Effects of different resistance training systems on muscular strength

1 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Publish Ahead of Print DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002326

Effects of different resistance training systems on muscular strength and hypertrophy in resistance-trained older women

D

Running head: resistance training with different systems

Alex S. Ribeiro 1, Andreo F. Aguiar 1, Brad J. Schoenfeld 2, João Pedro Nunes 3, Edilaine F.

TE

Cavalcanti 3, Eduardo L. Cadore 4, Edilson S. Cyrino 2

Center for Research in Health Sciences. University of Northern Paraná, Londrina, Brazil;

2

Exercise Science Department, CUNY Lehman College, Bronx, New York;

3

Metabolism, Nutrition, and Exercise Laboratory, Physical Education and Sport Center, Londrina

C EP

1

State University, Londrina, PR, Brazil;

Exercise Research Laboratory, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul

C

4

Corresponding author at: Carmela Dutra street 862, Jataizinho, PR, Brazil; Zip code: 86210-000;

A

Phone: +554391523899; +554332593860; e-mail: [email protected]

Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

1

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of resistance training (RT) performed in a pyramid (PR) versus constant (CT) load system on muscular strength and hypertrophy in resistancetrained older women. Thirty-three older women (69.7±5.9 years, 69.1±15.0 kg, 156.6±6.2 cm, and 28.1±5.4 kg.m-2) were randomized into 2 groups: one that performed RT with a CT load (n = 16) and another group that performed RT in an ascending PR fashion (n = 17). Outcomes included 1

D

repetition maximum (RM) tests and assessment of skeletal muscle mass estimated by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. The study lasted 32 weeks, with 24 weeks dedicated to pre-conditioning, and

TE

8 weeks for the actual experiment. The RT program was carried out 3 days/week; the CT consisted of 3 sets of 8-12 RM with same load across sets, whereas the PR consisted of 3 sets of 12/10/8 RM with incremental loads for each set. A significant (P 0.80 as large (6). For all statistical analyses, significance was accepted at P < 0.05. The data were analyzed using STATISTICA software version 10.0 (STATSOFT INC., TULSA, OK, USA). Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

10

RESULTS

Adherence to the program was satisfactory, with all subjects participating in ≥ 85% of the total sessions throughout the experiment, that is ≥ 31 sessions during phase 1 (CT = 33.7 ± 1.4, PR = 33.1 ± 1.3, P > 0.05), ≥ 31 sessions during phase 2 (CT = 32.6 ± 1.2, PR = 32.5 ± 1.1, P > 0.05),

D

and ≥ 20 sessions during phase 3 (CT = 22.7 ± 1.2, PR = 22.5 ± 1.1, P > 0.05).

There were no significant (P > 0.05) main effects for macronutrient daily intake, indicating that the

TE

relative daily intake of carbohydrate (CT: pre = 3.9 ± 1.0 g/kg, post = 4.2 ± 2.5 g/kg; PR: pre = 3.5 ± 1.2 g/kg, post = 3.8 ± 1.7 g/kg), protein (CT: pre = 1.0 ± 0.5 g/kg, post = 1.1 ± 0.5 g/kg; PR: pre = 0.9 ± 0.4 g/kg, post = 0.9 ± 0.4 g/kg), and lipids (CT: pre = 0.8 ± 0.4 g/kg, post = 0.7 ± 0.6 g/kg;

C EP

PR: pre = 0.7 ± 0.3 g/kg, post = 0.6 ± 0.3 g/kg) were not different between groups and did not change over time. No differences between groups were observed for any outcome analyzed. The general characteristics of both groups at pre-training are presented in Table 1. Table 2 presents the participants’ scores at baseline.

C

INSERT TABLE 1 INSERT TABLE 2

A

Table 3 depicts the training load and volume load at the initial and ending weeks of the RT program. As expected, the PR presented higher (P < 0.05) training load (in kg) values than CT; however, PR presented lower (P < 0.05) volume of load (load x repetitions) compared to CT. Both groups increased training load CT and volume of load without any group by time interaction, indicating that the progression was similar between groups.

INSERT TABLE 3 Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

11

The muscular strength and body composition outcomes for both groups at pre- and post-training are presented in Table 4. There was no significant interaction (P > 0.05) for any outcome analyzed. However, a significant (P < 0.05) change from pre- to post training was observed for CP, KE, PC, total strength, skeletal muscle mass, lower limb lean soft tissue, trunk lean soft tissue, TBW, and ICW, with both groups showing similar increases over time. No main effects were noted for upper

bordered an effect for time (P = 0.07).

TE

INSERT TABLE 4

D

limb lean soft tissue, body fat, and ECW (P > 0.05), but findings for upper limb lean soft tissue

Table 5 presents the effect size values for both groups as well as the differences between them. All

C EP

differences between groups were of trivial magnitude.

INSERT TABLE 5

DISCUSSION

C

The main and novel finding of this study was that RT performed in a PR system was not superior to a CT load system for promoting adaptations in muscular strength and hypertrophy in previously

A

well-trained older women. We had hypothesized that the PR system would augment results. The rationale for such a hypothesis was based on the dose-response relationship between intensity and neuromuscular improvements that has been shown to exist in older adults (5, 7, 23, 37). Since the PR system allows the use of higher intensities of load during the final sets of an exercise without impairing volume in the target repetition range (i.e. 8-12 repetition maximum), it was thought that the PR system would stimulate greater neuromuscular adaptations. However, contrary to our hypothesis, the results of this study failed to demonstrate a superiority of the PR over the CT load system. Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

12

To the authors’ knowledge this is the first study comparing different RT systems in trained older women. That said, other studies have been carried out that shed additional light on the topic. Angleri et al. (4) investigated the effect of a crescent (ascending) PR system consisting of ~15 repetition in the first set (65% 1RM), ~12 repetition in the second set (70% 1RM), ~10 repetitions in the third set (75% 1RM), ~8 repetitions in the fourth set (80% 1RM), and ~6 repetitions in the fifth set (85% 1RM) in two lower limb exercises (45o leg press and knee extension) in 32 trained

D

men (27.0 ± 3.9 years) during 12 weeks. The results observed indicate that the ascending PR system induced similar muscle hypertrophy compared to a traditional training approach (CT load) in young

TE

resistance-trained men. Moreover, a previous study from our laboratory (25) using a crossover design investigated 25 untrained older women (67.6 ± 5.1 years) who performed 8 weeks of an ascending PR system consisting of 12 repetitions in the first set, 10 repetitions in the second set, and

C EP

8 repetitions in the third set. Training included a total of 8 exercises targeting the major muscles of the upper and lower body. Results indicated that the ascending PR produce similar improvements in muscle mass (estimated by DXA) and muscular strength (1RM) compared to CT load system. Therefore, the current results expand on previous findings and allow generalizability of results to previously trained older women. Collectively, these findings indicate that the PR system is a viable

C

strategy to enhance muscle hypertrophy across different populations. Although PR did not show superior muscular adaptations compared to CT, from a practical standpoint it may enhance

A

motivation by varying the training stimulus and thus potentially improve exercise adherence.

There is evidence that higher intensities of load are superior for maximizing strength development in resistance-trained individuals (17, 33). There are several notable differences between these studies and ours. For one, both aforementioned studies investigated the adaptive response in welltrained young adult men, while we used older women. Moreover, Schoenfeld et al. (33) and Mangine et al. (17) made a direct comparison of different training intensities where one group trained with heavier loads versus another with lighter loads, while we compared a system that Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

13

allows higher intensities of load in the final sets of PR versus a CT loading scheme throughout sets in CT group. Based on these findings, we speculate that the repetition zone range applied in the PR training was not sufficient to elicit a greater mechanical stress stimulus compared to the CT system. Nevertheless, it is important to mention that the zone of repetitions used in our experiment is a popular strategy for promoting muscle hypertrophy. Further studies using the PR system with a wider repetitions zone range (e.g. 15, 10, 5 RM) and thus producing a greater mechanical and

D

metabolic stimulus are warranted.

TE

Our results showed that the PR group trained with higher load than CT, mainly due the final set of each exercise since it was performed as an ascending PR; however, this difference did not elicit superior results for hypertrophy or strength. Studies indicate that when repetitions are performed

C EP

until volitional concentric failure under work-based conditions, the training load may not be a defining variable for maximizing muscle hypertrophy (20, 33, 34). In addition, although the literature indicates a clear dose-response between training volume and muscle growth (16, 32), increases in muscle mass were similar between groups despite a greater volume load performed by PR. The beneficial effects of increasing volume follow an inverted-U curve, whereby once a given

C

threshold is reached any further increases in volume would have no further effect and at some point, could lead to a regression in gains. Therefore, it is possible that the volume threshold was achieved

A

in the PR system, making the discrepancies in volume of load irrelevant in terms of producing a hypertrophic response. Alternatively, it can be speculated that although the differences were statistically significant, the absolute differences were not of sufficient magnitude to enhance results.

The gains in skeletal muscle mass and strength observed in this investigation occurred without alterations in subjects’ habitual nutritional intake. These results suggest that the protein and energy intake observed throughout the progressive RT in this study was sufficient to support muscular improvements. However, the protein intake of participants was below current recommendations for Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

14

protein intake in older individuals to build muscle mass (14). Therefore, the participants conceivably could have achieved even greater muscular increases had more protein been ingested, although not all studies indicate a necessity for higher protein doses in older individuals (22, 27, 38). It is also important to mention that food records have been shown to be unreliable for determining energy intake in the general public (8, 19).

D

This study is not without its limitations. First, the duration of the study was fairly short, encompassing 8 weeks of regimented RT. We therefore cannot determine if results would diverge

TE

over a longer training intervention. Second, the findings are specific to older women and cannot necessarily be extrapolated to other populations; whether results would differ for younger individuals, men, or those with previous resistance training experience remains to be elucidated.

C EP

Third, we did not control for the sleeping time of the participants, which could impact their response to training. Fourth, the subjects had 24 weeks consistent RT experience. While this would seem sufficient to negate any beginner effects on muscular adaptations, the findings cannot necessarily be generalized to those who have been training consistently for longer periods of time.

C

Finally, our relatively low sample size could have increased the probability of type II error.

We conclude that both RT system are effective to improve muscular strength and muscle growth,

A

but

the PR training system is not superior to CT for eliciting improvements in muscular strength and muscle growth in previously trained older women.


15

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

Based on the results reported in this study, practitioners can decide which system to use based on personal preference and responsiveness. From a practical point of view, PR training can be used as an effective alternative to optimize neuromuscular adaptations at similar magnitude of CT load RT in resistance-trained older women, and may enhance motivation and thus promote better adherence

D

to exercise.

1.

TE

REFERENCES

American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression models in resistance

2.

C EP

training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41: 687-708, 2009.

Ahtiainen, JP, Pakarinen, A, Alen, M, Kraemer, WJ, and Hakkinen, K. Muscle hypertrophy, hormonal adaptations and strength development during strength training in strength-trained and untrained men. Eur J Appl Physiol 89: 555-563, 2003.

3.

Amarante do Nascimento, M, Borges Januario, RS, Gerage, AM, Mayhew, JL, Cheche Pina,

C

FL, and Cyrino, ES. Familiarization and reliability of one repetition maximum strength testing in older women. J Strength Cond Res 27: 1636-1642, 2013. Angleri, V, Ugrinowitsch, C, and Libardi, CA. Crescent pyramid and drop-set systems do

A

4.

not promote greater strength gains, muscle hypertrophy, and changes on muscle architecture compared with traditional resistance training in well-trained men. Eur J Appl Physiol 117: 359-369, 2017.

5.

Borde, R, Hortobagyi, T, and Granacher, U. Dose-response relationships of resistance training in healthy old adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med, 2015.

6.

Cohen, J. A power primer. Psychol Bull 112: 155-159, 1992.


16

7.

Csapo, R and Alegre, LM. Effects of resistance training with moderate vs heavy loads on muscle mass and strength in the elderly: a meta-analysis. Scand J Med Sci Sports, 2015.

8.

de Vries, JH, Zock, PL, Mensink, RP, and Katan, MB. Underestimation of energy intake by 3-d records compared with energy intake to maintain body weight in 269 nonobese adults. Am J Clin Nutr 60: 855-860, 1994.

9.

Delmonico, MJ, Harris, TB, Visser, M, Park, SW, Conroy, MB, Velasquez-Mieyer, P,

D

Boudreau, R, Manini, TM, Nevitt, M, Newman, AB, and Goodpaster, BH. Longitudinal study of muscle strength, quality, and adipose tissue infiltration. Am J Clin Nutr 90: 1579-

10.

TE

1585, 2009.

Deschenes, MR and Kraemer, WJ. Performance and physiologic adaptations to resistance training. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 81: 3-16, 2002.

Flann, KL, LaStayo, PC, McClain, DA, Hazel, M, and Lindstedt, SL. Muscle damage and

C EP

11.

muscle remodeling: no pain, no gain? J Exp Biol 214: 674-679, 2011. 12.

Garber, CE, Blissmer, B, Deschenes, MR, Franklin, BA, Lamonte, MJ, Lee, IM, Nieman, DC, and Swain, DP. American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal, and

C

neuromotor fitness in apparently healthy adults: guidance for prescribing exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc 43: 1334-1359, 2011. Goncalves, EM, Matias, CN, Santos, DA, Sardinha, LB, and Silva, AM. Assessment of total

A

13.

body water and its compartments in elite judo athletes: comparison of bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy with dilution techniques. J Sports Sci 33: 634-640, 2015.

14.

Jager, R, Kerksick, CM, Campbell, BI, Cribb, PJ, Wells, SD, Skwiat, TM, Purpura, M, Ziegenfuss, TN, Ferrando, AA, Arent, SM, Smith-Ryan, AE, Stout, JR, Arciero, PJ, Ormsbee, MJ, Taylor, LW, Wilborn, CD, Kalman, DS, Kreider, RB, Willoughby, DS, Hoffman, JR, Krzykowski, JL, and Antonio, J. International Society of Sports Nutrition Position Stand: protein and exercise. J Int Soc Sports Nutr 14: 20, 2017. Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

17

15.

Kim, J, Wang, Z, Heymsfield, SB, Baumgartner, RN, and Gallagher, D. Total-body skeletal muscle mass: estimation by a new dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry method. Am J Clin Nutr 76: 378-383, 2002.

16.

Krieger, JW. Single vs. multiple sets of resistance exercise for muscle hypertrophy: a metaanalysis. J Strength Cond Res 24: 1150-1159, 2010.

17.

Mangine, GT, Hoffman, JR, Gonzalez, AM, Townsend, JR, Wells, AJ, Jajtner, AR, Beyer,

D

KS, Boone, CH, Miramonti, AA, Wang, R, LaMonica, MB, Fukuda, DH, Ratamess, NA, and Stout, JR. The effect of training volume and intensity on improvements in muscular

18.

TE

strength and size in resistance-trained men. Physiol Rep 3, 2015.

Matias, CN, Santos, DA, Goncalves, EM, Fields, DA, Sardinha, LB, and Silva, AM. Is bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy accurate in estimating total body water and its

19.

C EP

compartments in elite athletes? Ann Hum Biol 40: 152-156, 2013.

Mertz, W, Tsui, JC, Judd, JT, Reiser, S, Hallfrisch, J, Morris, ER, Steele, PD, and Lashley, E. What are people really eating? The relation between energy intake derived from estimated diet records and intake determined to maintain body weight. Am J Clin Nutr 54: 291-295, 1991.

Morton, RW, Oikawa, SY, Wavell, CG, Mazara, N, McGlory, C, Quadrilatero, J, Baechler,

C

20.

BL, Baker, SK, and Phillips, SM. Neither load nor systemic hormones determine resistance

A

training-mediated hypertrophy or strength gains in resistance-trained young men. J Appl Physiol (1985) 121: 129-138, 2016.

21.

Newton, RU and Kraemer, WJ. Developing explosive muscular power: implications for a

mixed methods training strategy. Strength Cond J 16: 20-31, 1994. 22.

Pennings, B, Koopman, R, Beelen, M, Senden, JM, Saris, WH, and van Loon, LJ. Exercising before protein intake allows for greater use of dietary protein-derived amino acids for de novo muscle protein synthesis in both young and elderly men. Am J Clin Nutr 93: 322-331, 2011. Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

18

23.

Raymond, MJ, Bramley-Tzerefos, RE, Jeffs, KJ, Winter, A, and Holland, AE. Systematic review of high-intensity progressive resistance strength training of the lower limb compared with other intensities of strength training in older adults. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 94: 14581472, 2013.

24.

Rhea, MR, Alvar, BA, Burkett, LN, and Ball, SD. A meta-analysis to determine the dose response for strength development. Med Sci Sports Exerc 35: 456-464, 2003. Ribeiro, AS, Schoenfeld, BJ, Fleck, SJ, Pina, FLC, Nascimento, MA, and Cyrino, ES.

D

25.

Effects of traditional and pyramidal resistance training systems on muscular strength,

Strength Cond Res 31: 1888-1896, 2017. 26.

TE

muscle mass, and hormonal responses in older women: a randomized crossover trial. J

Ribeiro, AS, Tomeleri, CM, Souza, MF, Pina, FL, Schoenfeld, BJ, Nascimento, MA,

C EP

Venturini, D, Barbosa, DS, and Cyrino, ES. Effect of resistance training on C-reactive protein, blood glucose and lipid profile in older women with differing levels of RT experience. Age (Dordr) 37: 109, 2015. 27.

Rossato, LT, Nahas, PC, de Branco, FMS, Martins, FM, Souza, AP, Carneiro, MAS, Orsatti, FL, and de Oliveira, EP. Higher protein intake does not improve lean mass gain when

C

compared with RDA recommendation in postmenopausal women following resistance exercise protocol: A randomized clinical trial. Nutrients 9, 2017. Ruiz, JR, Sui, X, Lobelo, F, Morrow, JR, Jr., Jackson, AW, Sjostrom, M, and Blair, SN.

A

28.

Association between muscular strength and mortality in men: prospective cohort study. BMJ 337: a439, 2008.

29.

Sardinha, LB, Lohman, TG, Teixeira, PJ, Guedes, DP, and Going, SB. Comparison of air displacement plethysmography with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and 3 field methods for estimating body composition in middle-aged men. Am J Clin Nutr 68: 786-793, 1998.

30.

Schoenfeld, BJ. The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their application to resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 24: 2857-2872, 2010. Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

19

31.

Schoenfeld, BJ. Is there a minimum intensity threshold for resistance training-induced hypertrophic adaptations? Sports Med 43: 1279-1288, 2013.

32.

Schoenfeld, BJ, Ogborn, D, and Krieger, JW. Dose-response relationship between weekly resistance training volume and increases in muscle mass: A systematic review and metaanalysis. J Sports Sci 35: 1073-1082, 2017.

33.

Schoenfeld, BJ, Peterson, MD, Ogborn, D, Contreras, B, and Sonmez, GT. Effects of low-

D

vs. high-load resistance training on muscle strength and hypertrophy in well-trained men. J Strength Cond Res 29: 2954-2963, 2015.

