainable within the presently reviewed examine that the advantages of elevated loading within the load development group have been additionally realized within the rep development group, which explains the shortage of between-condition distinction in energy positive aspects. To be clear, I don’t assume that’s why the energy positive aspects have been so shut (1.2% distinction) between teams, but it surely’s attainable that the cross-education impact dampened the distinction, even when to a trivial diploma. Importantly, coaching one limb won’t improve muscle dimension within the different limb; thus, the cross-education impact doesn’t manifest for hypertrophy.
In actuality, the findings of the 2 research have been fairly related. It’s value reiterating that Plotkin et al (2) didn’t discover that there have been true variations between teams for energy positive aspects, fairly the purpose estimate for energy positive aspects “barely” favored the load development. Moreover, related hypertrophy between teams isn’t a surprise, as the present examine discovered that quantity load and quantity load development weren’t considerably completely different between teams, and each research have been set-equated between the load and rep development protocols.
Particular Conditions Dictating Progressive Overload Model
After I reviewed the aforementioned examine by Plotkin et al (2) in Volume 6, Issue 12, I mentioned many alternative methods to realize progressive overload, and the way these completely different methods could possibly be intertwined. There may be not a lot sense in a complete rehashing of these particulars, since you possibly can merely click here and skim that article. Briefly, the load could possibly be progressed primarily based on a predetermined proportion or absolute loading change, a earlier session RIR or velocity, or by plus set efficiency to call a number of. Moreover, the load, rep, and set progressions aren’t mutually unique and could be intertwined. For instance, this table demonstrates how the load is barely elevated after a lifter can carry out a sure variety of units with a given load, illustrating how the load is barely elevated after a sure variety of reps are achieved with that given load. Now that we’re conscious of all these progressive overload methods, let’s talk about when completely different methods could be preferable.
Allow us to start with development when energy is the first objective. Clearly, load development is a vital and non-negotiable kind of development that should happen to maximise 1RM energy over the lengthy flip. Nevertheless, does load development must occur on a regular basis? The reply is a transparent “no.” For instance, a powerlifter can use a easy mannequin through which they improve the load by 2.5 kg every week as they method competitors, in the end reaching heavy masses (i.e., ≥90% of 1RM); nonetheless, they could not have the ability to progress load every week, through which case they need to not power it. In these conditions, it could be higher so as to add a further set or rep after which improve the load the next week. Alternatively, the lifter may autoregulate the coaching load from week-to-week when peaking for a powerlifting meet or gymnasium take a look at day; thus, they might solely improve the load once they have been capable of. For instance, a lifter may program 3 × 2 @1-2 RIR and would carry no matter load they might do for 2 reps in that RIR vary, which might typically be heavier, lighter, and even the identical in comparison with the earlier week’s coaching.
Furthermore, somebody with energy as their predominant objective will nonetheless carry out quantity blocks occasionally, through which muscle progress is focused. In these conditions, there is no such thing as a stress to extend the load, at the least not every week. Subsequently, intertwining load with rep or set benchmarks is an efficient technique. As seen here, a lifter could possibly be prescribed a set and RIR benchmark through which the load solely progressed as soon as the benchmark was reached. For instance, a lifter could possibly be prescribed squats with 3 × 8 with 100kg and add a set every week so long as they full all units at ≥2 RIR. Then, as soon as they have been capable of carry out 5 × 8 at 2 RIR they might improve the load. Alternatively, a strength-focused particular person in a quantity block may tie load will increase to a rep benchmark. In quantity blocks, people centered on energy might make the most of programming methods, akin to rest-pause coaching, which have progressive overload built-in by trying to carry out extra reps every time the technique is used.
I’ve been on document saying that coaching for muscle progress is much more forgiving than coaching for energy. After all, the 2 (hypertrophy and energy) are interrelated, but when energy is the primary goal, then load development is a should in some unspecified time in the future, periodization appears to matter (9 – MASS Review), and a lifter should follow the particular train with which they’ll take a look at their energy (i.e., a powerlifter should carry out the squat, bench press, and deadlift). Whereas there are some “guidelines” for hypertrophy akin to extra quantity (to some extent) drives muscle progress and the person ought to have sufficient exercise variety, conventional (energy centered) fashions of periodization don’t appear to matter (9) and progressive overload could be achieved by varied strategies. A person can use rep or set development fashions as described above. The lifter also can manipulate RIR all through the course of a coaching block to realize progressive overload. Particularly, a lifter may preserve the variety of units fixed and improve the load in order that the RIR decreases from week-to-week to coach nearer to failure. Alternatively, a lifter may select to keep up the identical load and add units every week throughout the coaching block. On this state of affairs, the RIR may really improve, however the improve in RIR (coaching farther from failure) may make it extra possible for the lifter so as to add a number of further units. One more technique could possibly be for the lifter to shorten curiosity relaxation durations to make every set tougher. This time-saving technique may additionally enable the lifter so as to add an additional set. To be clear, I’m not saying that anybody technique is any extra fascinating than one other; fairly, I’m simply presenting varied choices. Desk 5 summarizes the suitable progressive overload methods for each energy and hypertrophy.
Coach’s Nook
Let’s end up with a “coach’s nook” part to debate sensible factors for coaches and lifters when placing progressive overload into motion.
