Evidence-Based Resistance Training Recommendations: Part 1

The recent review by James Fisher, James Steele, Stewart Bruce-Low and Dave Smith should be on the “must read” list for everyone with an interest in exercise. In fact, you should download and read it before you read the rest of this post which is the first of several commentaries I will be writing on their review.

Fisher, James & Steele, James & Bruce-Low, Stewart & Smith, Dave. (2011). Evidence-Based Resistance Training Recommendations. Medicina Sportiva. 15. 147-162. 10.2478/v10036-011-0025-x.

Objective: There is considerable interest in attaining muscular hypertrophy in recreational gym-goers, bodybuilders, older adults, and persons suffering from immunodeficiency conditions. Multiple review articles have suggested guidelines for the most efficacious training methods to obtain muscular hypertrophy. Unfortunately these included articles that inferred hypertrophy markers such as hormonal measurements, used older techniques that might not be valid (e.g. circumference) and failed to appropriately consider the complexity of training variables.

Methods: The present commentary provides a narrative review of literature, summarising main areas of interest and providing evidence-based guidelines towards training for muscular hypertrophy.

Conclusions: Evidence supports that persons should train to the highest intensity of effort, thus recruiting as many motor units and muscle fibres as possible, self-selecting a load and repetition range, and performing single sets for each exercise. No specific resistance type appears more advantageous than another, and persons should consider the inclusion of concentric, eccentric and isometric actions within their training regime, at a repetition duration that maintains muscular tension. Between set/exercise rest intervals appear not to affect hypertrophy, and in addition the evidence suggests that training through a limited range of motion might stimulate similar results to full range of motion exercise.

The performance of concurrent endurance training appears not to negatively affect hypertrophy, and persons should be advised not to expect uniform muscle growth both along the belly of a muscle or for individual muscles within a group. Finally evidence suggests that short (~3 weeks) periods of detraining in trained persons does not incur significant muscular atrophy and might stimulate greater hypertrophy upon return to training.”

ACSM Position Papers and Responses and Anti-HIT Bias in the Field of Exercise

The authors correctly point out the guidelines in the 2002 and 2009 position papers on resistance training from the American College of Sports Medicine are not supported by the research in general and many of the statements were not supported by the references cited  for them. In addition to misinterpretation of the studies cited there were several relevant studies which were not considered, suggesting a selection bias.

Having read the position stands and the reviews and various responses to them by Otto, Carpinelli, Winett, and others, and much of the following discussion, the tradition-based, anti-HIT bias of much of the field is obvious. There are numerous reasons for this, but I suspect the two biggest are the influence of competitive weight lifting when athletes finally realized strength training was not going to make them muscle-bound and slow and were looking for guidance, and the industry backlash against Nautilus inventor Arthur Jones’ due to the perceived threat to competitors in the fitness equipment industry and to the egos of various “experts” in the field whose ignorance Arthur enjoyed pointing out.

In the earlier half of the last century athletes avoided strength training because they believed it would make them slow and inflexible, a condition referred to as being “muscle-bound”. This perception started to change in the 1950’s, and having previously avoided strength training most athletes and coaches had little or no knowledge of how to train and turned to the Olympic lifters, incorrectly assuming their expertise in competitive weight lifting would apply to the training of other athletes. This is where a lot of the misconceptions about lifting speed and explosiveness come from and the reason football players and other athletes are often told to perform power cleans and other quick lifts which are primarily skill based movements which have nothing to do with the skills of their sport and are relatively poor ways of building strength in the muscles involved.

Arthur Jones training a subject on the "Happiness Machine"When Arthur Jones’ articles started appearing in Iron Man magazine in 1970 he was very critical of popular training methods, particularly the very high volume approach then popular with bodybuilders and the use of explosive lifts by athletes outside of competitive weight lifting, earning him the ire of many of the “experts” at the time. The vastly superior Nautilus machines also represented a huge threat to competitors, barbell manufacturers in particular, most of whom were advertisers in the bodybuilding and fitness magazines at that time. To appease his advertisers and to spite Arthur for not advertising in his magazines Joe Weider published a long series of articles in Muscle & Fitness attributed to various bodybuilders which attacked Jones and his Nautilus machines.

Jones had a tendency to insult and belittle those he disagreed with and nobody likes being told they’re wrong, much less called an “idiot”, especially when they are claiming to be or believe they are an expert on the subject. This certainly didn’t help matters, especially when both reputations and large sums of money were at stake. People associated the Nautilus Training Principles (later named “High Intensity Training” by Ellington Darden and eventually being abbreviated to “HIT”) with Arthur, even though the principles had been around and in practice long before Arthur started writing and talking about them. Due to both their personal dislike of Arthur and the challenges his training principles presented to their contradictory and unfounded beliefs about exercise these “experts” developed a strong bias against HIT.

