The Truth About Resistance Training

[ianders1]

Checking up on Dr. Winnett's site, ageless-atheletes.com, I found this article:

http://www.ageless-athletes.com/science.shtml

It's a about a scientific look at all of the training principles and pseudo-science that floats around. They found almost NO difference in results between all of the different training variables that the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) has proposed in their "Position Stand". Take the time to read/skim the 50-page study if you get a chance. They didn't study the inter-relationships, but this study effectively kills all of the crazy training programs out there.

The study gives the following recommendations:

• Select a mode of exercise that feels comfortable throughout the range of motion. There is very little evidence to support the superiority of free weights or machines for increasing muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, or endurance.
  
• Choose a repetition duration that will ensure the maintenance of consistent form throughout the set. One study showed a greater strength benefit from a shorter duration (2s/4s) and one study showed better strength gains as a result of a longer duration (10s/4s), but no study using conventional exercise equipment reports any significant difference in muscular hypertrophy, power, or endurance as a result of manipulating repetition duration.
  
• Choose a range of repetitions between three and 15 (e.g., 3-5, 6-8, 8-10, etc.). There is very little evidence to suggest that a specific range of repetitions (e.g., 3-5 versus 8-10) or time-under-load (e.g., 30s versus 90s) significantly impacts the increase in muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, or endurance.
  
• Perform one set of each exercise. The preponderance of resistance-training studies shows no difference in the gains in muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, or endurance as a result of performing a greater number of sets.
  
• After performing a combination of concentric and eccentric muscle actions, terminate each exercise at the point where the concentric phase of the exercise is becoming difficult, if not impossible, while maintaining good form. There is very little evidence to suggest that going beyond this level of intensity (e.g., supramaximal or accentuated eccentric muscle actions) will further enhance muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, or endurance.
  
• Allow enough time between exercises to perform the next exercise in proper form. There is very little evidence to suggest that different rest periods between sets or exercises will significantly affect the gains in muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, or endurance.
  
• Depending on individual recovery and response, choose a frequency of 2-3 times/week to stimulate each targeted muscle group. One session a week has been shown to be just as effective as 2-3 times/week for some muscle groups. There is very little evidence to suggest that training a muscle more than 2-3 times/week or that split routines will produce greater gains in muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, or endurance.
  

I find it a welcome dose of science to the field of resistance training, and I hope that the ACSM will take up the challenge to prove their claims.

[JohnOBrien]

I'll admit I didn't read the article, but often times these studies deal with untrained individuals. For an untrained individual, anything will work almost equally well. That being said, I do strongly believe that you have to do what works best for you and take all the new-age, latest, greatest thing/system with a grain of salt.

[Fedaykin01]

I find it a welcome dose of science to the field of resistance training, and I hope that the ACSM will take up the challenge to prove their claims.

I take it you are a fan of HIT.

[Scott Styles]

The primary focus of the ACSM is for the general public. The recommendations posted appear to be for the health / fitness exerciser, not a serious weight lifter or athlete. You will be hard pressed to find someone knowledgeable who recommends the approach above for meeting specific, high level goals.

That said, even for an average person, the recommendations should also be addressing the psychological factors that come int to play when designing an exercise program. These weigh far more heavily into long term success than the quality of stimulation obtained from a certain number of sets or a specific exercise frequency.

[ianders1]

I find it a welcome dose of science to the field of resistance training, and I hope that the ACSM will take up the challenge to prove their claims.

I take it you are a fan of HIT.

I am a fan, although the only thing that supports HIT in this study is the idea that 1 set is equally effective. It (potentially) disproves the idea of doing slow or super-slow reps which are a part of some HIT programs.

I think that this study is an excellent start and challenges many accepted principles and yes, I hope ol' Dr. Squat will have to eat his words some day. One of the other things that the study briefly discusses is the role of genetics, which apparently the ACSM left out of their recommendations. I for one will never be an Arnold, Goerner, Brookfield, Sorin, Kinney, etc. or anyone else like that no matter how long or hard I train. Yes, it's sometimes hard to accept, but it is the reality. It's easy to accept that you won't be an NBA player if you're under 6'2", but if you believe what you read in the magazines, if you train right and eat right, you too can become the next champion.

I think genetic potential, the ability to assess that potential, or how to train based on your genetics is one of the biggest things lacking from today's "Exercise Science". All one can do is train hard, hope for good genetics and try to get the most out of their training. That's not to say that people can't reach their genetic potential.

