Clin Physiol Funct Imaging (2014) doi: 10.1111/cpf.

12192

Comparison between the multiple-set plus 2 weeks of

tri-set and traditional multiple-set method on strength and
body composition in trained women: a pilot study
Paula Garcia1, Dahan da C. Nascimento2, Ramires A. Tibana2, Maria M. Barboza1, Jeffrey M. Willardson3 and
Jonato Prestes2
1
Vale of Itajai University, Santa Catarina, 2Graduation Program on Physical Education, Catholic University of Brasilia (UCB), Brasilia, Brazil and 3Kinesiology
and Sports Studies Department, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, IL, USA

Summary

Correspondence The manipulation of resistance training (RT) variables affects the neuromuscular
Jonato Prestes, Graduation Program on
adaptations and may also alter body composition. Another important factor to be
Physical Education, Catholic University
of Brasilia - Q.S. 07, Lote 01, EPTC –
considered is the presence of high, moderate and low responding subjects to
Bloco G. Zip code: 71966-700 – Federal training. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of multiple-set
District, Brasilia, Brazil (MS) and tri-set (TS) RT approaches on muscle strength and body composition
E-mail: [email protected] following a 12 week programme in trained women (> 1 year of RT experience).
Accepted for publication A secondary objective was to assess variations in individual responsiveness to the
Received 10 April 2014; RT by the identification of high (strength gains were > 20%), moderate (10 and
accepted 20 August 2014 19%) and low responding (< 10%) subjects. Eleven healthy experientially resis-
tance trained women were randomly divided into two groups: MS (n = 6; age
Key words
muscle strength; neuromuscular adaptation;
27
17  8
23 years; body mass 57
97  2
48 kg) and TS (n = 5; age
resistance training; training variables 23
20  2
28 years; body mass 61
74  6
95 kg). High responders were found
in the training groups (MS n = 4 and TS n = 1), moderate (MS n = 1 and TS
n = 3) and low responders (MS n = 1 and TS n = 1). The MS group displayed an
increase in squat 1RM (P<0
01), stiff leg deadlift 1RM (P<0
002) and squat repe-
titions maximum at 50% of 1RM (P<0
04). The TS method significantly increased
all strength variables (P<0
05), with no differences between methods (P>0
05).
Differences were evident between subjects classified as high, medium and low
responding in the stiff leg deadlift 1RM (P = 0
007). Both RT protocols increased
strength, with no effect on body composition. The variability in individual
responsiveness emphasizes the importance of individualized RT prescription for
strength practitioners.

approach. The MS approach involves performance of three

Introduction
consecutive sets of a given exercise in a sequence before mov-
Neuromuscular adaptations to resistance training (RT) can be ing to the next exercise and so on; whereas, the TS approach
achieved by the manipulation of training variables; such as, involves performance of exercises in a circuit fashion, but
the rest interval between sets and exercises, load, volume, with the same number of total sets for each exercise in a
exercise mode and order, workout session frequency, range of sequence. However, there is limited scientific data on the
motion and the type of muscle action and velocity (Ratamess longitudinal adaptations associated with such approaches in
et al., 2009; Assumpcao et al., 2013). However, the initial trained subjects.
training status of an individual affects the magnitude of neu- It has been proposed that variations in RT methods are
romuscular adaptations (Deschenes & Kraemer, 2002), so that essential for progression to occur, because the human body
those with a higher training status exhibit a lower rate of gain quickly adapts to a given RT stimulus (Ratamess et al., 2009).
over time. For example, training at 80% of 1RM for 1, 4 and 8 sets of
Anecdotally, different RT methods are used to maximize squats, twice per week, resulted in greater gains in maximal
neuromuscular adaptations, two of which are the traditional squat strength for the 8-sets group compared to the uco-
multiple-sets (MS) approach and another, the tri-set (TS) dep>/ucodep>set group, reinforcing the benefits of MS

© 2014 Scandinavian Society of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd 1
2 Resistance training methods, P. Garcia et al.