Despite Arthur having been right about most things and the majority of exercise research over the past several decades reinforcing his recommendations, this anti-HIT bias is still going strong. This is particularly evident in organizations like the NSCA which bases many of its resistance training guidelines on the myths and misconceptions resulting from the early influence of competitive weight lifting on athletic training, and whose former president William Kraemer contributed to and I believe was to blame for much of the unsupported recommendations the ACSM’s 2002 position stand.

Intensity, Load and Repetition Range

Most in the field of exercise use the term “intensity” to refer to the percentage of one’s one repetition maximum load used during an exercise. Because of this, there is often a disconnect when discussing training intensity with people outside of the high intensity training community where the term is used to refer to the percentage of one’s maximum effort used during an exercise.  For the reasons stated in the review, the definition based on effort is the correct one, since percentages of one rep maximum loads can result in varying levels of difficulty for individuals with a different fatigue response.

This is one of the reasons I rarely perform one repetition maximum testing with clients to determine starting loads and discourage others from doing so without expert supervision. Different trainees will be able to perform widely different numbers of repetitions with a given percentage of their one rep max and the test itself is unreliable. A typical one repetition maximum test involves one or more light warm up sets, followed by a series of maximum attempts, starting with an individuals estimated one rep max, either based on previous test performance or on calculations or tables which give an average and are not appropriate for all individuals. Any one rep max test will involve at least two attempts. If the first attempt fails, the weight is reduced for the second. If it succeeds, the weight is increased. Even after several minutes rest there will still be a momentary reduction in strength due to microtrauma, resulting in a decrease in the strength available for subsequent tests.

The best case scenerior would be if you succeed on the first attempt and fail on the second with a slightly heavier weight, which gives you a rough idea of your max, but you still won’t know if you might have been capable of succeeding with the heavier weight if not for the first attempt.

There are additional problems with this when working with new trainees. Due to a lack of skill and familiarity with both the exercise and the ability to put forth a true, maximum effort, the one rep maximums of new trainees will understate their actual strength. If the test is being done to determine starting loads or in conjunction with a fatigue response test to determine rep range, the result may be a load that is too low or a rep range that is too high based on the individual’s actual strength and fatigue response. Loads should be lower and reps higher starting out for learning purposes, but not because the trainer or trainee is putting too much confidence in the results of one rep max testing.

In addition to the above problems with using one repetition maximum testing to measure strength (there are many more) there are problems with performing a muscular endurance test by performing a set to failure with some percentage of the estimated one rep max afterwards to determine an individual’s relative endurance or fatigue response. Like the one rep max test, both the trainee’s skill and their ability to push to a point of true muscular failure will limit the number of repetitions they perform. Additionally, the time between the one rep max test and the endurance test has an effect on performance. If the endurance test is done too soon after performance will suffer due to fatigue or a reduction in muscle force caused by microtrauma. If the endurance test is done too long after performance may be improved slightly as a result of adaptations stimulated during the one rep max efforts.

Another problem with using one rep max testing with beginners is when the above problems aren’t considered subsequent tests appear to show much greater strength gains than actually occurred. Most improvements in exercise performance during the first six to eight weeks of training are due to neural adaptations, improvements in skill and confidence, and acclimation to the discomfort associated with intense muscular work. Comparing one rep max tests performed at the start and after six to eight weeks of training will give you some impressive numbers, but it is misleading to claim these accurately represent increases in strength.

This is also a huge problem with exercise studies which rely on one rep max testing and are of too short a duration to rule out factors other than strength as major contributors to improved test performance. A bigger problem with this is neural adaptation and skill benefit from more frequent practice, so a higher number of sets or greater training frequency may result in improved test performance in shorter studies, resulting in misleading conclusions about the effects of different numbers of sets or frequency of training on strength. Due to these factors, during shorter studies with previously untrained subjects using skill based tests like one repetition maximums, the deck is stacked in favor of multiple sets and higher frequency. To accurately determine which is more effective for improving strength studies must be of long enough duration to rule out skill and neural adaptations as a significant factor in test performance. Ideally, pre-testing shouldn’t even be performed until after the first six to eight weeks and should be static to minimize the influence of skill and other factors associated with dynamic testing.

