Advertisement

European Journal of Applied Physiology

, Volume 116, Issue 11–12, pp 2367–2374 | Cite as

Resistance training intensity and volume affect changes in rate of force development in resistance-trained men

  • Gerald T. Mangine
  • Jay R. Hoffman
  • Ran Wang
  • Adam M. Gonzalez
  • Jeremy R. Townsend
  • Adam J. Wells
  • Adam R. Jajtner
  • Kyle S. Beyer
  • Carleigh H. Boone
  • Amelia A. Miramonti
  • Michael B. LaMonica
  • David H. Fukuda
  • Nicholas A. Ratamess
  • Jeffrey R. Stout
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

Keywords

Rate of force development Bench press velocity Back squat velocity Isometric strength 

Abbreviations

ANCOVA

Analysis of covariance

AUC

Area under the curve

SQ

Back squat

BP

Bench press

FRC

Force

INT

High-intensity, low-volume training group

VOL

High-volume, moderate-intensity training group

HPL

Human-Performance Laboratory

ICC

Intraclass correlation coefficient

MDL

Minimal difference

1RM

One-repetition maximum

POST

Post-testing

PRE

Pre-testing

RFD

Rate of force development

SEM

Standard error of the measurement

References

  1. Aagaard P, Simonsen EB, Andersen JL, Magnusson P, Dyhre-Poulsen P (2002) Increased rate of force development and neural drive of human skeletal muscle following resistance training. J Appl Physiol 93:1318–1326CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen LL, Andersen JL, Zebis MK, Aagaard P (2010) Early and late rate of force development: differential adaptive responses to resistance training? Scand J Med Sci Sports 20:e162–e169CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Blazevich AJ, Horne S, Cannavan D, Coleman DR, Aagaard P (2008) Effect of contraction mode of slow-speed resistance training on the maximum rate of force development in the human quadriceps. Muscle Nerve 38:1046–1134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brzycki M (1993) Strength testing—predicting a one-rep max from reps-to-fatigue Journal of Physical Education. Recreation Dance 64:88–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Cormie P, McGuigan MR, Newton RU (2010) Adaptations in athletic performance after ballistic power versus strength training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 42:1582–1598CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. D’Antona G et al (2006) Skeletal muscle hypertrophy and structure and function of skeletal muscle fibres in male body builders. J Physiol 570:611–627CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Flanagan SP (2013) Biomechanics: a case-based approach. Jones & Bartlett LearningGoogle Scholar
  9. Haff GG, Nimphius S (2012) Training principles for power. Strength Condition J 34:2–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Heggelund J, Fimland MS, Helgerud J, Hoff J (2013) Maximal strength training improves work economy, rate of force development and maximal strength more than conventional strength training. Eur J Appl Physiol 113:1565–1573CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Henneman E, Somjen G, Carpenter DO (1965) Functional significance of cell size in spinal motoneurons. J Neurophysiol 28:560–580PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoffman JR (2006) Norms for fitness, performance and health. Human Kinetics, ChampaignGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoffman JR (2014) Physiological Aspects of Sport Training and Performance, 2nd edn. Human Kinetics, ChampaignGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Mangine GT, Ratamess NA, Hoffman JR, Faigenbaum AD, Kang J, Chilakos A (2008) The effects of combined ballistic and heavy resistance training on maximal lower-and upper-body strength in recreationally trained men The. J Strength Condition Res 22:132–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mangine GT et al (2015) The effect of training volume and intensity on improvements in muscular strength and size in resistance-trained men Physiological Reports 3:e12472PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Marshall P, McEwen M, Robbins D (2011) Strength and neuromuscular adaptation following one, four, and eight sets of high intensity resistance exercise in trained males. Eur J Appl Physiol 111:3007–3016CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. McGuigan MR, Winchester JB (2008) The relationship between isometric and dynamic strength in college football players. J Sports Sci Med 7:101–105PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. McGuigan MR, Newton MJ, Winchester JB, Nelson AG (2010) Relationship between isometric and dynamic strength in recreationally trained men The. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 24:2570–2573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moritani T (1993) Neuromuscular adaptations during the acquisition of muscle strength, power and motor tasks. J Biomech 26:95–107CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Naclerio F, Faigenbaum AD, Larumbe-Zabala E, Perez-Bibao T, Kang J, Ratamess NA, Triplett NT (2013) Effects of different resistance training volumes on strength and power in team sport athletes. J Strength Condition Res 27:1832–1840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nuzzo JL, McBride JM, Cormie P, McCaulley GO (2008) Relationship between countermovement jump performance and multijoint isometric and dynamic tests of strength. J Strength Condition Res 22:699–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Oliveira FB, Oliveira AS, Rizatto GF, Denadai BS (2013a) Resistance training for explosive and maximal strength: effects on early and late rate of force development. J Sports Sci Med 12:402–408PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Oliveira FB, Rizatto GF, Denadai BS (2013b) Are early and late rate of force development differently influenced by fast-velocity resistance training? Clin Physiol Funct Imaging 33:282–287CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Ratamess NA, Alvar BA, Evetoch TK, Housh TJ, Kibler WB, Kraemer WJ, Triplett NT (2009) American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exercise 41:687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vissing K et al (2008) Muscle adaptations to plyometric vs. resistance training in untrained young men The. J Strength Condition Res 22:1799–1810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. 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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerald T. Mangine
    • 1
  • Jay R. Hoffman
    • 2
  • Ran Wang
    • 2
  • Adam M. Gonzalez
    • 3
  • Jeremy R. Townsend
    • 2
  • Adam J. Wells
    • 2
  • Adam R. Jajtner
    • 2
  • Kyle S. Beyer
    • 2
  • Carleigh H. Boone
    • 2
  • Amelia A. Miramonti
    • 2
  • Michael B. LaMonica
    • 2
  • David H. Fukuda
    • 2
  • Nicholas A. Ratamess
    • 4
  • Jeffrey R. Stout
    • 2
  1. 1.Exercise Science and Sport ManagementKennesaw State UniversityKennesawGeorgia
  2. 2.Institute of Exercise Physiology and WellnessUniversity of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA
  3. 3.Department of Health ProfessionsHofstra UniversityHempsteadUSA
  4. 4.Health and Exercise ScienceThe College of New JerseyEwingUSA

Personalised recommendations