European Journal of Sport Science

ISSN: 1746-1391 (Print) 1536-7290 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tejs20

The interplay between internal and external load

parameters during different strength training
sessions in resistance-trained men

André S. Martorelli, Filipe D. de Lima, Amilton Vieira, James J. Tufano, Carlos

Ernesto, Daniel Boullosa & Martim Bottaro

To cite this article: André S. Martorelli, Filipe D. de Lima, Amilton Vieira, James J. Tufano, Carlos
Ernesto, Daniel Boullosa & Martim Bottaro (2020): The interplay between internal and external load
parameters during different strength training sessions in resistance-trained men, European Journal
of Sport Science, DOI: 10.1080/17461391.2020.1725646

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2020.1725646

Accepted author version posted online: 03

Feb 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tejs20
 1

Publisher: Taylor & Francis & European College of Sport Science

Journal: European Journal of Sport Science
DOI: 10.1080/17461391.2020.1725646

The interplay between internal and external load parameters

during different strength training sessions in resistance-trained

men

André S. Martorelli1, Filipe D. de Lima2,3, Amilton Vieira4, James J. Tufano5, Carlos

Ernesto6, Daniel Boullosa7,8, Martim Bottaro9

Corresponding Author: Daniel Boullosa

Address: Universidade de Brasília (UnB), Campus Universitário Darcy Ribeiro, Faculdade de

Educação Física, Brasília – DF, Brazil. Zip code: 70910-900. Phone: +55 61 984355610. Fax:

+55 61 31072500. E-mail: [email protected]

1
Federal Institute of Goiás – IFG, Valparaíso, Brazil.
2
College of Health Sciences, University of Brasília - UnB, Brasília, Brazil.
3
College of Education and Health Sciences, University Center of Brasília - UniCEUB,

Brasília, Brazil.
4
College of Physical Education, University of Brasília – UnB, Brasília, Brazil.
5
Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
6
Catholic University of Brasília, Brasília, Brazil.
7
Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil.
 2

8
Graduate Program in Movement Sciences, INISA, Federal University of Mato Grosso do

Sul, Campo Grande, Brazil.

9
College of Physical Education, University of Brasília – UnB, Brasília, Brazil.
 3

Abstract

External load influences internal load in resistance training (RT). The purpose of the present

study was to compare the total volume-load, perceptual and stress responses during three

different RT protocols. Twelve resistance-trained men completed three different RT protocols

with the back squat and bench press exercises: 1) power (POW) (5 sets of 6 repetitions at

50%1RM, 2-min of rest), 2) hypertrophy (HYP) (5 sets-to-failure at 75%1RM, 2-min of rest),

and 3) strength (STR) (5 sets-to-failure at 90%1RM, 3-min of rest). Volume-load (kg × reps.),

session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE), training impulse (TRIMP; reps. × sRPE),

cortisol, immunoglobulin A (IgA), lactate, and creatine kinase (CK) were assessed before

and/or after the sessions. HYP was the most demanding session in terms of volume-load (p <

0.001), TRIMP (p < 0.001), cortisol (p = 0.001), lactate (p < 0.001), and CK (p = 0.001).

Despite POW exhibited a greater volume-load than STR (p = 0.016), the latter exhibiting a

greater sRPE (p < 0.001), and a greater post-session CK (p = 0.05). However, the TRIMP of

STR and POW were not statistically different (152 vs. 260 AU; p = 0.089). These specific

responses could be meditated by the presence of muscular failure. When pooling all the

sessions, significant correlations were revealed among external and internal stress markers (r

= 0.35-0.80; p ≤ 0.05). The use of TRIMP could be recommended as a simple and valid

monitoring tool which integrates into a single parameter the internal and the external loads of

RT sessions.

Keywords:

Internal load, perceptual responses, resistance training, muscular strength, muscular power,

muscle hypertrophy, repetitions-to-failure.

 4

Introduction

Resistance training (RT) is often used to develop muscle strength and functional

capacity, preserve health, and improve athletic performance (Faigenbaum et al., 2009). To

optimize adaptations for specific training goals, acute programming variables such as exercise

selection and order, training volume and intensity, lifting velocity, and inter-set rest intervals

are manipulated (Scott, Duthie, Thornton, & Dascombe, 2016). Although changing such

variables may seem simple at a first glance, complexity arises as a change in one variable

(e.g. rest intervals) may result in an inadvertent, subsequent change of other variables (e.g.

lifting velocity and training volume). Within this context, it is common to manipulate the

external load to achieve a desired number of repetitions by prescribing a “repetition

maximum” load whereby the given load is lifted until muscular failure. However, to add

flexibility to this approach, repetition-loading zones (i.e. a low number of repetitions could be

lifted with high loads and vice versa), with or without the attainment of muscular failure, can

be used when looking for specific adaptations.

Among many different possible-loading zones, a low-repetition zone (e.g. choosing a

load that can be lifted <5 times, creating a 1 to 5 repetition maximum [RM]), is traditionally

used to develop maximal muscular strength (STR), whereas a moderate-repetition zone (8 to

12RM) is commonly used for muscular hypertrophy (HYP) development. Rather than

prescribing maximal loads which are related to a specific RM, submaximal loads or

percentages (%) of RM loads can also be used to promote specific adaptations. For example,

performing few repetitions but with maximal velocity using light to moderate loads (30 to

50%1RM) is recommended for optimal muscular power (POW) development (ACSM, 2009).

However, paying attention solely to the external load and the repetition loading zone might

not be sufficient to quantify the physiological stress associated with RT (Marston, Peiffer,

Newton, & Scott, 2017). For instance, a high internal training load may be an indicator of
 5

overreaching, overtraining or even injury (Meeusen et al., 2013). Therefore, it would be

important to monitor, not only external load parameters, but also internal load parameters

during RT sessions for a better understanding of acute and chronic adaptations.

