Professional Documents
Culture Documents
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/7665831
CITATIONS
DOWNLOADS
VIEWS
46
1,673
386
4 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Juan Gonzalez
Raul Arellano
University of Granada
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Mikel Izquierdo
Universidad Pblica de Navarra
222 PUBLICATIONS 4,440 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
INTRODUCTION
oaches and researchers with an interest in
strength training attempt to identify the proper
handling of program variables, including the intensity, frequency, and volume of exercise to
achieve high levels of muscular fitness (1). It is believed
that, for increased improvement in strength, it is necessary to systematically increase the stress-related overload
placed on the body during strength training (1). There are
690
ET AL.
Age (y)
Height (cm)
Snatch (kg)
Squat (kg)
Training
years
LVG (n 5 16)
MVG (n 5 17)
HVG (n 5 18)
16.4 6 1.3
16.5 6 1.4
16.8 6 1.7
167.3 6 3.9
166.7 6 4.1
165.4 6 5.6
72.7 6 5.4
70.5 6 5.7
69.4 6 5.3
82.4 6 11.7
82.3 6 10.6
86.3 6 13.1
101 6 14.5
106.1 6 12.1
108.7 6 16.1
133.1 6 20
144.4 6 19
142.7 6 28
3.5 6 0.7
3.9 6 0.6
3.7 6 0.7
* LVG 5 low volume group; MVG 5 medium volume group; HVG 5 high volume group.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
245, and 255.1, respectively (Table 1). The study was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki and was
approved by the Ethics Committee of the department responsible.
All subjects had reached their best personal performance within 6 months before the beginning of the study.
Participants were ranked according to their total score in
the 3 strength training exercises (SN, C&J, and SQ) and
were randomly placed into one of the 3 groups: a lowvolume group (LVG, n 5 16), a moderate-volume group
(MVG, n 5 17), and a high-volume group (HVG, n 5 18).
To avoid unknown subsequent physiologic adaptations,
only subjects who had never used anabolic steroids, bagonists, or other drugs or nutritional supplements (e.g.,
creatine) that are expected to affect physical performance
or hormonal balance were eligible for participation.
Testing
After a 10-week period of training, the subjects were tested using the Olympic lift tests of the SN and C&J exercises. Prior to testing, the subjects warmed up using 2
warm-up sets of 35 repetitions at 4050% of their estimated 1RM. The number of attempts required to determine the 1RM load with increases of 202.5 kg up to the
maximum was performed. After 3 misses at the same
weight, the test was terminated, and the best good lift
was recorded. The SQ test was carried out after the Olympic lift tests using the same protocol, although only 2
missed attempts were permitted. The baseline performances that were used in this study were the best personal performances in official competition in the SN and
C&J exercises and the best personal test performed in the
SQ exercise prior to beginning the research. All subjects
had reached their best personal performances within 6
months before starting the experiment. The test-retest intraclass correlation coefficients of the testing procedure
variables used in this study were greater than 0.95, with
coefficients of variation (CV) of 3%.
Training Protocol
Rep.
