Due to the hypothesized specificity of strength adaptations, we predicted that load progressions would produce superior maximum strength and that repetition progressions would produce better muscular endurance due to the available literature on the repetition continuum and the principle of specific adaptations to imposed demands ( Schoenfeld et al., 2015 Anderson & Kearney, 1982). We hypothesized that effort (proximity to failure) and volume (number of working sets) are of principal importance for hypertrophic outcomes, implying that hypertrophy would be similar between load and repetition progression models. This study aimed to compare the effects of load increases while keeping repetition range constant vs increasing repetitions while keeping load constant on measures of lower body muscle hypertrophy, strength, jump performance, and local endurance in resistance-trained individuals over an 8-week study period. Thus, it is unclear whether load or repetition progressions through a training cycle would elicit differential hypertrophic outcomes. Current evidence has compared training outcomes between groups that maintain a certain rep range ( i.e., high, moderate, or low).
Given this knowledge, the question arises as to whether load progressions are necessary to maximize hypertrophy, particularly in the context of relatively short-term training cycles within a training career. Moreover, although there appears to be some credence to the presence of a strength-endurance continuum, with greater strength increases observed with heavier loads and greater muscular endurance improvements with lighter loads, the extent of differences between conditions remains somewhat equivocal ( Schoenfeld et al., 2021). While there is little question that manipulating load is a viable strategy for accomplishing many or most training objectives, current evidence indicates that similar hypertrophic outcomes can occur across a wide spectrum of loading ranges ( i.e., between five and 30 or more repetitions), provided that sets are equated and are carried out with a high degree of effort ( Schoenfeld et al., 2017). From periodization models to autoregulation and velocity-based training, load is the principal variable that is manipulated ( Matveyev, 1977). Indeed, traditional progression models attempt to progress load mainly by manipulating the relationship between set volume and intensity of load, while typically rendering prescriptions as a percentage of one-repetition maximum (1RM) ( Lorenz & Morrison, 2015). While the term progressive overload refers to “the gradual increase of stress placed on the body during resistance training” ( Kraemer, Ratamess & French, 2002), the common assumption is that there will be some form of load progression as part of a training regimen. Load, defined as the magnitude of mass lifted, modifications through a training cycle have historically been accompanied by a change in another variable such as sets, repetitions, velocity, and perceived fatigue ( Balsalobre-Fernández & Torres-Ronda, 2021 Lorenz & Morrison, 2015 Helms et al., 2016). Although progressive overload can be applied across an array of progression schemes and periodization models, current progression models generally involve some form of load manipulation ( Suchomel et al., 2021). Maintaining a sufficient stimulus to match adaptive capacity is termed progressive overload. To facilitate the continuation of positive adaptations, a given training regimen must contain some form of progression for a given stimulus ( Kraemer, Ratamess & French, 2002). Resistance training (RT) is a powerful tool to aid in developing muscle size, strength, endurance, power, and many other positive physiological outcomes ( Kraemer, Ratamess & French, 2002).
0 kommentar(er)