First, lifters will not have the ability to progress each session or week, and anybody who has educated for a considerable period of time is aware of this. Subsequently, since you recognize this, don’t power development each week and take a look at your finest (though I do know it’s robust) to not get annoyed in case you are lifting the identical load for a few weeks in a row. Recall that the objective is progressing over time. The objective is to not improve the load (or set or reps) for its personal sake. Saying “I did 40 units of quads this week” shouldn’t be a badge of honor (though it’s sort of superior). If that’s enjoyable, by all means, go for it. Nevertheless, if the objective is to maximise energy or try for the very best aesthetics then don’t chase the set, rep, or load quantity, chase the energy or physique progress, which might typically come from being disciplined sufficient to not progress variables throughout a single week.
Secondly, don’t get paralyzed whereas deciding which progressive overload technique to make use of. All the methods talked about on this article have deserves. Discover one which applies to your targets and keep it up for a whole coaching block. As a coach and lifter, I’ve agonized many instances over what precise methodology to make use of for myself or for varied athletes. Usually, I’m higher at selecting a way for others, however for myself, I’d usually attempt to combine too many alternative ideas, mitigating their effectiveness or shedding deal with the primary objective (progress). My warning is to keep away from this entice and discover a logical progressive overload technique that’s applicable for you (or your consumer’s) targets and keep it up for a good time period.
Subsequent Steps
In my evaluation of Plotkin et al (2), I referred to as for a brand new examine evaluating load versus rep development, however with a free-weight train utilized in each coaching and testing. The presently reviewed examine was addition to the literature for the hypertrophy outcomes as a result of it was a within-subjects design. For energy outcomes, it’s attainable that the cross-education impact confounded the outcomes, though I doubt to a really significant diploma. Moreover, in a within-subjects design actions akin to squats and bench presses can’t be used. Subsequently, I’ll once more counsel that the following step can be to match load versus rep progressions in educated people utilizing a free-weight squat or bench press as each coaching and testing workout routines.
Utility and Takeaways
Chaves et al (1) discovered that over 10 weeks, untrained people skilled related energy positive aspects and hypertrophy no matter whether or not they achieved progressive overload by rising the load or the variety of reps, though we needs to be cognizant that the cross-education impact might have confounded the energy findings. Nevertheless, the shortage of variations between coaching protocols on this examine doesn’t imply that the tactic of progressive overload is at all times immaterial. Normally, these taken with energy should improve their load at instances, particularly within the coaching block instantly previous a energy competitors (e.g., powerlifting meet) or 1RM take a look at day. When muscle progress is the primary objective, lifters have rather more flexibility to realize progressive overload through load and/or repetition changes. Finally, progressive overload methods could be intertwined and coaches and lifters shouldn’t think about themselves certain to the binary selection of load or rep development.
Get extra articles like this
This text was the duvet story for the April 2024 situation of MASS Analysis Overview. If you happen to’d wish to learn the total April situation (and dive into the MASS archives), you possibly can subscribe to MASS here.
Subscribers get a brand new version of MASS every month. Every situation contains analysis evaluation articles, video displays, and audio summaries. PDF points are normally round 100 pages lengthy.
References
- Chaves TS, Scarpelli MC, Bergamasco JG, da Silva DG, Junior RA, Dias NF, Bittencourt D, Carello Filho PC, Angleri V, Nóbrega SR, Roberts MD. Effects of resistance training overload progression protocols on strength and muscle mass. Worldwide Journal of Sports activities Drugs. 2024 Jan 29.
- Plotkin D, Coleman M, Van Each D, Maldonado J, Oberlin D, Israetel M, Feather J, Alto A, Vigotsky AD, Schoenfeld BJ. Progressive overload without progressing load? The effects of load or repetition progression on muscular adaptations. PeerJ. 2022 Sep 30;10:e14142.
- Lopez P, Radaelli R, Taaffe DR, Newton RU, Galvão DA, Trajano GS, Teodoro JL, Kraemer WJ, Häkkinen Ok, Pinto RS. Resistance training load effects on muscle hypertrophy and strength gain: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Drugs and science in sports activities and train. 2021 Jun;53(6):1206.
- Glass SC, Ahmad S, Gabler T. Effectiveness of a 2-week strength training learning intervention on self-selected weight-training intensity. The Journal of Energy & Conditioning Analysis. 2020 Sep 1;34(9):2443-8.
- Hubal MJ, Gordish-Dressman HE, Thompson PD, Worth TB, Hoffman EP, Angelopoulos TJ, Gordon PM, Moyna NM, Pescatello LS, Visich PS, Zoeller RF. Variability in muscle size and strength gain after unilateral resistance training. Drugs & science in sports activities & train. 2005 Jun 1;37(6):964-72.
- Ruddy KL, Carson RG. Neural pathways mediating cross education of motor function. Frontiers in human neuroscience. 2013 Jul 29;7:397.
- Farinas J, Mayo X, Giraldez-García MA, Carballeira E, Fernandez-Del-Olmo M, Rial-Vazquez J, Kingsley JD, Iglesias-Soler E. Set configuration in strength training programs modulates the cross education phenomenon. The Journal of Energy & Conditioning Analysis. 2021 Sep 1;35(9):2414-20.
- Manca A, Dragone D, Dvir Z, Deriu F. Cross-education of muscular strength following unilateral resistance training: a meta-analysis. European journal of utilized physiology. 2017 Nov 1;117(11):2335-54.
- Moesgaard L, Beck MM, Christiansen L, Aagaard P, Lundbye-Jensen J. Effects of periodization on strength and muscle hypertrophy in volume-equated resistance training programs: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports activities Drugs. 2022 Jul;52(7):1647-66.