Also, I found the study's invalidating of studies using athletes who take steriods very refreshing. These aren't valid studies unless you yourself are taking steriods and know what dosages they are taking, so essentially, they shouldn't even be considered.

[Finnegann]

I'll admit I didn't read the article, but often times these studies deal with untrained individuals.  For an untrained individual, anything will work almost equally well.  That being said, I do strongly believe that you have to do what works best for you and take all the new-age, latest, greatest thing/system with a grain of salt.

"An objective analysis of the 139 resistance training studies cited by the Position Stand authors revealed that only eight (5.8%) actually supported the Position Stand. None of the eight supportive citations, however, involved experienced resistance trainers, the designated focus of the ACSM Position Stand."

Source: www.ageless-athletes.com/science.shtml

EDIT: Excerpt from p.3 of the actual article: "The preponderance of published resistance-training research has used previously untrained subjects. Consequently, most of the studies cited in the Position Stand and in this document involved subjects with little or no resistance training experience (novices). Although the rate of progression tends to be greater in novices than in intermediate and advanced trainees, there is very little evidence to suggest that the resistance-training programs recommended for increasing muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, and endurance in novice trainees need to be different for intermediate and advanced trainees.

Edited June 10, 2004 by Finnegann

[Finnegann]

Another interest excerpt (from pp.13-14 of actual article): "There are a plethora of studies (8, 23- 4, 39-61) that show no significant difference in the magnitude of strength gains or muscle hypertrophy (whenever hypertrophy was measured) as a result of performing a greater number of sets. For example, Hass et al. (46) randomly assigned 42 males and females (20-50 years) to either a 1-set or 3-set protocol of 8-12 RM for each of nine exercises, which were completed in a circuit 3x/wk for 13 weeks. Subjects had been regularly performing resistance exercise 2.7x/wk for an average 6.2 years (minimum 1 year), which qualified them as advanced trainees according to the Position Stand. Each session was conducted and monitored by the investigators, with both groups progressing similarly and exerting equivalent efforts based of a rating of perceived exertion. The average increase in isometric knee extension torque (6.3 and 6.6 %, 1-set and 3-set groups, respectively), and isometric knee flexion torque (7.7 and 15.6 %) were not significantly different between groups. The significant increase in absolute muscular endurance for the chest press (49.5 and 66.7 %) and knee extension exercises (48.2 and 58.4 %), 1-set and 3-set groups, respectively, was not significantly different between groups. The 1-set group significantly decreased anterior thigh skin-fold and increased lean body mass (data not reported), while the 3-set group increased chest and biceps circumference and lean body mass, and decreased the sum of seven skin-folds and percent body fat (data not reported). There was no significant difference between groups for any of these variables.

[nils]

One should remember that it is trivial to make a study where one method isn't statistically better then another.

Just make the sample size small enough and time short enough and you will always get that results.

[AP]

The exersizes involved and the way they are performed makes objective analysis impossible. For example, take the leg extension an exersize that is useless for judging absolute strength. You could swing the weight up or slowly squeeze the weight up; performance of the lift would make a huge impact on the weight lifted but both styles look nearly indistiguishable. Unless the swinging is blatent, the leg extension would only be a few fractions of a second quicker as opposed to the squeeze. And then you have judging of what is a completed lift or not. Probably whatever the trainee says is a rep counts.

Then you combine that with:

After performing a combination of concentric and eccentric muscle actions, terminate each exercise at the point where the concentric phase of the exercise is becoming difficult, if not impossible, while maintaining good form

I'm sure that works fine during the 'training' days. But come 'test' day at least the lifters who are competitive would push the boundries of what is good form. The test day results were probably 15% better than any of the training day results.

I'm also finding that the longer I train the 'better' my genes become! Also, the more sets I do, the better my progress becomes. I started to do 8sets of squats one workout on a whim (usually do three) and for the last few weeks my squat strength has skyrocketed.

[Fedaykin01]

I think that this study is an excellent start and challenges many accepted principles and yes, I hope ol' Dr. Squat will have to eat his words some day.

-- I'm sorry but I am going to have to STRONGLY disagree with you there.

[ianders1]

I think that this study is an excellent start and challenges many accepted principles and yes, I hope ol' Dr. Squat will have to eat his words some day.

-- I'm sorry but I am going to have to STRONGLY disagree with you there.