Snatch
Clean & jerk
Pulls
Squat
Total
551
471
208
703
1,923
306
289
93
306
994
75.4
75.2
97.6
78.9
79.01
28.5
24.4
10.8
36.4
Snatch
Clean & jerk
Pulls
Squat
Total
707
605
269
900
2,481
344
338
111
341
1,134
75.2
75
98.5
78.9
79.01
28.5
24.4
10.8
36.3
Snatch
Clean & jerk
Pulls
Squat
Total
862
748
326
1,094
3,030
Set
% of the
AI (%) total rep
Exercise
384
394
128
380
1,286
75.2
75.1
98.6
78.6
78.9
28.4
24.7
10.7
36.1
Rep. and % of the total repetitions per exercise in the different zones of
relative intensity
6070
7180
204 (37.7)
180 (38.2)
LVG
242 (44.7)
205 (43.5)
218 (31)
602 (31.1)
259 (36.6)
212 (35)
288 (32)
759 (30.6)
314 (36.4)
247 (33)
361 (33)
922 (30.4)
8190
9195
96100
101105
106110
(13.3)
(15.3)
(23.1)
(45.8)
(26.6)
16
11
26
11
64
(2.9)
(2.3)
(12.5)
(1.6)
(3.3)
7
3
74
9
93
(1.3)
(0.6)
(35.6)
(1.3)
(4.8)
56 (26.9)
4 (1.9)
143 (20.3)
590 (30.5)
72
72
48
322
514
56 (2.9)
4 (0.2)
MVG
330 (46.7)
289 (47.8)
3 (1.1)
175 (19.4)
797 (32.1)
87
89
51
414
641
(12.3)
(14.7)
(18.9)
(46)
(25.8)
21
12
35
14
82
(3)
(2)
(13)
(1.5)
(3.3)
10
3
94
9
116
(1.4)
(1.4)
(34.9)
(1)
(4.7)
80 (29.7)
6 (2.2)
80 (3.2)
6 (0.2)
HVG
404 (46.9)
373 (49.9)
3 (0.9)
206 (18.8)
986 (32.5)
107
110
64
499
780
(12.4)
(14.7)
(19.6)
(45.6)
(25.7)
25
15
38
16
94
(2.9)
(2)
(11.6)
(1.5)
(3.1)
12
3
112
12
139
(1.4)
(0.4)
(34.3)
(1.1)
(4.5)
101 (31)
8 (2.4)
101 (3.3)
8 (0.3)
* Rep. 5 repetition; set 5 sets; AI 5 average intensity; LVG 5 low volume group; MVG 5 medium volume group; HVG 5 high
volume group.
Snatch 5 exercises of snatch and power snatch; clean & jerk 5 exercises of C&J; jerk 5 push jerk and power clean; pulls 5
exercises of snatch pulls and clean pulls; squat 5 exercises of back and front squat.
Descriptive statistics (mean 6 SD) for the different variables were calculated. Intergroup differences among the
means of performances were treated with 1-way analysis
of variance (ANOVA) and with analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA) using pretraining performance as a covariate.
A t-test for paired groups was used to compare group differences within the means of performances. A chi-square
test (x2) was used to compare the frequency counts of sub-
2323100
433385
Clean pull
Back squat
232385
332390
1235385
232385
231385
332390
432390
1235385
232380
3323100
232390
231390
232380
232380
3323105
231390
232380
331395
1235385
331390
131395
1233385
232380
233385
2313100
1235385
331390
131395
1233385
232380
233385
231385
2323105
3323105
2323100
232390
232385
232385
231385
2323105
3323105
2323100
232390
232385
2313100
2313100
232380
232380
131395
331395
232385
231395
231395
232380
232380
331390
331395
132385
132390
1133385
232380
232390
132380
132380
2323100
132380
231380
131390
231380
131375
131395
131385
331390
432385
1313100
1235385
2323100
332390
1234385
232380
331385
332380
332380
2323105
232380
232380
331390
231385
231390
* Rep 5 repetition; RI (%) 5 maximal relative intensity expressed in percentage of 1 repetition maximum (1RM).
The different lines in each exercise indicate the times that these exercises are performed each week.
Front squat
533385
333385
332380
332380
332380
2323100
Jerk
Push jerk
Power clean
Snatch pull
332380
2323105
2333105
2323100
232390
1233385
332390
1133385
132380
232390
231385
332380
333380
332380
Power snatch
231390
431390
2313100
1234385
1313100
1313100
1233385
232380
432385
231385
2323105
2323110
1323105
232390
232385
1313100
1313100
232380
232380
131390
1313100
1313100
131390
232380
2313100
232390
232375
232375
2323105
2323105
2323100
133380
231385
1313100
131395
232380
232380
131385
1313100
131390
232385
132390
1133385
132380
232390
232380
232380
232380
231380
131390
231380
131375
131395
131385
231385
331385
431385
332380
332380
231385
331385
432380
532380
Snatch
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Week 5
Week 6
Week 7
Week 8
Week 9
Week 10
rep set RI (%) rep set RI (%) rep set RI (%) rep set RI (%) rep set RI (%) rep set RI (%) rep set RI (%) rep set RI (%) rep set RI (%) rep set RI (%)
692
ET AL.