training in excess of 1-sets in RT males, no differences were Subjects were informed concerning the procedures, risks
observed between 8 and 4 sets and 1 and 4 sets at any time and benefits of the study and gave their written informed con-
point (Marshall et al., 2011). Nevertheless, the TS approach, in sent to participate. Additionally, all subjects had their diet
which the same number of total sets is ultimately performed monitored during the 12 weeks to ensure consistency in calo-
as the MS approach, could optimize the volume 9 intensity ric intake. This study was approved by the Catholic University
relationship by allowing greater rest between sets of the same of Brasilia Institutional Ethics Research Committee.
exercise in a circuit (Brunelli et al., 2014). Another interesting
issue would be the reduction in total training duration as
Subgroups of subjects
compared with traditional MS training. Additionally, with the
limited rest between sets for different exercises in a circuit, Following the procedures for identification of individuals vari-
the TS approach may provide a superior stimulus for gains in ation in the responsiveness to training (Marshall et al., 2011),
localized muscular endurance (Uchida et al., 2006). subjects were classified as high, moderate or low responding
Interestingly, a prior research (Uchida et al., 2006) com- based on their relative strength gains (% strength increase for
pared the longitudinal effects of the MS and TS approaches on the stiff leg deadlift exercise). Subjects were classified as high
muscle strength (1RM), body composition and hormonal responders if strength gains were > 20%, moderate responders
responses in trained men. Increases in muscle strength were if between 10 and 19% and low responders if < 10%. High
reported for both approaches, but without differences Responders were found in training groups (MS n = 4 and TS
between them. No differences were reported for body compo- n = 1), with fewer Moderate Responders (MS n = 1 and TS
sition. For hormonal responses, no differences were reported n = 3) and Low Responders (MS n = 1 and TS n = 1).
for testosterone; but for cortisol, the TS approach presented
significantly higher levels attributed to the higher metabolic
Experimental design and training
demand.
Thus, considering the paucity of studies comparing the Subjects completed 12 weeks of a lower limb RT programme
effects of MS and TS approaches on neuromuscular variables that included the squat, stiff leg deadlift, 45° leg press, leg
and body composition, it is difficult to predict which method curl, gluteus in the smith machine and stand calf raise
would induce better results for trained subjects. Despite the exercises (Cybex International, Medway, MA, USA). The RT
rigid control of diet, training background, muscle strength sessions were performed three times per week. Both training
levels and age, some individual variations are expected; such approaches consisted of a linear periodized programme
as the presence of high, moderate and low responding sub- (Prestes et al., 2009), in which intensity was increased every
jects to training, as already shown in previous studies (David- microcycle (2 weeks) whilst volume was decreased (see
sen et al., 2011; Tajra et al., 2013). Tables 1 and 2).
Therefore, the objective of this study was to compare the The MS group trained as follows: 1st–2nd weeks, three sets
effects of MS and TS RT approaches on muscle strength and of 12–14 RM; 3th–4th weeks three sets of 10–12 RM; 5th–
body composition following a 12-week programme in trained 6th weeks three sets of 6–8 RM always leading to repetition
women (> 1 year of RT experience). A secondary objective failure. This training pattern was then repeated until the com-
was to assess possible variations in individual responsiveness pletion of 12 weeks (see Table 1). The rest interval between
to the RT programmes by the identification of high, moderate sets and exercises was 90 s. In the TS method, subjects
and low responding subjects. We hypothesized that both
training approaches would induce significant improvements in
muscle strength with no differences between them and that Table 1 Periodization for the multiple-sets (MS) and tri-set (TS)
methods.
individual responsiveness would be evident following each
training programme.
MS (3 week) TS (3 week) Loads

Microc.1 (1–2 weeks) Microc.1 (1–2 weeks) 3 9 12–14 RM

Methods MS MS
Microc.2 (3–4 weeks) Microc.2 (3–4 weeks) 3 9 10–12 RM
Subjects MS MS
Microc.3 (5–6 weeks) Microc.3 (5–6 weeks) 3 9 6–8 RM
Eleven women with more than 12 months of RT experience MS MS
participated in this study. Subjects were randomly divided into Microc.4 (7–8 weeks) Microc.4 (7–8 weeks) 3 9 12–14 RM
two groups: the multiple-sets training approach (MS = 6) or MS MS
the tri-sets training approach (TS = 5). Subjects were excluded Microc.5(9–10 weeks) Microc.5 (9–10 weeks) 3 9 10–12 RM
MS MS
if they reported the use of supplements or hormone treat- Microc.6 (11–12 weeks) Microc.6 (11–12 weeks) 3 9 6–8 RM
ment, and any type of cardiovascular or neuromuscular prob- MS TS
lem that would compromise their performance during testing
and training. Microc., microcycle.

© 2014 Scandinavian Society of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Resistance training methods, P. Garcia et al. 3