Internal load can be defined as the physiological and psychological response of an

individual during exercise (Bourdon et al., 2017; Impellizzeri, Marcora, & Coutts, 2019). The

internal load has been quantified via multitude of measures including perceptual (e.g. session

rating of perceived exertion [sRPE]) (Day, McGuigan, Brice, & Foster, 2004; Herman,

Foster, Maher, Mikat, & Porcari, 2006), metabolic (e.g. lactate), endocrine (e.g. cortisol (M.

R. McGuigan, Egan, & Foster, 2004; Neves Sda et al., 2009; Nunes et al., 2011), immune

(e.g. immunoglobulin A [IgA]) (Neves Sda, et al., 2009; Nunes, et al., 2011; Rahimi, Qaderi,

Faraji, & Boroujerdi, 2010), and muscle damage (e.g. creatine kinase [CK]) (Pareja-Blanco et

al., 2016; Uchida et al., 2009) markers. Of these, sRPE has arguably become one of the most

popular methods to quantify the internal load during RT (Hiscock, Dawson, & Peeling, 2015;

Sweet, Foster, McGuigan, & Brice, 2004), probably due its simplicity. However, a consensus

has not been reached regarding which factors primarily affect the sRPE response to RT. For

example, Sweet, et al. (2004) suggested that sRPE is primarily affected by the external load

(%1RM), whereas Hiscock, Dawson, Clarke, & Peeling (2018) recently reported that sRPE

could be more affected by volume-load (number of repetitions × weight lifted [kg]). This

apparent inconsistency might be explained by several factors. For instance, a previous study

(Pritchett, Green, Wickwire, & Kovacs, 2009) suggested that when sets of repetitions are

performed until failure, the total volume is the main factor affecting the sRPE response, which

may be a consequence of a greater training volume being completed when performing

repetitions to failure.

Moreover, sets involving repetitions to failure could also lead to greater perceptual

(Pritchett, et al., 2009), hormonal and metabolic responses, thus muting power development
 6

(Pareja-Blanco et al., 2017), and confirming the limitation of the “repetition maximum”

approach. In this regard, simultaneous examination of the relationships between sRPE and

other internal (e.g. lactate, cortisol) and external (e.g. volume) load parameters may help to

better understand these differences between RT sessions. However, the recent study by

Hiscock, et al. (2017) did not find any relationship between these parameters during HYP,

STR and POW sessions. This may be due in part because this previous study (Hiscock, et al.,

2017) was performed with male team sport athletes and not only resistance-trained

individuals. Given that training background and status could be factors influencing on the

relationships between internal and external load parameters (Impellizzeri, et al., 2019), further

examination of these relationships in only resistance-trained individuals are required. This

information may assist strength and conditioning professionals for better planning training

programs. Moreover, elucidation of the influence of external load on different internal load

markers would help for better selecting efficient monitoring tools for RT. Therefore, the

purpose of this study was to compare the effects of typical power (POW), hypertrophy (HYP)

and strength (STR) RT sessions on various internal load-related parameters in resistance-

trained men, and to look for the relationships between internal and external load parameters.

Materials and methods

Study Design

To compare the volume load, perceptual effort, and physiological responses from RT

sessions designed for POW, HYP and STR, resistance-trained men volunteered to participate

in this study. Participants attended to the laboratory eight days. The first visit included bench

press and back squat 1RM testing in the Smith machine, and the second visit included a re-

test of every 1RM to confirm the previous 1RM determination (Brown and Weir, 2001).

During these visits, participants were also familiarized to the experimental conditions of the
 7

study. In the 3rd, 5th, and 7th visits, volunteers performed POW, HYP and STR protocols in a

counterbalanced order (see Figure 1). 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 7th visits were separated by at least

72 hours in order to avoid residual fatigue from previous protocols. The sRPE was assessed

30-min after each protocol. Pre- and post-exercise blood samples were taken to assess

circulating levels of cortisol, IgA, and lactate. Additionally, CK was measured pre- and post-

24 hrs after the 4th, 6th, and 8th visits.

[Insert Figure 1 here]

Participants

Twelve men completed the study and their data were used for further analyses (Table

1). To be included, volunteers must have been involved in a structured strength training

program for at least one year without interruption, and be able to perform a 1RM with a load

≥ 1.5 and 1.0 times their body mass in the Smith machine back squat and bench press

exercises, respectively. Participants were excluded if they had any history of neuromuscular,

metabolic, hormonal, or cardiovascular disease, or if they were taking any medication that

could affect dependent variables. In addition, they were excluded if they reported any

physical impairment on a clinical questionnaire. Participants were informed about the design

and experimental procedures of the study in addition to all possible risks and signed and

informed consent form. In addition, they were instructed to maintain their habitual dietary

intake, not to drink or eat during the experimental sessions, and to avoid any exercise during

all experimental timeframe. All procedures were approved by the institutional review board of

the University of Brasilia (1.579.550) in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

[Insert Table 1 here]

 8

Assessment of one-repetition maximum (1-RM)

To determine the individualized loads to be used during the POW, HYP and STR

sessions, participants’ 1RM were determined for the back squat and bench press exercises,

performed in a Smith machine (Rotech Fitness Equipment, model RTGL 7100). The bench

press exercise was performed throughout a full range of motion, while during the back squat,

an elastic band was attached to the Smith machine to encourage consistent bar displacement