Schoenfeld, BJ, Ratamess, NA, Peterson, MD, Contreras, B, Sonmez, GT, and Alvar, BA.

TE

34.

Effects of different volume-equated resistance training loading strategies on muscular adaptations in well-trained men. J Strength Cond Res 28: 2909-2918, 2014. Schoenfeld, BJ, Wilson, JM, Lowery, RP, and Krieger, JW. Muscular adaptations in low-

C EP

35.

versus high-load resistance training: a meta-analysis. Eur J Sport Sci: 1-10, 2014. 36.

Srikanthan, P and Karlamangla, AS. Muscle mass index as a predictor of longevity in older adults. Am J Med 127: 547-553, 2014.

37.

Steib, S, Schoene, D, and Pfeifer, K. Dose-response relationship of resistance training in

38.

C

older adults: a meta-analysis. Med Sci Sports Exerc 42: 902-914, 2010. Welle, S and Thornton, CA. High-protein meals do not enhance myofibrillar synthesis after

A

resistance exercise in 62- to 75-yr-old men and women. Am J Physiol 274: E677-683, 1998.

Figure legend

Figure 1 Experimental design of the study.


Table 1 General characteristics of the sample after the 24-week pre-conditioning phase. Data are expressed as mean and standard deviation. Constant (n = 16) Pyramid (n = 17)

P-value

69.1 ± 6.1

70.4 ± 5.9

0.91

Body mass (kg)

67.9 ± 14.2

70.3 ± 16.1

0.63

Height (cm)

158.2 ± 5.8

155.1 ± 6.4

0.72

Body mass index (kg.m-2)

27.0 ± 5.2

29.0 ± 5.4

D

Age (years)

A

C

C EP

TE

0.89


Constant (n = 16)

Pyramid (n = 17)

Chest press (kg)

38.1 ± 6.8

39.8 ± 8.9

Knee extension (kg)

44.8 ± 13.0

43.2 ± 10.6

Preacher curl (kg)

19.0 ± 3.4

19.6 ± 3.5

Total strength (kg)

102.0 ± 21.2

102.7 ± 19.9

20.4 ± 2.5

20.3 ± 3.8

Upper limb LST (kg)

4.32 ± 0.5

4.30 ± 0.7

Lower limb LST (kg)

13.80 ± 1.7

Trunk LST (kg)

22.39 ± 2.3

Body fat (%)

37.8 ± 9.0

Total body water (L)

30.7 ± 4.6

Intracellular water (L)

17.1 ± 3.0

TE

Table 2 General characteristics of the participants at baseline.

13.6 ± 1.7

12.9 ± 2.4

0.83 ± 0.07

0.83 ± 0.12

Skeletal muscle mass (kg)

D

Muscular strength

Extracellular water (L) ICW / SMM

C EP

Body composition

13.73 ± 2.6 22.30 ± 3.4 39.5 ± 6.2 29.5 ± 5.8 17.0 ± 4.1

Note: LST = lean soft tissue. ICW / SMM = ratio between intracellular water and skeletal muscle

A

C

mass.


Table 3 Training load and volume of load (kg x repetitions) at first and last week of the resistance training program in older women. Data are expressed as mean and standard deviation

Training load (kg) Volume of load (kg)

Week 1

Week 8

1634.0 ± 226.7§

1941.1 ± 240.0*§

19608.7 ± 2721.0§

Pyramid (n = 17) ∆%

TE D

Constant (n = 16) ES

18.8 1.38

Week 1

Week 8

∆%

ES

1782.5 ± 218.8

2126.0 ± 231.0*

19.3

1.54

0.32

20502.3 ± 2307.4*

20.1

1.40

0.53

23294.2 ± 2880.9*§ 18.8 1.50 17068.5 ± 2184.9

A

C

C EP

Note: * P < 0.05 vs. Week 1. § P < vs. Pyramid group.