An Alternative to One Rep Max Testing

The goal for a new trainee or when starting a new exercise should be to learn and practice correct performance during the first few weeks while gradually working up to a high level of intensity, and the starting load and repetition range should be appropriate to that goal. One repetition maximum testing is not required to determine either. Start with a light load, test and increase until it feels only moderately challenging during the first few reps, and aim for 10 to 15 repetitions (approximately sixty to ninety seconds at a controlled pace).

After a reasonable level of proficiency has been gained, the repetition range can be reduced or increased based on the individual and their goals. While a wide range of loads and rep ranges will work, some people will have a preference for or respond better to higher or lower repetitions and goals must also be considered. If a person has a difficult time performing more than some lower number of repetitions but is able to handle increases in loads without their reps dropping too much, use that as their upper guide number. If a person has a hard time handling increases in resistance without first performing some higher number of reps, use that as their upper guide number.

Another problem with one rep max testing is it encourages the exact opposite mentality you want during exercise. The focus during exercise should not be on lifting as much weight as possible, which requires moving in a way that makes the exercise easier, but on using the weight to challenge the muscles as effectively as possible, which requires moving in a way that makes the exercise harder. The only people who should perform one repetition maximums are competitive lifters. There is no good reason for anyone else to do so.

A more accurate way to evaluate strength increases would be to compare the loads used for the prescribed repetition range over time, starting after the first two months of training. If, for example, during a workout three months ago you performed 10 repetitions of an exercise with 200 pounds and you recently performed 10 repetitions with 220 your strength increased by 10% during that time (assuming the same style of performance, equipment settings, etc.). If you are keeping accurate records of your workouts, or your clients’ workouts if you’re a trainer, you have all the data you need without having to perform inaccurate and unnecessarily risky one repetition maximum testing.

Part 2: Momentary Muscular Failure

Join the discussion or ask questions about this post in the HIT List forum

Like it? Share it!

Comments on this entry are closed.

  • Dwayne Wimmer Sep 20, 2011 @ 11:28

    Drew,

    Another GREAT Post. I will be passing it on to our clients.

    Thanks,

    Dwayne Wimmer

    • Drew Baye Sep 20, 2011 @ 11:39

      Thanks Dwayne,

      I’m glad you like it, because there’s a lot more coming. Elements of Form is almost wrapped up and after that I’ll be posting commentary on and thoughts related to the review every couple days or so for the next few weeks.

  • Mike Sep 20, 2011 @ 16:44

    Drew,

    Awesome research review that you link to. I appreciate your rigorous and logical approach in your writing. It is critical and looking at new evidence, and it is not just a constant throwback/appeal to authority that some others fall into “I trained with mentzer and he said . . ., so i’ve been doing that for the last 30 years” (this is not a criticism of mike mentzer).

    Mike

    • Drew Baye Sep 20, 2011 @ 17:03

      Thanks Mike,

      I hope this series of posts gets more people to read the Fisher review and sparks some discussion of it. It does a great job of dispelling a lot of the misinformation promoted as science by various “experts” and organizations and summarizing what research really shows about how we should train.

  • Karthik Sep 21, 2011 @ 5:58

    Great read as usual. Just wanted to seek permission if I could post the review article on my blog.

    Karthik

    • Drew Baye Sep 21, 2011 @ 11:08

      Karthik,

      Sure thing. The review article is freely available on the web and the more people getting the word out the better.

  • James Steele II Sep 21, 2011 @ 8:53

    Great review so far Drew and thankyou for sharing the paper.

    Regarding 1RM testing I don’t know if you’ve read Dr Carpinelli’s recent paper dismissing it also.

    http://www.medicinasportiva.pl/new/pliki/ms_2011_02_09_Carpinelli.pdf

    • Drew Baye Sep 21, 2011 @ 11:09

      Hey James,

      Thanks. I have not read Dr. Carpinelli’s paper on it yet, but will read it today when I’m done training clients and follow up on it as well.

  • Leo Sep 21, 2011 @ 9:17

    Thanks. Well worth posting and reading.

  • Thomas Sep 21, 2011 @ 11:59

    Hi Drew-great paper and nice review so far. I think part of the bias against HIT, as you indicated, is many of HIT’s proponents (such as Arthur Jones, but there are many others) somewhat over the top tendency to belittle others and their techniques, especially when it comes to its effectiveness. While HIT may be more effective than volume training (I think it is, I know you think it is), there seems to be many shades of grey that make this arguable. Having said that, I think where HIT really shines is in its efficiency and safety, which make it a much better long term training system choice versus volume training. I’m specifically referring to your brand of HIT as well as BBS, where the exercises are done with impeccable form and a reasonable amount of resistance for maximum tension. Simply put, the human body cannot take the repetitive load that volume training gives over long periods of time. This is especially true when significant weights are used. As for efficiency, who in their right mind has time to do large volume training (1-2 hours per workout, 4-6 days per week) for any real length of time, outside the ranks of kids and professional athletes? HIT shines here, and based on the time put in, the results are usually excellent, so the effectiveness argument can be made as well (based on the time spent). Safe and efficient, those are the two greatest benefits to HIT that are really hard to argue against as far as I’m concerned-and these are very significant benefits, probably superseding effectiveness as a benefit.

    • Drew Baye Sep 21, 2011 @ 12:41

      Thomas,

      There are a lot of ways to train that will produce worthwhile results for most people. Not all of them, however, will produce results as safely, as quickly, or as efficiently and I believe these things are important which is why I do and teach high intensity training. My problem with a lot of those other methods is the false or misleading claims they make about the necessity or superiority of doing things not supported by research and which lead people to waste a lot of time and take unnecessary risks in pursuit of their fitness and physique goals.

  • jay Sep 21, 2011 @ 12:08

    Not too mention form on a 1RM. I don’t know about anyone else but I am not looking to potentially hurt anyone!!

    • Drew Baye Sep 21, 2011 @ 12:32

      Hey Jay,

      Exactly. If you’re a competitive lifter it’s a risk you accept as part of participation in your sport, but there is no reason for anyone else to do them and it is pointless and irresponsible for trainers or coaches to have their clients, students or athletes performing one rep max testing. I’ve read the Carpinelli paper James mentioned and will be commenting on that as well, once I finish the series on the Evidence Based Resistance Training Recommendations review.

  • Thomas Sep 21, 2011 @ 13:38

    Drew-I totally agree and your response says it all (I’m going to copy it because it’s the perfect way to deal with those anti-HIT-ites ).

    Having said that, I’ve been experimenting with body weight exercise “ladders”, which really ends up being a high volume workout. I do chins and dips and try to avoid failure by doing a lot of low rep sets, in alternating fashion. I’m getting up to about 110-120 reps in a 20 minute time period. I’m doing this as a met-con workout, and it has actually been quite fun. I am avoiding failure as too much failure training tends to really drive me into the ground (I do a full body HIT every 4-5 days). It has been interesting as my arms have responded to this ladder workout quite well-about ½ inch increase in the past 30 days. In the past I’ve tried this with squats and presses (with a barbell) and it ends up being too much of a repetitive load, causing me to get really sore and achy (doing a 100 reps of squats with 200 lbs takes its toll very quickly, even if you never reach failure). Do you think body weight exercises can be a legitimate exception to the HIT philosophy? The less muscular fatigue I feel, the more reps I can do, which allows me to keep going for a longer period of time and gives a great met-con workout. Any thoughts?

    • Drew Baye Sep 21, 2011 @ 18:25

      Thomas,

      High intensity training can be done with machines, free weights, body weight, elastic/auxotonic resistance, manual resistance, etc. It isn’t the tool but how it is used that would make it HIT or not.

      The volume and pace of work you’re doing isn’t much different from a typical HIT routine. Even if you mean 110 to 120 reps per each exercise, or 220 to 240 total, this wouldn’t be that much different than doing the old 14 to 16 exercise Nautilus circuit workouts. However, you would be better off dividing the work up over a larger number of exercises to more effectively work all the major muscle groups and reduce the repetitive joint movements, and training each of those exercises harder. You’d achieve the same or better metabolic conditioning effect, especially with the addition of a multi-joint hip and thigh movement, plus better strength gains by performing each exercise harder.

  • Thomas Sep 21, 2011 @ 19:45

    Thanks Drew, I always appreciate your advice. I’m looking forward tothe rest of EOF.

    • Drew Baye Sep 21, 2011 @ 19:56

      Thanks,

      Trying to get as much done as I can every day. Almost there 🙂

  • Txomin Sep 21, 2011 @ 22:24

    Extremely useful. Thank you very much for the link to the paper and the post. Your elaboration on the one rep max is particularly valuable to me. Good karma to you.

  • Steven.turner Sep 23, 2011 @ 1:48

    Hi Drew,

    Quoted from one of the so-called experts, “maximum effort muscle action, which we will term “explosive muscular power.”, and it goes on with the attempt to relate this to sports performance. A number of years ago at out local Police and Citizens Youth club we entered a team into the local volleyball competition, a number of the players were also from the olympic weight lifters. Talk about uncordinated, minimal jump height, no balance for volleyball, no amount of practice made much difference to their volleyball skill level. But back in the olympic weight lifting room and these people were lifting weights “explosively” and what looked like “well oil machined’.