(from 0º to 90º of knee flexion) during all experimental procedures. 1RM tests were

performed using a progressive trial and error procedure (Brown and Weir, 2001), consisting

of: 1) A warm-up of 8 repetitions at ~50% of 1RM; 2) 3 repetitions at ~70% 1RM; 3) single

repetitions with five minutes of rest between successful attempts, aiming for approximately

~85% during the first attempt, and increasing the load by 2.5 to 10 kg in every attempt

(Harman, Baechle, Earle, & Champaign, 2000). A valid 1RM was considered when

participants successfully completed the targeted range of movement with a correct technique

as subjectively assessed by two evaluators. Volunteers were re-tested 72 hours after to

confirm the 1RM load using the same procedures. For back squat 1RM, the intra-class

correlation (ICC) was 0.99, typical error of measurement (TEM) was 4.8 kg, and coefficient

of variation (CV) was 3.2%. For bench press 1RM, the ICC was 0.97, the TEM was 2.3 kg,

and CV was 1.49% (Hopkins, 2000). The greatest 1RM was subsequently used to calculate

the training intensity zones for POW, HYP, and STR sessions.
 9

Resistance training protocols

RT sessions were mainly designed following ACMS guidelines (ACSM, 2009) but

with some adaptations following our research team discussions and considering the training

practices of participants. The sessions included the back squat and bench press exercises in

the Smith machine, as these exercises recruit major muscle groups of the lower and upper

limbs, and they are the most used in research and RT programs. The same order of exercises

was adopted in all training sessions (i.e. back squat before bench press). The HYP session

was composed of 5 sets of repetitions to failure at 75% of 1RM, with 2-min of inter-set rest.

The STR session was composed of 5 sets of repetitions to failure at 90% of 1RM, with 3-min

of inter-set rest. The POW session was composed of 5 sets of 6 repetitions, at 50% of 1RM,

with 2-min of inter-set rest. Participants were asked to perform the eccentric phase of every

repetition in all sessions for approximately 2 s. During HYP and STR protocols, the

concentric phase of every repetition was performed for approximately 2 s. During POW, the

concentric phase of every repetition was performed as fast as possible. After each session, the

total volume-load was calculated by multiplying the number of repetitions completed by the

external load used (kg). All sessions were completed under thermoneutral conditions (i.e. 21-

24 ºC and <40% of relative humidity).

Blood markers

To measure cortisol and IgA responses, 5 mL blood samples were collected pre- and

immediately post-exercise. The blood samples were taken from the antecubital vein using

standard venipuncture technique with a vacuum sealed kit. Samples were left to sit

undisturbed for 30-min at room temperature and were then centrifuged at 2500 rpm for 8-min

for plasma separation. The serum cortisol samples were then stored between 2 and 8 ºC, and

IgA samples were stored at room temperature. The blood samples were then analyzed using
 10

chemiluminescence for cortisol (CV of 7.6%, limit of detection between 0.20–75 μg/dL) and

nephelometry for IgA (CV of 17%, limit of detection of 25 mg/dL).

To measure blood lactate, the fingertip was pricked with a lancet after local asepsis

with alcohol (70º) and dry cotton. Thereafter, 25 L of blood were collected from the

fingertip using capillary tubes before and 3-min following the exercise protocols. The samples

were deposited in Eppendorf tubes containing 50 L of sodium fluoride (1%) and stored at -

20º C until further analyses via electroenzymatic methods (resolution of 0.1 and linear range

of 30.0 mMol/L) (YSI lactate analyzer, model 2300 Sport).

To measure serum CK, the fingertip was pricked with a lancet after local asepsis with

alcohol (70º) and a dry cotton. Thereafter, 32 L of blood were taken from the fingertip using

a heparinized capillary tube pre- and 24 hrs post-exercise. A portable CK analyzer

(Reflotron® Analyzer, Roche, Switzerland) with a linearity of measurement of 1400 U/L and

precision of 0.2%, was used to analyze the samples (Horder et al., 1991).

Session Rate of Perceived Exertion (sRPE) and Training Impulse (TRIMP)

To assess the sRPE of POW, HYP and STR sessions, standard instructions and

procedures were explained to participants during the familiarization session (Day, et al., 2004;

Vieira et al., 2014). Participants rated their perceived exertion of the entire RT session 30-min

following every session, answering the question “How hard was your workout?” (Day, et al.,

2004; Foster et al., 2001; Michael R. McGuigan and Foster, 2004; Singh, Foster, Tod, &

McGuigan, 2007; Sweet, et al., 2004; Vieira, et al., 2014). Numbers from 0 to 10 were used to

quantify the perceived intensity of the entire workout session, indicating how hard they

perceived their exertion (Foster, et al., 2001; M. R. McGuigan, et al., 2004). Training impulse

(TRIMP), a measure of the training load (volume × intensity) of each session, was calculated

multiplying the number of repetitions completed by the sRPE (M. McGuigan, 2017).
 11

Statistical Analyses

The descriptive data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation. Data normality was

verified by the Shapiro-Wilk test. To assess the effects of POW, HYP and STR on volume

load, sRPE and TRIMP, a one-way repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests

was applied. Cortisol, IgA, and CK were analyzed using a two-way (session × moment)

repeated measures ANOVA. For all ANOVA tests, a Bonferroni post hoc correction was

performed if any interaction was found. Effect size analysis for ANOVA was also performed

through calculation of p
2
with known thresholds. Additionally, Hedges’g was also calculated

for effect size analyses because of the low sample size. A two-tailed Pearson product moment

correlation coefficient (r) was used for looking for relationships between external and internal

load parameters. In addition, a post hoc power calculation was performed for dependent

variables revealing ≥0.99 in all cases. All analyses were performed in SPSS (version 17.0)

and  = 0.05 was adopted.