2323100
533385
Clean pull
Back squat
332385
332390
1236385
332385
331385
332390
432390
1236385
232380
3323100
332390
331390
232380
232380
3323105
331390
232380
331390
431390
331385
3323105
3333105
3323100
332390
331385
3323105
3333105
3323100
332390
331395
1236385
431390
2313100
1236385
431390
1313100
1234385
232380
333385
232385
232385
231395
1234385
232380
333385
232385
2313100
2313100
232380
232380
231395
331395
232385
431395
431395
232380
232380
431390
331395
232385
132390
1233385
232380
232390
232380
232380
2323100
232380
231380
231390
231380
131375
231395
131385
431390
333385
2313100
1236385
3323100
332390
1235385
232380
431385
432380
432380
3323105
332380
332380
431390
331385
331390
* Rep 5 repetition; RI (%) 5 maximal relative intensity expressed in percentage of 1 repetition maximum (1RM).
The different lines in each exercise indicate the times that these exercises are performed each week.
Front squat
633385
433385
432380
432380
432380
3323100
Jerk
Push jerk
Power clean
Snatch pull
333380
3323105
3333105
4323100
332390
1333385
332390
1233385
232380
232390
331385
432380
433380
432380
Power snatch
331385
431385
531385
432380
432380
331385
531385
532380
433380
Snatch
2313100
1236385
1313100
1313100
1234385
232380
333385
331385
3323105
3323110
2323105
332390
232385
2313100
2313100
232380
232380
131390
1313100
2313100
231390
332380
2313100
332390
232375
232375
3323105
2323105
3323100
233380
231385
2313100
131395
232380
232380
231385
1313100
131390
232385
132390
1133385
132380
232390
232380
232380
232380
231380
131390
231380
131375
131395
131385
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Week 5
Week 6
Week 7
Week 8
Week 9
Week 10
rep set RI (%) rep set RI (%) rep set RI (%) rep set RI (%) rep set RI (%) rep set RI (%) rep set RI (%) rep set RI (%) rep set RI (%) rep set RI (%)
3323100
434385
Clean pull
Back squat
332385
432390
1237385
432385
431385
432390
532390
1335385
232380
4323100
432390
431390
232380
232380
4323105
331390
232380
431395
1434385
631390
331395
1235385
332380
433385
2313100
1434385
631390
2313100
1235385
332380
433385
431385
4323105
4333105
4323100
432390
232385
232385
431385
4323105
4333105
4323100
432390
232385
3313100
3313100
232380
232380
331395
431395
232385
531395
531395
232380
232380
531390
431395
332385
232390
1233385
332380
332390
332380
332380
2323100
232380
231380
231390
231380
231375
231395
231385
431390
333385
2313100
1237385
3323100
432390
1236385
332380
531385
532380
532380
4323105
432380
332380
531390
431385
431390
* Rep 5 repetition; RI (%) 5 maximal relative intensity expressed in percentage of 1 repetition maximum (1RM).
The different lines in each exercise indicate the times that these exercises are performed each week.
Front squat
733385
533385
532380
532380
532380
4323100
Jerk
Push jerk
Power clean
Snatch pull
433380
4323105
4333105
5323100
332390
1433385
432390
1233385
232380
232390
431385
532380
533380
532380
Power snatch
431390
531390
2313100
1237385
1313100
1313100
1235385
332380
333385
431385
4323105
4323110
2323105
332390
332385
2313100
2313100
332380
332380
131390
1313100
1313100
231390
432380
2313100
332390
332375
332375
3323105
2323105
4323100
233380
331385
2313100
131395
232380
232380
331385
1313100
131390
332385
132390
1134385
132380
332390
332380
332380
232380
231380
131390
231380
231375
131395
131385
431385
531385
631385
532380
235380
431385
631385
632380
533380
Snatch
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Week 5
Week 6
Week 7
Week 8
Week 9
Week 10
rep set RI (%) rep set RI (%) rep set RI (%) rep set RI (%) rep set RI (%) rep set RI (%) rep set RI (%) rep set RI (%) rep set RI (%) rep set RI (%)
694
ET AL.
FIGURE 1. Number of repetitions per week and average intensity (AI) during the 10-week training period in the low-volume (LVG), moderate-volume (MVG), and high-volume (HVG)
training groups.
