CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 187Sports Performance and TrainingMuscle metabolism and nutritionCardiovascular and exercise physiology

Effects of different volume-equated resistance training loading strategies on muscular adaptations in well-trained men

Schoenfeld, Brad J., Ratamess, Nicholas A., Peterson, Mark D., Contreras, Bret, Sonmez, G. T., Alvar, Brent A.·2014·Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
DOI 10.1519/jsc.0000000000000480
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Regimented resistance training has been shown to promote marked increases in skeletal muscle mass. Although muscle hypertrophy can be attained through a wide range of resistance training programs, the principle of specificity, which states that adaptations are specific to the nature of the applied stimulus, dictates that some programs will promote greater hypertrophy than others. Research is lacking, however, as to the best combination of variables required to maximize hypertophic gains. The purpose of this study was to investigate muscular adaptations to a volume-equated bodybuilding-type training program vs. a powerlifting-type routine in well-trained subjects. Seventeen young men were randomly assigned to either a hypertrophy-type resistance training group that performed 3 sets of 10 repetition maximum (RM) with 90 seconds rest or a strength-type resistance training (ST) group that performed 7 sets of 3RM with a 3-minute rest interval. After 8 weeks, no significant differences were noted in muscle thickness of the biceps brachii. Significant strength differences were found in favor of ST for the 1RM bench press, and a trend was found for greater increases in the 1RM squat. In conclusion, this study showed that both bodybuilding- and powerlifting-type training promote similar increases in muscular size, but powerlifting-type training is superior for enhancing maximal strength.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1519/jsc.0000000000000480

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Our group randomized resistance-trained men to perform volume load-equated resistance training using either a bodybuilding-type protocol (3 sets of ~10RM) or a powerlifting-type protocol (7 sets of ~3RM) 3 times per week for 8 weeks; results showed similar increases in biceps brachii muscle thickness between conditions, but participants in the powerlifting-type group displayed signs of overtaining

    “Our group [20] randomized resistance-trained men to perform volume load-equated RT using either a bodybuilding-type protocol (3 sets of ~10RM) or a powerlifting-type protocol (7 sets of ~3RM). Training was carried out 3 times per week for 8 weeks. While results showed similar increases in biceps brachii muscle thickness between conditions, participants in the powerlifting-type group displayed”

    From Loading recommendations for muscle strength, hypertrophy, and local endurance: a re-examination of the repetition continuum. (2021) · cites this paper as [20]

  • Multiple studies have reported greater 1RM improvements when training in the strength zone (1 to 5 repetitions) vs. the hypertrophy zone (8 to 12 repetitions), although these findings are not universal.

    “Multiple studies have reported greater 1RM improvements when training in the so-called “strength zone” (1 to 5 repetitions) vs. the “hypertrophy zone” (8 to 12 repetitions) [19,20,21,22], although these findings are not universal [23,24].”

    From Loading recommendations for muscle strength, hypertrophy, and local endurance: a re-examination of the repetition continuum. (2021) · cites this paper as [20]

  • Some studies evaluating the effects of different loading schemes on muscular endurance used pre-intervention (baseline) 1RM values to determine load for endurance tests, whereas others used post-intervention values.

    “some studies that evaluated the effects of training with different loading schemes on muscular endurance used the pre-intervention (baseline) 1RM values to determine load for the endurance tests, whereas others used post-intervention values [20,31].”

    From Loading recommendations for muscle strength, hypertrophy, and local endurance: a re-examination of the repetition continuum. (2021) · cites this paper as [20]

  • Our group [20] showed greater improvements in relative upper body muscular endurance (50% 1RM in the bench press) when training with low- (25 to 35RM) compared to moderate- (8 to 12RM) loads.

    “our group [20] showed greater improvements in relative upper body muscular endurance (50% 1RM in the bench press) when training with low- (25 to 35RM) compared to moderate- (8 to 12RM) loads.”

    From Loading recommendations for muscle strength, hypertrophy, and local endurance: a re-examination of the repetition continuum. (2021) · cites this paper as [20]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schoenfeld, B. J., Ratamess, N. A., Peterson, M. D., Contreras, B., Sonmez, G. T., & Alvar, B. A.
Affiliations
  • Lehman College (US)
  • The College of New Jersey (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Auckland University of Technology (NZ)
  • Rocky Mountain University of Health Professions (US)
Corresponding author
Schoenfeld, Brad J.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2014-10
Volume
28
Issue
10
Pages
2909-2918
ISSN
1064-8011 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1519/jsc.0000000000000480
OpenAlex
W1995751807
Cited by
187
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 3
FWCI
17.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Muscle metabolism and nutrition
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
Keywords
resistance training, muscle hypertrophy, muscle strength, powerlifting, bodybuilding, bench press, squatting, rest periods, repetition maximum
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Physiological, Adult, Arm, Humans, Male, Weight Lifting, Muscle, Skeletal, Muscle Strength, Resistance Training, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review