Results

Pre- to post- changes in selected parameters are presented in Figure 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D,

2E, 2F, and 2G.

There was a main effect for protocol on volume-load (F = 54.806; p < 0.001; p
2
=

0.833). The volume-load performed in HYP was 125.8% greater than STR (p = 0.001) and

57.1% greater than POW (p < 0.001). Additionally, volume-load in STR was 43% lesser than

POW (p = 0.016).

There was a main effect for protocol on sRPE (F = 33.312; p < 0.001; p
2
= 0.752).

The sRPE in HYP was 77.1% greater than POW (p < 0.001). Also, the sRPE in STR was
 12

55.9% greater than POW (p < 0.001). There was no difference in sRPE between HYP and

STR (p = 0.125).

There was a main effect for protocol on TRIMP (F = 29.946; p < 0.001; p
2
= 0.731).

The TRIMP in HYP was 80.0% greater than POW (p = 0.005) and 207.5% greater than STR

(p < 0.001). There was no difference in TRIMP between POW and STR (p = 0.089).

There was a main effect for protocol (F = 8.015; p = 0.002; p

2
= 0.422) and for time

(F = 12.008; p = 0.005; p
2
= 0.522) on serum cortisol, in addition to a protocol*time

interaction (F = 16.499; p < 0.001; p

2
= 0.600). Serum cortisol increased 91% after HYP (p =

0.001; Hedges’g = 1.785) but did not change after STR (p = 0.194; Hedges’g = 0.438) or

POW (p = 0.176; Hedges’g = 0.352). Additionally, the cortisol after HYP was 60% greater

than after POW (p = 0.001), and 46% greater than after STR (p = 0.009).

There was a main effect for time (F = 42.532; p < 0.001; p

2
= 0.795) on IgA, but no

main effect for protocol (F = 0.136; p = 0.874; p

2
= 0.012), or protocol*time interaction (F =

0.684; p = 0.515; p
2
= 0.059). IgA increased 11% after HYP (p < 0.001; Hedges’g = 0.351),

7% after POW (p = 0.019; Hedges’g = 0.231), and 9% after STR (p = 0.002; Hedges’g =

0.280). There were no differences between conditions before (p > 0.05) or after the exercise

protocols (p > 0.05).

There was a main effect for time (F = 27.656; p < 0.001; p

2
= 0.959), protocol (F =

14.674; p < 0.001; p

2
= 0.471), and a time*protocol interaction for blood lactate (F = 27.293;

p < 0.001; p
2
= 0.623). Blood lactate increased (p < 0.05) after HYP (Hedges’g = 4.601),

POW (Hedges’g = 3.598) and STR (Hedges’g = 2.571). Additionally, the increase of blood

lactate after HYP was 266% greater than POW (p < 0.001) and 104% greater than STR (p =

0.010).
 13

There was a main effect for time (F = 12.858; p = 0.012; p

2
= 0.682) on CK.

However, there was not a main effect for protocol (F = 1.310; p = 0.306; p
2
= 0.179) or a

protocol*time interaction (F = 3.487; p = 0.064; p

2
= 0.368). Serum CK was elevated 224%

24h post HYP (p = 0.001; Hedges’g = 0.776) and 78% post STR protocol (p = 0.050;

Hedges’g = 0.1.074), but no significant increase after POW was found (p = 0.453; Hedges’g =

0.095). CK was 79% greater in HYP compared with POW 24h post-exercise (p = 0.039).

When pooling all the sessions, significant correlations were revealed among internal

and external load parameters. The coefficients of correlation (r) and the p values are presented

in Table 2.

[Insert Table 2 here]

[Insert Figure 2 here]

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to compare different variables related to internal and

external training loads in response to different RT sessions in resistance-trained men. The

main findings of this study were: 1) HYP resulted in a greater external volume-load, which

likely initiated the greater increases in internal training load indices (sRPE, serum cortisol,

blood lactate, and CK) and TRIMP; 2) POW induced the lowest internal responses in most

parameters compared to HYP and STR, despite POW resulting in a greater external volume-

load than STR; 3) A number of correlations were revealed between external and internal

workload parameters when pooling data from the three RT sessions. These findings indicate

that external training load indices such as volume-load do not directly correspond to internal

stress, especially when repetitions are not performed to muscular failure. In this regard, the

use of TRIMP, which integrates both internal and external load parameters (reps. × RPE),

would provide a simple and valid monitoring tool for RT practitioners.

 14

Previous studies have proposed that the sRPE response to RT is primarily affected by

exercise load (%1RM) or volume (Hiscock, et al., 2017; Hiscock, et al., 2015; McCaulley et

al., 2009; McLean, Coutts, Kelly, McGuigan, & Cormack, 2010; Pritchett, et al., 2009; Sweet,

et al., 2004), but our findings suggest that sRPE may be more influenced by the presence of

concentric muscular failure. Although HYP exhibited a greater external and physiological

stress, HYP and STR resulted in similar sRPE responses. Additionally, POW resulted in a

greater volume-load than STR, but resulted in a lower sRPE. Together, these findings indicate

that performing repetitions to muscular failure, as in HYP and STR, likely dictates an

athlete’s perception of effort to a larger degree than the total amount of mechanical work

completed.

