Resistance training intensity and volume affect changes in rate of force development in resistance-trained men
- 1.6k Downloads
To compare the effects of two different resistance training programs, high intensity (INT) and high volume (VOL), on changes in isometric force (FRC), rate of force development (RFD), and barbell velocity during dynamic strength testing.
Twenty-nine resistance-trained men were randomly assigned to either the INT (n = 15, 3–5 RM, 3-min rest interval) or VOL (n = 14, 10–12 RM, 1-min rest interval) training group for 8 weeks. All participants completed a 2-week preparatory phase prior to randomization. Measures of barbell velocity, FRC, and RFD were performed before (PRE) and following (POST) the 8-week training program. Barbell velocity was determined during one-repetition maximum (1RM) testing of the squat (SQ) and bench press (BP) exercises. The isometric mid-thigh pull was used to assess FRC and RFD at specific time bands ranging from 0 to 30, 50, 90, 100, 150, 200, and 250 ms.
Analysis of covariance revealed significant (p < 0.05) group differences in peak FRC, FRC at 30–200 ms, and RFD at 50–90 ms. Significant (p < 0.05) changes in INT but not VOL in peak FRC (INT: 9.2 ± 13.8 %; VOL: −4.3 ± 10.2 %), FRC at 30–200 ms (INT: 12.5–15.8 %; VOL: −1.0 to −4.3 %), and RFD at 50 ms (INT: 78.0 ± 163 %; VOL: −4.1 ± 49.6 %) were observed. A trend (p = 0.052) was observed for RFD at 90 ms (INT: 58.5 ± 115 %; VOL: −3.5 ± 40.1 %). No group differences were observed for the observed changes in barbell velocity.
Results indicate that INT is more advantageous than VOL for improving FRC and RFD, while changes in barbell velocity during dynamic strength testing are similarly improved by both protocols in resistance-trained men.
KeywordsRate of force development Bench press velocity Back squat velocity Isometric strength
Analysis of covariance
Area under the curve
High-intensity, low-volume training group
High-volume, moderate-intensity training group
Intraclass correlation coefficient
Rate of force development
Standard error of the measurement
- Cohen J (1988) The effect size index: f. In: Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, pp 284–288Google Scholar
- Flanagan SP (2013) Biomechanics: a case-based approach. Jones & Bartlett LearningGoogle Scholar
- Haff GG, Stone M, O’Bryant HS, Harman E, Dinan C, Johnson R, Han K-H (1997) Force-time dependent characteristics of dynamic and isometric muscle actions. J Strength Condition Res 11:269–272Google Scholar
- Häkkinen K, Komi P, Tesch P (1981) Effect of combined concentric and eccentric strength training and detraining on force-time, muscle fiber and metabolic characteristics of leg extensor muscles. Scand J Med Sci Sports 3:50–58Google Scholar
- Hoffman JR (2006) Norms for fitness, performance and health. Human Kinetics, ChampaignGoogle Scholar
- Hoffman JR (2014) Physiological Aspects of Sport Training and Performance, 2nd edn. Human Kinetics, ChampaignGoogle Scholar
- Hoffman JR, Cooper J, Wendell M, Kang J (2004) Comparison of Olympic vs. traditional power lifting training programs in football players The. J Strength Condition Res 18:129–135Google Scholar
- Moritani T, deVries HA (1979) Neural factors versus hypertrophy in the time course of muscle strength gain. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 58:115–130Google Scholar
- Wang R et al (2016) Isometric mid-thigh pull correlates with strength, sprint and agility performance in collegiate rugby union players. J Strength Condition Res Mar 12. [Epub ahead of print] Google Scholar
- Zink AJ, Perry AC, Robertson BL, Roach KE, Signorile JF (2006) Peak power, ground reaction forces, and velocity during the squat exercise performed at different loads The. J Strength Condition Res 20:658–664Google Scholar