RESULTS
No significant differences were observed between the
groups in training experience, pretraining strength, and
morphologic values. During the 10-week training period,
the MVG showed a significant increase in the SN, C&J,
and SQ exercises (6.1, 3.7, and 4.2%, respectively, p ,
0.01), whereas in the LVG and HVG, the increases took
place in the C&J exercise (3.7 and 3%, respectively, p ,
0.05) and the SQ exercise (4.6 and 4.8%, respectively, p
, 0.05) but not in the SN exercise (Figure 2). The effect
size between pre- and post-training of the MVG was superior to the other groups in all exercises, and the mean
effect size for Olympic lifts was 2.6 times greater for the
MVG (0.42) than for the other 2 groups (0.16; Figure 3).
The number of subjects who reduced their performance
in the LVG and HVG (16.7 and 20.4%) was greater than
the 7.8% (ns) observed in the MVG group (Figure 2).
When the data were analyzed by ANCOVA using the better previous performance training as a covariate, the increases in the SN during the 10-week training period
were significantly higher (p 5 0.015) in the MVG than in
the LVG and almost significantly higher than in the HVG
(p 5 0.09), whereas significant differences were not observed in the C&J and SQ for any of the groups tested.
DISCUSSION
FIGURE 2. One repetition maximum (1RM) expressed in kilograms during snatch (A), clean & jerk (B), and squat (C) for
the low-, moderate-, and high-volume training groups at pretraining and the subsequent 10 weeks of training for each subject. * Significantly different (p , 0.05) from the corresponding
pretraining value. ** Significantly different (p , 0.01) from the
corresponding pretraining value. Values are mean 6 SD. See
text for significant changes between the groups. The bars indicate the mean values.
The main finding of this study was that short-term resistance training using moderate volume tended to produce
greater enhancements in strength performance compared
with low and high training volumes of similar relative
intensity in experienced, trained, young lifters. Therefore,
the present data suggest that increasing the training volume in previously strength-trained athletes does not always provide a better stimulus for improving adaptations
during short-term training when compared with low or
moderate training volumes.
696
ET AL.
FIGURE 3. Effect size for the snatch, clean & jerk, and squat
performances. LVG 5 low volume group; MVG 5 medium volume group; HVG 5 high volume group.
9.
10.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
On the basis of our data, it appears that an extreme volume, although tolerated by the subject, does not produce
the best training effect. These observations may have important practical relevance for the optimal design of
strength training programs for resistance-trained athletes, given that performing a moderate volume is more
effective and efficient than performing a higher resistance training volume. For various types of athletes performing at a determined training intensity, a minimum
training volume may produce an optimal adaptation during a normal period of training. If these athletes decrease
or increase the volume of their resistance training, a reduction in the positive effect may occur. It is possible that
this optimal percentage of maximal volume can be applied to athletes with varying degrees of experience, although the maximum tolerated load at a given time may
be different in and between individuals throughout their
sporting life. Further investigations should be conducted
that hold the volume of training constant but vary the
average intensities in an attempt to identify the optimal
combination of volume and intensity.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SPORT MEDICINE. Position stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med.
Sci. Sport Exerc. 34:364380. 2002.
BAKER, D.G., G. WILSON, AND R. CARLYON. Periodization: The
effect on strength of manipulation volume and intensity. J.
Strength Cond. Res. 8:235242. 1994.
CARPINELLI, R.N., AND R.M. OTTO. Strength training: Single
versus multiple sets. Sports Med. 26:7384. 1998.
FLECK, S.J. Periodized strength training: A critical review. J.
Strength Cond. Res. 13:8289. 1999.
FRY, A.C., AND W.J. KRAEMER. Resistance exercise overtraining and overreaching: Neuroendocrine responses. Sports Med.
23:106129. 1997.
FRY, A.C., W.J. KRAEMER, M.H. STONE, B.J. WARREN, S.J.
FLECK, J.T. KEARNEY, AND S.E. GORDON. Endocrine responses
to overreaching before and after 1 year of weightlifting. Can.
J. Appl. Physiol. 19:400410. 1994.
FRY, A.C., W.J. KRAEMER, F. VAN BORSELEN, J.M. LYNCH, J.L.
MARSIT, E.P. ROY, N.T. TRIPLETT, AND H.G. KNUTTGEN. Performance decrements with high-intensity resistance exercise
overtraining. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 26:11651173. 1994.
HAKKINEN, K. Neuromuscular and hormonal adaptations during strength and power training. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness
29:926. 1989.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.