In non-failure protocols, the external load seems to affect the perceptual response due

to a combination of acute neuromuscular adaptations (Hiscock, et al., 2015; Sweet, et al.,

2004). However, in protocols performed until failure, the volume-load is probably the primary

factor affecting the perceptual response due to an elevated metabolic stress (Pritchett, et al.,

2009). It is important to note that sRPE have been commonly proposed as a method to

quantify the internal load due its relationship with hormonal and physiological responses

(Hiscock, et al., 2015; Singh, et al., 2007; Sweet, et al., 2004). However, in the present study,

HYP and STR induced to similar responses despite a different volume-load, hormonal and

metabolic responses. This finding may be in agreement with a previous study (Vasquez et al.,

2013) in which no differences were found for RPE (6-20 Borg’s scale) in protocols until

failure performed at different intensities. This might suggest that solely the sRPE response

may be not a reasonable method to quantify the internal load during resistance exercise when

repetitions to failure are performed. Meanwhile, a noticeable outcome is that only four

participants reported a sRPE of 10 in HYP [=3] and STR [=1] sessions, therefore suggesting

that failure is not necessarily related to maximal sRPE. Meanwhile, differences in motivation,
 15

personality or other factors among participants may not be excluded despite all of them were

encouraged during all sessions. Therefore, further studies should consider differences between

perceptual scales with different psychological constructs.

To overcome the limitations of sRPE in RT monitoring, TRIMP (reps. × sRPE) (

McGuigan, 2017) could represent an appropriate alternative as integrates into a single

parameters both external (i.e. repetitions) and internal (i.e. sRPE) load parameters, therefore

lowering the bias of sRPE when used in RT with or without muscular failure. For instance,

the observed significant differences in volume-load and sRPE between STR and POW (see

Figure 2), became non significant when comparing the TRIMP of these sessions. This would

mean that TRIMP scores should be contextualized with consideration of its components (reps.

× sRPE) and other measures (e.g. bar velocity) which may help to better understand the acute

and chronic training adaptations, as occurs in other exercises and sports. Future studies are

warranted comparing different RT sessions over different periodization models to verify the

validity of this simple and practical monitoring tool.

Previous studies have proposed that circulating levels of serum cortisol are dependent

primarily on volume load (Crewther, Cronin, Keogh, & Cook, 2008), and our study also

showed that the protocol with the greatest volume load (HYP) increased cortisol. Such

exercise-induced increases in cortisol seem to be induced by resistance exercise protocols

with elevated metabolic demand (Kraemer and Ratamess, 2005; Leite et al., 2011). Our

results seem to support this notion, since HYP also resulted in greater post-exercise lactate

levels compared to STR and POW. Cortisol has traditionally been considered a catabolic

agent responding to exercise with elevated stress compound (Kraemer and Ratamess, 2005).

However, it should be noticed that cortisol is also accompanied by increases in growth

hormone release, which may induce to greater training adaptations (Hayes, Bickerstaff, &

Baker, 2010; Henselmans and Schoenfeld, 2014; Kraemer and Ratamess, 2005). In fact, the
 16

cortisol release induced by a resistance exercise was positively related to hypertrophy in type

II fibers in a previous study (West and Phillips, 2012). Our cortisol results are in accordance

with previous studies that showed greater rises in circulating levels of serum cortisol and

blood lactate after HYP protocols compared to STR or POW (Crewther, et al., 2008;

McCaulley, et al., 2009; Nunes, et al., 2011).

Interesting, IgA responded similarly to all resistance exercise protocols. Previous

studies have proposed that high-intensity exercises might induce immunosuppression and

increase the susceptibility of upper respiratory infection (MacKinnon and Jenkins, 1993;

Moreira, Arsati, de Oliveira Lima-Arsati, Simões, & de Araújo, 2011). However, the response

of IgA to a resistance exercise session seems to be quite controversial (MacKinnon and

Jenkins, 1993; Neves Sda, et al., 2009; Nunes, et al., 2011; Rahimi, et al., 2010). Similarly to

the present study, Nunes, et al. (2011) showed no differences in IgA concentration in response

to three different resistance exercise protocol in resistance-trained individuals. It may indicate

that trained individuals show less variation in IgA and other inflammatory markers

(Trochimiak and Hubner-Wozniak, 2012). It could be then hypothesized that IgA is not a

feasible measure in resistance-trained individuals.

Another finding was that both HYP and STR induced a greater CK release 24h post-

exercise (HYP greater than STR), while POW did not induce any change. This absence of CK

changes in POW corroborates with studies that reported greater CK release following

repetitions to failure compared with non-failure protocols (Pareja-Blanco, et al., 2016). This

result also suggests that POW did not induce any muscle damage. Interestingly, HYP induced

a greater CK release than STR despite lower intensity load (75% vs. 90%1RM). It could be

speculated that CK release is likely more associated with greater volume load than the

intensity load. Further studies are needed to appropriately elucidate the volume dependency of

CK release after different RT sessions.

 17

One novel finding of the current study was the number of significant correlations of

moderate strength, identified among external and internal load parameters (see Table 2). This

is contrary to the previous study by Hiscock, et al. (2017) who did not find correlations

between selected parameters. The discrepancy with this previous study Hiscock, et al. (2017)

could be explained by two reasons. First, the use of different parameters as Hiscock, et al.

(2017) only evaluated the relationship between sRPE with a number of mechanical (i.e.

power, velocity) and hormonal (i.e. testosterone and cortisol) variables, while in the current

study we verified the relationships between several external (i.e. repetitions, volume) and

internal load parameters, including perceptual (i.e. sRPE), metabolic (i.e. lactate), hormonal

(i.e. cortisol), immune (i.e. IgA) and muscle damage (i.e. CK) markers. Second, while in the

study by Hiscock, et al. (2017) participants were team sport athletes with experience on RT,

our participants were resistance trained men. This is important since Impellizzeri et al. (2019)

have recently pointed out that the training background of participant is important when

looking for relationships between external and internal load parameters. Therefore, future

studies should consider these aspects when analyzing these relationships in different RT

sessions. Furthermore, when looking at the found relationships (see Table 2), it is interesting

to note that the modified TRIMP for RT as proposed by McGuigan (2017), which integrates

an external (i.e. repetitions) and an internal (i.e. sRPE) load parameter, could be confirmed as

valid and practical parameter for RT monitoring.

