Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Training Volume, Not Frequency, Indicative of Maximal Strength Adaptations to Resistance Training.
J Strength Cond Res. 2018 May; 32(5):1207-1213.JS

Abstract

Colquhoun, RJ, Gai, CM, Aguilar, D, Bove, D, Dolan, J, Vargas, A, Couvillion, K, Jenkins, NDM, and Campbell, BI. Training volume, not frequency, indicative of maximal strength adaptations to resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 32(5): 1207-1213, 2018-To compare the effects of a high versus a moderate training frequency on maximal strength and body composition. Twenty-eight young, healthy resistance-trained men were randomly assigned to either: 3× per week (3×; n = 16) or 6× per week (6×; n = 12). Dependent variables (DVs) assessed at baseline and after the 6-week training intervention included: squat 1 repetition maximum (SQ1RM), bench press 1RM (BP1RM), deadlift 1RM (DL1RM), powerlifting total (PLT), Wilk's coefficient (WC), fat-free mass (FFM), and fat mass. Data for each DV were analyzed using a 2 × 2 between-within factorial repeated-measures analysis of variance. There was a main effect for time (p < 0.001) for SQ1RM (3×: +16.8 kg; 6×: +16.7 kg), BP1RM (3×: +7.8 kg; 6×: +8.8 kg), DL1RM (3×: +19 kg; 6×: +21 kg), PLT (3×: +43.6 kg; 6×: +46.5 kg), WC (3×: +27; 6×: +27.1), and FFM (3×: +1.7 kg; 6×: +2.6 kg). There were no group × time interactions or main effects for group. The primary finding was that 6 weeks of resistance training led to significant increases in maximal strength and FFM. In addition, it seems that increased training frequency does not lead to additional strength improvements when volume and intensity are equated. High-frequency (6× per week) resistance training does not seem to offer additional strength and hypertrophy benefits over lower frequency (3× per week) when volume and intensity are equated. Coaches and practitioners can therefore expect similar increases in strength and lean body mass with both 3 and 6 weekly sessions.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Applied Neuromuscular Physiology Laboratory, School of Kinesiology, Applied Health, and Recreation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma.Physique and Performance Enhancement Laboratory, Division of Exercise Science, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida.Physique and Performance Enhancement Laboratory, Division of Exercise Science, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida.Physique and Performance Enhancement Laboratory, Division of Exercise Science, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida.Physique and Performance Enhancement Laboratory, Division of Exercise Science, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida.Physique and Performance Enhancement Laboratory, Division of Exercise Science, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida.Physique and Performance Enhancement Laboratory, Division of Exercise Science, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida.Applied Neuromuscular Physiology Laboratory, School of Kinesiology, Applied Health, and Recreation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma.Physique and Performance Enhancement Laboratory, Division of Exercise Science, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida.

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial

Language

eng

PubMed ID

29324578

Citation

Colquhoun, Ryan J., et al. "Training Volume, Not Frequency, Indicative of Maximal Strength Adaptations to Resistance Training." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, vol. 32, no. 5, 2018, pp. 1207-1213.
Colquhoun RJ, Gai CM, Aguilar D, et al. Training Volume, Not Frequency, Indicative of Maximal Strength Adaptations to Resistance Training. J Strength Cond Res. 2018;32(5):1207-1213.
Colquhoun, R. J., Gai, C. M., Aguilar, D., Bove, D., Dolan, J., Vargas, A., Couvillion, K., Jenkins, N. D. M., & Campbell, B. I. (2018). Training Volume, Not Frequency, Indicative of Maximal Strength Adaptations to Resistance Training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 32(5), 1207-1213. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002414
Colquhoun RJ, et al. Training Volume, Not Frequency, Indicative of Maximal Strength Adaptations to Resistance Training. J Strength Cond Res. 2018;32(5):1207-1213. PubMed PMID: 29324578.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Training Volume, Not Frequency, Indicative of Maximal Strength Adaptations to Resistance Training. AU - Colquhoun,Ryan J, AU - Gai,Christopher M, AU - Aguilar,Danielle, AU - Bove,Daniel, AU - Dolan,Jeffrey, AU - Vargas,Andres, AU - Couvillion,Kaylee, AU - Jenkins,Nathaniel D M, AU - Campbell,Bill I, PY - 2018/1/13/pubmed PY - 2018/9/5/medline PY - 2018/1/12/entrez SP - 1207 EP - 1213 JF - Journal of strength and conditioning research JO - J Strength Cond Res VL - 32 IS - 5 N2 - Colquhoun, RJ, Gai, CM, Aguilar, D, Bove, D, Dolan, J, Vargas, A, Couvillion, K, Jenkins, NDM, and Campbell, BI. Training volume, not frequency, indicative of maximal strength adaptations to resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 32(5): 1207-1213, 2018-To compare the effects of a high versus a moderate training frequency on maximal strength and body composition. Twenty-eight young, healthy resistance-trained men were randomly assigned to either: 3× per week (3×; n = 16) or 6× per week (6×; n = 12). Dependent variables (DVs) assessed at baseline and after the 6-week training intervention included: squat 1 repetition maximum (SQ1RM), bench press 1RM (BP1RM), deadlift 1RM (DL1RM), powerlifting total (PLT), Wilk's coefficient (WC), fat-free mass (FFM), and fat mass. Data for each DV were analyzed using a 2 × 2 between-within factorial repeated-measures analysis of variance. There was a main effect for time (p < 0.001) for SQ1RM (3×: +16.8 kg; 6×: +16.7 kg), BP1RM (3×: +7.8 kg; 6×: +8.8 kg), DL1RM (3×: +19 kg; 6×: +21 kg), PLT (3×: +43.6 kg; 6×: +46.5 kg), WC (3×: +27; 6×: +27.1), and FFM (3×: +1.7 kg; 6×: +2.6 kg). There were no group × time interactions or main effects for group. The primary finding was that 6 weeks of resistance training led to significant increases in maximal strength and FFM. In addition, it seems that increased training frequency does not lead to additional strength improvements when volume and intensity are equated. High-frequency (6× per week) resistance training does not seem to offer additional strength and hypertrophy benefits over lower frequency (3× per week) when volume and intensity are equated. Coaches and practitioners can therefore expect similar increases in strength and lean body mass with both 3 and 6 weekly sessions. SN - 1533-4287 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/29324578/Training_Volume_Not_Frequency_Indicative_of_Maximal_Strength_Adaptations_to_Resistance_Training_ L2 - http://dx.doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002414 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -