ExRx.net

What do you think the implications of this meta-analysis's results will
have on untrained individuals, Recreationally trained nonathletes and
the athlete populations?

Peter D. Mundy


The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: Vol. 19, No. 4, pp.
950-958.

Applications of the Dose-Response for Muscular Strength Development: A
Review of Meta-Analytic Efficacy and Reliability for Designing Training
Prescription

Mark D. Peterson and Brent A. Alvar

Department of Exercise and Wellness, Arizona State University, Tempe,
Arizona 85287

Matthew R. Rhea

Department of Physical Education, Southern Utah University, Cedar City,
Utah 84720

ABSTRACT

Peterson, M.D., M.R. Rhea, and B.A. Alvar. Applications of the
dose-response for muscular strength development: A review of
meta-analytic efficacy and reliability for designing training
prescription. J. Strength Cond. Res. 19(4):950-958. 2005.-There has
been a proliferation in recent scholarly discussion regarding the
scientific validity of single vs. multiple sets of resistance training
(dose) to optimize muscular strength development (response). Recent
meta-analytical research indicates that there exist distinct muscular
adaptations, and dose-response relationships, that correspond to
certain populations. It seems that training status influences the
requisite doses as well as the potential magnitude of response.
Specifically, for individuals seeking to experience muscular strength
development beyond that of general health, an increase in
resistance-training dosage must accompany increases in training
experience. The purpose of this document is to analyze and apply the
findings of 2 meta-analytical investigations that identified
dose-response relationships for 3 populations: previously untrained,
recreationally trained, and athlete; and thereby reveal distinct,
quantified, dose-response trends for each population segment. Two
meta-analytical investigations, consisting of 177 studies and 1,803
effect sizes (ES) were examined to extract the dose-response continuums
for intensity, frequency, volume of training, and the resultant
strength increases, specific to each population. ES data demonstrate
unique dose-response relationships per population. For untrained
individuals, maximal strength gains are elicited at a mean training
intensity of 60% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM), 3 days per week, and
with a mean training volume of 4 sets per muscle group. Recreationally
trained nonathletes exhibit maximal strength gains with a mean training
intensity of 80% of 1RM, 2 days per week, and a mean volume of 4 sets.
For athlete populations, maximal strength gains are elicited at a mean
training intensity of 85% of 1RM, 2 days per week, and with a mean
training volume of 8 sets per muscle group.These meta-analyses
demonstrate that the effort-to-benefit ratio is different for
untrained, recreationally trained, and athlete populations; thus,
emphasizing the necessity of appropriate exercise prescription to
optimize training effect. Exercise professionals may apply these
dose-response trends to prescribe appropriate, goal-oriented training
programs.

Direct link to the meta-analysis:

http://fortifiediron.com/invision/index ... st&id=9996

Well I'll be damned..... I never would have thought that would work. Of course it doesn't say how many reps are in a set. Is it to technical failure or is it just 4 reps or something? Now I wonder if they have any research on size that doesn't involve steroids. Wow if it is like 8X8 at 85%, twice a week.... that would be a lot of time in the gym and hard to get through. I wonder what the rest is? I would think the reps would have to keep going down as you get fatigued. Not to mention I know my 1RPM fresh and my 1RPM after 4 sets is VERY different. If anyone has any information on that I'd be interested in seeing it.

The abstract is talking about STRENGTH development, and multiple sets at around 85% is almost a given. Although it is not rep specific, most strength programs (emphasize strength) are based on reps between 1-5. A typical routine would indicate EDT (escalating density training) which would use this % of 1RM for something like 8-`10 sets of 2 reps within a given time period. *X8 might be more appropriate for either hypertrophy (longer rest periods) or for leaning out(minimal rest periods)
Tim

Now that I can beleive. Yea, I could get through 8 sets of 3 to 4 at 85%. I was gonna say..... I would be shocked to see someone who could do 8 of 6-8 at 85% which would be to failure or damn close, and stay at the same weight.

Of course I have seen a site where they talk about 3 full body work outs a week with going up in load with different rep ranges different weeks. They claim it is the best for size. I find it real hard to beleive. Who knows though, if you are not a beginner and you don't take steroids, there is very little hard proof about what is the best. I do good with what I do, but who knows, one of those off the wall routines might do just a little more. I never try them because they sound kind of hairbrained and I can't stand the idea of busting my ass for month or 2 with nothing to show for it.