The current study has several strengths and limitations. The measurement of

physiological blood markers are strengths. However, we did not control dehydration therefore

further studies should verify how these markers could be affected by hydration status and

plasma volume (PV) shifts. However, biochemical analyses where not corrected for PV shifts

in the current study because of the expected low levels of dehydration after the current

protocols under thermoneutral conditions, and to reflect the actual exposure of the target
 18

tissues to the hormones and metabolites. Using failure and non-failure protocols may itself

affect physiological and perceptual responses in a different manner thus this could be

considered a limitation. In addition, the absence of mechanical parameters (e.g. bar velocity)

is a limitation that should be addressed in further studies, with comparison of RT sessions

without failure but with different effort levels and velocity loss. Another limitation is that we

used a Smith machine for better standardization of conditions and because most participants

used it for the squat exercise. Finally, it may be considered that POW is not a typical session

for power development, while training prescription following RM evaluations are not so

appropriate as other approaches (e.g. velocity-based training). Further studies should verify

these responses in other exercises with different training loads and other RT sessions designs.

In summary, resistance exercise protocols using different repetition loading zones

(POW, HYP and STR) induced dissimilar perceptual, physiological and metabolic responses.

HYP induced greater physiological and perceptual responses, which seems to be associated

with greater volume-load performed until failure. Additionally, STR induced similar

perceptual stress compared with HYP despite a lower physiological stress. POW induced

lower perceptual and physiological stress, which is probably related to the lower intensity

load and to not perform sets until failure. Thus, resistance-trained men showed greater

physiological stress and perceptual changes after sets completed until failure. Therefore, it is

important for strength and conditioning professionals to recognize the interplay between

external load, total volume load, performing repetitions to failure, and internal stress, as it

may be advantageous to alternate between HYP, STR, and POW throughout a training cycle

in order to decrease internal stress without lowering volume-load. In this context, the use of

TRIMP (reps. × RPE) would provide relevant information for RT monitoring as integrates

into a single parameter both external and internal loads.

 19

References

ACSM. (2009). American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression models in
resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 41(3), pp. 687-708.
doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181915670 Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19204579
Bourdon, P. C., Cardinale, M., Murray, A., Gastin, P., Kellmann, M., Varley, M. C., . . .
Cable, N. T. (2017). Monitoring Athlete Training Loads: Consensus Statement. Int J
Sports Physiol Perform, 12(Suppl 2), pp. S2161-s2170. doi:10.1123/ijspp.2017-0208
Brown, L. E., & Weir, J. P. (2001). ASEP Procedures Recommendation I: Accurate
Assessment of Muscular Strength and Power. Professionalization of Exercise
Physiology, 4(11)
Crewther, B., Cronin, J., Keogh, J., & Cook, C. (2008). The salivary testosterone and cortisol
response to three loading schemes. J Strength Cond Res, 22(1), pp. 250-255.
doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31815f5f91
Day, M. L., McGuigan, M. R., Brice, G., & Foster, C. (2004). Monitoring exercise intensity
during resistance training using the session RPE scale. J Strength Cond Res, 18(2), pp.
353-358. doi:10.1519/r-13113.1
Faigenbaum, A. D., Kraemer, W. J., Blimkie, C. J. R., Jeffreys, I., Micheli, L. J., Nitka, M., &
Rowland, T. W. (2009). Youth Resistance Training: Updated Position Statement
Paper From the National Strength and Conditioning Association. The Journal of
Strength & Conditioning Research, 23, pp. S60-S79
10.1519/JSC.1510b1013e31819df31407. Retrieved from
http://journals.lww.com/nsca-
jscr/Fulltext/2009/08005/Youth_Resistance_Training__Updated_Position.2.aspx
Foster, C., Florhaug, J. A., Franklin, J., Gottschall, L., Hrovatin, L. A., Parker, S., . . . Dodge,
C. (2001). A new approach to monitoring exercise training. J Strength Cond Res,
15(1), pp. 109-115.
Harman, E., Baechle, T., Earle, R., & Champaign, I. (2000). Essentials of strength training
and conditioning. Essentials of strength training and conditioning
Hayes, L. D., Bickerstaff, G. F., & Baker, J. S. (2010). Interactions of cortisol, testosterone,
and resistance training: influence of circadian rhythms. Chronobiol Int, 27(4), pp. 675-
705. doi:10.3109/07420521003778773
Henselmans, M., & Schoenfeld, B. J. (2014). The effect of inter-set rest intervals on
resistance exercise-induced muscle hypertrophy. Sports Med, 44(12), pp. 1635-1643.
doi:10.1007/s40279-014-0228-0
Herman, L., Foster, C., Maher, M. A., Mikat, R. P., & Porcari, J. P. (2006). Validity and
reliability of the session RPE method for monitoring exercise training intensity :
original research article. South African Journal of Sports Medicine, 18(1). Retrieved
from the SA ePublications database.
Hiscock, D. J., Dawson, B., Clarke, M., & Peeling, P. (2018). Can changes in resistance
exercise workload influence internal load, countermovement jump performance and
the endocrine response? J Sports Sci, 36, pp. 191-197.
doi:10.1080/02640414.2017.1290270
Hiscock, D. J., Dawson, B., & Peeling, P. (2015). Perceived exertion responses to changing
resistance training programming variables. J Strength Cond Res, 29(6), pp. 1564-
1569. doi:10.1519/jsc.0000000000000775
Hopkins, W. G. (2000). Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sports Med,
30(1), pp. 1-15.
 20

Horder, M., Jorgensen, P. J., Hafkenscheid, J. C., Carstensen, C. A., Bachmann, C., Bauer,
K., . . . Vogt, W. (1991). Creatine kinase determination: a European evaluation of the
creatine kinase determination in serum, plasma and whole blood with the Reflotron
system. Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem, 29(10), pp. 691-696.
Impellizzeri, F. M., Marcora, S. M., & Coutts, A. J. (2019). Internal and External Training
Load: 15 Years On. Int J Sports Physiol Perform, 14(2), pp. 270-273.
doi:10.1123/ijspp.2018-0935
Kraemer, W. J., & Ratamess, N. A. (2005). Hormonal responses and adaptations to resistance
exercise and training. Sports Med, 35(4), pp. 339-361.
Leite, R. D., Prestes, J., Rosa, C., De Salles, B. F., Maior, A., Miranda, H., & Simao, R.
(2011). Acute effect of resistance training volume on hormonal responses in trained
men. J Sports Med Phys Fitness, 51(2), pp. 322-328.
MacKinnon, L. T., & Jenkins, D. G. (1993). Decreased salivary immunoglobulins after
intense interval exercise before and after training. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 25(6), pp.
678-683.
Marston, K. J., Peiffer, J. J., Newton, M. J., & Scott, B. R. (2017). A comparison of
traditional and novel metrics to quantify resistance training. Sci Rep, 7(1), p 5606.
doi:10.1038/s41598-017-05953-2
McCaulley, G. O., McBride, J. M., Cormie, P., Hudson, M. B., Nuzzo, J. L., Quindry, J. C., &
Travis Triplett, N. (2009). Acute hormonal and neuromuscular responses to
hypertrophy, strength and power type resistance exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol, 105(5),
pp. 695-704. doi:10.1007/s00421-008-0951-z
McGuigan, M. (2017). Monitoring training and performance in athletes: Human Kinetics.
McGuigan, M. R., Egan, A. D., & Foster, C. (2004). Salivary Cortisol Responses and
Perceived Exertion during High Intensity and Low Intensity Bouts of Resistance
Exercise. J Sports Sci Med, 3(1), pp. 8-15. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24497815
McGuigan, M. R., & Foster, C. (2004). A New Approach to Monitoring Resistance Training.
Strength & Conditioning Journal, 26(6), pp. 42-47. Retrieved from
http://journals.lww.com/nsca-
scj/Fulltext/2004/12000/A_New_Approach_to_Monitoring_Resistance_Training_.8.a
spx
McLean, B. D., Coutts, A. J., Kelly, V., McGuigan, M. R., & Cormack, S. J. (2010).
Neuromuscular, endocrine, and perceptual fatigue responses during different length
between-match microcycles in professional rugby league players. Int J Sports Physiol
Perform, 5(3), pp. 367-383.
Meeusen, R., Duclos, M., Foster, C., Fry, A., Gleeson, M., Nieman, D., . . . Urhausen, A.
(2013). Prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of the overtraining syndrome: joint
consensus statement of the European College of Sport Science and the American
College of Sports Medicine. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 45(1), pp. 186-205.
doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e318279a10a
Moreira, A., Arsati, F., de Oliveira Lima-Arsati, Y. B., Simões, A. C., & de Araújo, V. C.
(2011). Monitoring stress tolerance and occurrences of upper respiratory illness in
basketball players by means of psychometric tools and salivary biomarkers. Stress and
Health, 27(3), pp. e166-e172. doi:10.1002/smi.1354 Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smi.1354
Neves Sda, C., Jr., Lima, R. M., Simoes, H. G., Marques, M. C., Reis, V. M., & de Oliveira,
R. J. (2009). Resistance exercise sessions do not provoke acute immunosuppression in
older women. J Strength Cond Res, 23(1), pp. 259-265.
 21