    Over the years I have trained many people in a variety of sports and no repeat no amount of “explosive training improved their skills in a particualr sport. Many of these people come to a particular sport already displaying a high level of skill. Some people I think Arthur Jones “neurological efficiency” I remember some kids at school who were good at a number of different sports I now know that they probably had a high level of neurological efficiency compared to many of us others.

    A final quote from the article, “athletes should train at the velocity and use resistance that maximise the mechanical power output. Arthur Jones mentioned that once resistance is placed on a body part it will move slower than with resistance. I see they always include the Power calcualtion but do not fully explain the many ways that power can be increased. My thoughts, I look forward to further posts

  • adambudnik Sep 23, 2011 @ 4:27

    Brilliant post Drew!! A basic guide for anyone looking to train for strength in safe and productive way. Unfortunately still lots of people consider “more is better” approach as the only way to achive their personal goals. There is so little emphesis on quality and so much on quantity. I’m looking forward for part II

    adam

  • Drew Baye Sep 24, 2011 @ 10:12

    Robin,

    To answer your question (which consisted mainly of unfounded personal attacks on Jones’, Mentzer’s and Darden’s which will not be posted), all the arguments you proposed are based on the ad hominem fallacy and are invalid. If someone wants to argue for a higher training volume they must do so with evidence supporting their position, not attacks on people they disagree with.

  • Steven Turner Sep 27, 2011 @ 21:32

    Hi Drew,

    I have just read an article “Developing Explosive Muscular Power: Implications for a Mixed Methods Training Strategy” by Newton and Kraemer written in 1994. I think that similar articles like this have been written many times since 1994 possibly with the same references and the same scientific quoted research methods. I must say that I am not an expert- expert on the scientific methods but I would think that most people with a basic understanding of the scientific methods would greatly question these types of articles.

    Quote “Perhaps the most interesting finding was that the 30% resitance group produced the greatest increase in force and power over the entire concentric velocity range and also resulted in the greatest increase in maximum mechanical power.” To me this just does not add up in relation to muscle physiology, muscle mechanics and physics for that matter – to me it make no sense. I also notice where research opposes this type of explosive movement – it is always noted, “further research is needed”, this article was written in 1994 where is the further research. The article even admits that ploymetrics are dangerous but still go ahead and recommend a plyometric program. They mention something about motivation and power training words to the effect if you lose motivation for power training than feedback from… “in the form of jump heights can help maintain motivation”.

    Last thing that I have had some thought about is funtional movement training that appears to make not much sense to me is “train movement not muscles” my response try moving without using your muscles” you must be training your muscles, just another in effective way to train your muscles.

    • Trace Jan 31, 2013 @ 14:31

      Hi Steve,

      You’ve noted the accepted (and cemented) view among physical therapists and sports medicine folk who think exclusively about body mechanics for obvious reasons. Their goal is to rehabilitate the injured so that they can return to acceptable functional activity. Few therapists understand (or want to understand) real strength exercise beyond rehab applications. However, the modalities – which originated from theraputic work – have infiltrated the general fitness market as evidenced with stability balls, bosu balls, wobble boards and resistant bands. It’s a joke at the expense of the wider (non-athletic) public who really need to effectively and safely increase their muscle mass. Health and Human Services should be ashamed. Thank you for bringing this up.

      And thanks, Drew, for this great post and the links to the research! It seems to me that more recent studies are consistently confirming high intensity exercise. I also loved the historical detail you described. All of the national certification organizations appear to be as lost as their public when it comes to reality. Of course many companies are making money and a lot of people are making a living immersed in convuluted stastics and protocols in a futile attempt to confirm a fundamentally unscientific position. I’m ACSM certified and I’m disgusted.

      • Drew Baye Jan 31, 2013 @ 15:34

        Trace,

        You’re welcome. Unfortunately there is a lot of bad research out there but most people assume if it’s published in a scientific journal it must be true and don’t know enough to be able to critically analyze the methods.

        • Trace Feb 1, 2013 @ 21:56

          Drew,

          Yes, that’s how the “experts” control the market. Only the more intelligent trainees make the better choice – provided they are fortunate enough to find the right instructor in the maze of confusion.

  • JF Oct 5, 2011 @ 11:59

    Hi Drew,

    You mention that Part 2 will be about momentary muscular failure. If you discuss how to better achieve it, I would be very interested in reading your thoughts about John Little’s Max Pyramid protocol.

    http://www.bodybyscience.net/home.html/?page_id=798
    http://www.bodybyscience.net/home.html/?p=843

    Thanks!
    JF