That's cool and I'm glad you disagree. Dr. Squat is certainly more educated and has been lifting longer than I've probably been alive, but I find him to be an arrogant and pompous jerk. I won't elaborate because I want this thread to stay on focus, but a good example of this is his article "Don't Get HIT with a Hammer" and the rebuttal that is also out there if you search. While you're at it, read his interview with Weider.

Anyways, the more I consider the study, I think the overall summary is that there are many "right" ways to train, and other than going to the extremes on either end, no real "wrong" way. It seems like if you're moving iron and working hard, you will see results.

If I were in charge, and I'm not, I would be looking for some way to measure and classify genetic potential and create training systems that would allow each type to maximize their genetic potential. Obviously no one system works best for all people, but maybe certain systems work best for certain types of people. The ecto-, meso-, and endomorph systems are a good start, but our physiology is much more complicated than that.

Hard Work+Rest=Growth. Period.

[Fedaykin01]

Anyways, the more I consider the study, I think the overall summary is that there are many "right" ways to train, and other than going to the extremes on either end, no real "wrong" way. It seems like if you're moving iron and working hard, you will see results.

--I agree with you here. There isn't really a right or a wrong, just some ways will work better then others and none will work without your hard work and dedication.

[mobsterone]

I spoke with David Horne just this week about the whole 'do you warm up or don't you'. We have had Mens Fitness (I think) use info from yet another study to the effect that there was no indication of benefit to warming up!! What a load of BS!!

I have trained for 25 years plus (god I'm old :P ) and the older I get the more I need it in spite of any number of studies. I can train without it for a few weeks before an old injury will flare up. What's the betting that the study used non-competitive athletes or un motivated individuals who wouldn't have pushed themselves as we all do here and so will be unlikely to get injured.

Stay in the Iron Game long enough and there will be another study arguing against what the first studies outcome would have had you believe. Show me one top level athlete or decent coach of same that doesn't warmup of get their athletes to warm up on the basis of said studies. Same thing with the principles referred to in the intial post. 1000 studies = 500 say yes and 500 no. I go with warming up in spite of what any study says.

[OldGuy]

I fully agree with Steve on this one. Certainly the older you get, the greater the need to warmup, and the longer it takes you to get ready for the main workout. I have been training since the early sixties.

[mobsterone]

But John what about the (BS) studies... ha ha Since the 60's there have probably been one every decade stating some twaddle about not warming up and another every five years saying you should

[OldGuy]

I have always warmed up and pyramided up to heavy singles from there. The only other way I train is to do one set of 20 plus reps for every exercise using as much weight as possible. Clearly you should get the blood flowing and lungs working before you try to push yourself to new levels. Do any of the people who conduct these studies even train, or are they like the coach who has never played the sport he coaches?

[Fedaykin01]

I personally like to take about 2 sets of warmup, work up to my working weight of choice, then use that one weight for all of the sets. So for a 5x5 workout I would do something like so:

135 2x8

185x3

225x3

275 5x5

[foggymountainmuscle]

I will have to read this article, but not today. I just wanted to comment now that I do believe this study is about untrained lifters. I remember when I first started lifting, 1 set was all I needed in anything. Now unless it's a high rep squat workout, or heavy negatives, 1 set will not produce overload for me. Over all though it's nice to see this stuff brought out into the light and being seriously examined, cause let's face it, newstand magazines do not.

[ianders1]

One other thing this study does for me by showing that both slow and moderate speed reps are equally productive is help my leg workout.

I've had surgery on both my knees which makes it tough to squat and use heavy weights. I worked up to squatting 405 in my work set, but it was killing my knees.

Since then, I've started doing sloooow reps (4 up, 3 hold, 4 down) and doing pre-exhaust leg ext. then leg press. These slow reps have allowed me to use 120lbs vs. 220 on the leg ext. and 140 on the leg press where I can do the stack, 240 I think, easily. I'm still sore as mother for the next 3 days, so obviously it's working.

Just a tip for other guys out there with bad joints - the slow rep multiplies the intensity and greatly decreases injury potential...

Edited June 13, 2004 by ianders1

[EricMilfeld]

Thanks for sharing for that study, Ianders1.

Speaking for myself, most if not all, of the points you listed from the study would apply to me. But I think one very big factor that must be considered is the degree to which one enjoys, and is motivated, by his routine. I just really like short, sweet, but very intense workouts. My mind has never been into the high reps and sets. This motivation factor figures in significantly.