Nunes, J. A., Crewther, B. T., Ugrinowitsch, C., Tricoli, V., Viveiros, L., de Rose, D., Jr., &
Aoki, M. S. (2011). Salivary hormone and immune responses to three resistance
exercise schemes in elite female athletes. J Strength Cond Res, 25(8), pp. 2322-2327.
doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181ecd033
Pareja-Blanco, F., Rodriguez-Rosell, D., Sanchez-Medina, L., Ribas-Serna, J., Lopez-Lopez,
C., Mora-Custodio, R., . . . Gonzalez-Badillo, J. J. (2016). Acute and delayed response
to resistance exercise leading or not leading to muscle failure. Clin Physiol Funct
Imagingdoi:10.1111/cpf.12348
Pareja-Blanco, F., Rodriguez-Rosell, D., Sanchez-Medina, L., Ribas-Serna, J., Lopez-Lopez,
C., Mora-Custodio, R., . . . Gonzalez-Badillo, J. J. (2017). Acute and delayed response
to resistance exercise leading or not leading to muscle failure. Clin Physiol Funct
Imaging, 37(6), pp. 630-639. doi:10.1111/cpf.12348
Pritchett, R. C., Green, J. M., Wickwire, P. J., & Kovacs, M. (2009). Acute and session RPE
responses during resistance training: Bouts to failure at 60% and 90% of 1RM. South
African Journal of Sports Medicine, 21(1)
Progression Models in Resistance Training for Healthy Adults. (2009). Medicine & Science in
Sports & Exercise, 41(3), pp. 687-708. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181915670
Retrieved from https://journals.lww.com/acsm-
msse/Fulltext/2009/03000/Progression_Models_in_Resistance_Training_for.26.aspx
Rahimi, R., Qaderi, M., Faraji, H., & Boroujerdi, S. S. (2010). Effects of very short rest
periods on hormonal responses to resistance exercise in men. J Strength Cond Res,
24(7), pp. 1851-1859. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181ddb265
Scott, B. R., Duthie, G. M., Thornton, H. R., & Dascombe, B. J. (2016). Training Monitoring
for Resistance Exercise: Theory and Applications. Sports Med, 46(5), pp. 687-698.
doi:10.1007/s40279-015-0454-0
Singh, F., Foster, C., Tod, D., & McGuigan, M. R. (2007). Monitoring different types of
resistance training using session rating of perceived exertion. Int J Sports Physiol
Perform, 2(1), pp. 34-45.
Sweet, T. W., Foster, C., McGuigan, M. R., & Brice, G. (2004). Quantitation of resistance
training using the session rating of perceived exertion method. The Journal of Strength
& Conditioning Research, 18(4), pp. 796-802. doi:10.1519/14153.1
Trochimiak, T., & Hubner-Wozniak, E. (2012). Effect of exercise on the level of
immunoglobulin a in saliva. Biol Sport, 29(4), pp. 255-261.
doi:10.5604/20831862.1019662
Uchida, M. C., Nosaka, K., Ugrinowitsch, C., Yamashita, A., Martins, E., Jr., Moriscot, A. S.,
& Aoki, M. S. (2009). Effect of bench press exercise intensity on muscle soreness and
inflammatory mediators. J Sports Sci, 27(5), pp. 499-507.
doi:10.1080/02640410802632144
Vasquez, L. M., McBride, J. M., Paul, J. A., Alley, J. R., Carson, L. T., & Goodman, C. L.
(2013). Effect of resistance exercise performed to volitional failure on ratings of
perceived exertion. Percept Mot Skills, 117(3), pp. 881-891.
doi:10.2466/27.29.PMS.117x30z8
Vieira, A., Gadelha, A. B., Ferreira-Junior, J. B., Vieira, C. A., de Melo Keene von Koenig
Soares, E., Cadore, E. L., . . . Bottaro, M. (2014). Session rating of perceived exertion
following resistance exercise with blood flow restriction. Clin Physiol Funct
Imagingdoi:10.1111/cpf.12128 Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24438467
West, D. W., & Phillips, S. M. (2012). Associations of exercise-induced hormone profiles and
gains in strength and hypertrophy in a large cohort after weight training. Eur J Appl
Physiol, 112(7), pp. 2693-2702. doi:10.1007/s00421-011-2246-z
22
 23

FIGURE LEGENDS

Figure 1. Experimental procedures.

Figure 2. Volume load (2A), session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE) (2B), training

impulse (2C), cortisol (2D), immunoglobulin A (IgA) (2E), lactate (2F), and creatine kinase

(CK) (2G) obtained for hypertrophy (HYP), power (POW) and strength (STR) protocols,

expressed as mean and SD. a = significantly different from POW; b = significantly different

from STR; c = significantly different from Pre; d = significantly greater than POW increase; e

= significantly greater than STR increase. p<0.05

 24

Table 1. Physical characteristics and training status of participants (n = 12).

Variables Mean ± SD

Age (years) 24.17 ± 4.43

Body mass (kg) 82.05 ± 6.43

Height (cm) 177.08 ± 3.34

Resistance training experience (years) 6.21 ± 3.79

1RM back squat (kg) 156.83 ± 21.31

Relative 1RM back squat (kg/kg * 100) 190.90 ± 18.68

1RM bench press (kg) 116.67 ± 14.28

Relative 1RM bench press (kg/kg * 100) 142.37 ± 15.75

1RM: one-repetition maximum, all exercises performed on a Smith machine

 25

Table 2. Matrix of correlations between internal and external load parameters when pooling
all sessions (n=36).
r (p) Repetition Volume sRPE TRIMP ∆Lactat ∆Cortiso ∆IgA ∆CK

s e l

Repetition 1 0.80 n.s. 0.67 n.s. 0.35 n.s. n.s.

s (<0.001 (<0.001 (0.03)

) )

Volume 0.80 1 n.s. 0.73 0.55 0.59 0.33 n.s.

(<0.001) (<0.001 (<0.001 (<0.001) (0.05

) ) )

sRPE n.s. n.s. 1 0.58 0.37 n.s. n.s. n.s.

(<0.001 (0.02)

TRIMP 0.67 0.73 0.58 1 0.54 0.33 n.s. n.s.

(<0.001) (<0.001 (<0.001 (<0.001 (0.04)

) ) )

∆Lactate n.s. 0.55 0.37 0.54 1 0.39 0.38 0.48

(<0.001 (0.02) (<0.001 (0.02) (0.02 (<0.001

) ) ) )

∆Cortisol 0.35 0.59 n.s. 0.33 0.39 1 n.s. 0.40

(0.03) (<0.001 (0.04) (0.02) (0.01)

∆IgA n.s. 0.33 n.s. n.s. 0.38 n.s. 1 n.s.

(0.05) (0.02)

∆CK n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. 0.48 0.40 n.s. 1

(<0.001 (0.01)
 26

n.s. = non significant; sRPE = session rating of perceived exertion; TRIMP = training impulse

(repetitions × RPE); ∆Lactate = % pre- to post- changes of lactate; ∆Cortisol = % pre- to post-

changes of cortisol; ∆IgA = % pre- to post- changes of immunoglobulin A; ∆CK = % pre- to

post- changes of creatine kinase;

27