P-value


Table 4 Muscular strength and body composition outcomes in older women at pre-and post-training according to resistance training system. Data are expressed as mean and standard deviation. Constant (n = 16)

Pyramid (n = 17)

Between groups P-value

Post-training

∆%

Pre-training

Post-training

∆%

Chest press (kg)

44.5 ± 6.7

45.8 ± 6.6*

2.9

45.2 ± 9.0

46.3 ± 9.0*

2.4

0.60

Knee extension (kg)

54.0 ± 12.8

57.6 ± 12.5*

6.7

50.8 ± 11.8

54.0 ± 12.3*

6.3

0.74

Preacher curl (kg)

24.3 ± 3.8

25.5 ± 4.6*

4.9

24.4 ± 5.0

25.4 ± 4.7*

4.1

0.84

Total strength (kg)

122.8 ± 21.0

128.9 ± 21.4*

5.0

120.5 ± 22.8

125.8 ± 22.9*

4.4

0.61

21.7 ± 3.5*

1.4

20.9 ± 3.4

21.1 ±3.4*

1.0

0.09

4.44 ± 0.6

0.9

4.35 ± 0.9

4.38 ± 0.8

0.7

0.71

14.38 ± 2.3*

1.1

13.91 ± 2.3

14.02 ± 2.43*

0.8

0.06

Body composition

C EP

Muscular strength

TE D

Pre-training

21.4 ± 3.6

Upper limb LST (kg)

4.40 ± 0.6

Lower limb LST (kg)

14.23 ± 2.6

Trunk LST (kg)

22.46 ± 2.4

22.86 ± 2.5*

1.8

23.20 ± 3.7

23.57 ± 3.7*

1.6

0.56

Body fat (%)

36.2 ± 10.6

35.9 ± 10.6

-0.8

38.4 ± 6.8

38.5 ± 7.5

0.3

0.30

31.3 ± 4.9

31.6 ± 5.2*

1.0

31.2 ± 6.8

31.7 ± 6.6*

1.6

0.88

17.4 ± 3.1

17.9 ± 3.2*

2.9

17.7 ± 4.6

18.0 ± 4.5*

1.7

0.18

Extracellular water (L)

13.8 ± 1.9

13.7 ± 2.1

-0.7

13.4 ± 2.3

13.6 ± 2.2

1.5

0.14

ICW / SMM

0.81 ± 0.09

0.82 ± 0.10

1.2

0.83 ± 0.11

0.84 ± 0.10

1.2

0.67

Intracellular water (L)

A

Total body water (L)

C

Skeletal muscle mass (kg)

Note: LST = lean soft tissue. ICW / SMM = ratio between intracellular water and skeletal muscle mass. * P < 0.05 vs. Week 1.


Table 5 Effects sizes values according to groups. Constant (n = 16)

Pyramid (n = 17)

Differences

Chest press

0.17

0.14

0.03

Knee extension

0.29

0.26

0.03

Preacher curl

0.27

0.23

0.05

Total strength

0.28

0.24

0.04

Skeletal muscle mass

0.09

0.06

0.03

Upper limb LST

0.05

0.04

Lower limb LST

0.06

0.04

Trunk LST

0.13

0.12

Body fat

-0.03

Total body water

0.05

Intracellular water

0.13

Extracellular water

-0.05

Muscular strength

0.10

0.01 0.02

TE

0.01

0.01

-0.05

0.09

-0.04

0.08

0.05

0.10

-0.14

C EP

ICW / SMM

D

Body composition

0.10

0.00

Note: LST = lean soft tissue. ICW / SMM = ratio between intracellular water and skeletal muscle mass. Differences = constant effect size minus pyramid effect size. Effect size

A

C

classification = 0.00 - 0.19 trivial, 0.20 - 0.49 small, 0.50 - 0.79 moderate and ≥ 0.80 large.


D TE C EP C A Copyright ª 2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association