Table 2 Resistance exercises used. RM determination followed previous recommendations (Rhea

et al., 2003). One and a half min after a specific warm-up con-
MS TS sisting of one set of 10 repetitions at 40% of 1RM, subjects
During 12 weeks During 10 weeks executed the highest number of repetitions possible with 50%
Squat Squat of 1RM to the point of concentric failure. This procedure was
Stiff leg deadlift Stiff leg deadlift repeated twice more, with 2 days between evaluation sessions
45° Leg press 45° Leg press (r = 0
97 and 0
98 for the squat and stiff leg deadlift, respec-
Leg Curl Leg Curl
tively). Similar to the 1RM testing, the order of exercises was
Gluteus in the smith Gluteus in the smith machine
machine randomized within each testing session.
Standing calf raise Standing calf raise The following strategies were adopted to minimize testing
– 11 and 12 weeks errors: (i) all subjects participated in a familiarization period
– Squat + stiff leg deadlift + 45° leg press prior to testing, (ii) standardized instructions were provided
– Leg curl + gluteus + calf raise
to all subjects before testing, (iii) subjects were carefully
instructed about maintaining proper exercise technique and
MS, multiple-sets; TS, tri-set.
body position, and (iv) consistent verbal encouragement was
provided during the testing procedures (Tibana et al., 2012). All
completed three exercises for the lower limb without rest testing sessions were scheduled between 07:00 and 09:00 p.m.
between them; a rest interval was allowed after these three
exercises and the same circuit was repeated three times (see
Statistical analysis
Table 2). The training periodization was the same for both
groups; the only difference was that in weeks 11 and 12, the Data normality was evaluated by the Shapiro–Wilk test. Consid-
TS method was included. The total training volume was equa- ering that all data presented normal distribution, the effects of
ted between groups. All training sessions were supervised by the RT methods on body composition and neuromuscular vari-
an experienced strength and conditioning professional. ables were tested by the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
between subjects allocated at the MS and TS methods and the
moments pre- and post-training. In the case of significant dif-
Body composition
ferences, a post hoc test was used (Dancey & Reidy, 2011). All
Body composition was assessed before and after the 12 weeks data are presented as means and standard deviation (SD). For
of training using skinfold thickness measurements taken with comparisons between high, medium and low responders, an
a Lange skinfold caliper (Jackson et al., 1980). The sum of the ANOVA one way with post hoc of GT2 Hochberg was applied.
triceps, suprailiac and thigh skinfolds were used for this equa- The effect size (ES) was calculated according to the follow-
tion. After this procedure, fat mass (kg) and fat-free mass ing equation (Rhea, 2004). (post-test mean – pretest mean)/
(kg) were estimated. Participants were advised to maintain SD of the pretest.
their habitual activities and diet (this was guaranteed by a The values for resistance trained subjects were considered
dietary recall follow-up). (Rhea, 2004): very small (< 0
35), small (0
35–0
80), mod-
erate (0
80–1
50) and large (> 1
5).
The sample power was calculated by the post hoc power
Strength assessments
analyses for the main variable squat to verify if the statistical
For the determination of the squat and stiff leg deadlift 1RM test used was sufficient to correctly reject the null hypothesis
load, two tests (test-retest) were conducted on two non-con- (Faul et al., 2007). The effect size between moments was
secutive days (minimum of 72 h between tests). The intraclass d = 1
58, and the power was 75% for a minimum of five sub-
correlation coefficient was r = 0
98 and 0
97 for the squat jects considering an alpha of 0
05.
and stiff leg deadlift, respectively, thus confirming the test– For all analysis, the software Statistical Package for Social
retest reliability. Standardized range of motion and perfor- Sciences (SPSS, Inc., v. 18.0; IBM Corporation, Somers, NY,
mance was conducted and controlled (Brown & Weir, 2011). USA.) was used. The sample power was calculated by the soft-
After 5 min of light treadmill running, subjects performed a ware G*Power 3.1.6 (Faul et al., 2007).
specific warm-up of eight repetitions with 50% of an esti-
mated 1RM (according to the previous loads used by subjects
in their training routines), followed by three repetitions with Results
70% of an estimated 1RM. Consecutive trials were performed
Body composition
for one repetition with progressively heavier loads until the
1RM was determined within three attempts, using 3–5 min There was no statistically significant difference for the body
rest intervals between attempts. composition variables between training conditions (P>0
05)
The repetition maximum test was performed 72 h after the and moments (P>0
05) (Table 3). All ES values were consid-
1RM tests for the same exercises. All of the procedures for the ered small (data not shown).

© 2014 Scandinavian Society of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
4 Resistance training methods, P. Garcia et al.

(moderate) for the squat 1RM and 0
68 (small) for the stiff
Muscle strength
leg deadlift 1RM, 3
03 (large) for the squat repetitions maxi-
There was no effect of training condition on muscle strength mum and 2
31 (large) for the stiff leg deadlift repetitions
variables (P = 0
13). However, there were time effects maximum (Table 4).
between the moments pre and post, observed by the increase
in the squat 1RM [F (1
18) = 7
07, P = 0
016], and stiff leg
High, medium and low responders
deadlift repetitions maximum 1RM [F (1
18) = 4
37,
P = 0
05], and squat [F (1
18) = 10
97, P = 0
004], and stiff Prior to training, there were no differences between groups in
leg deadlift (F (1
18) = 6
80, P = 0
01). terms of age (P = 0
96), body weight (P = 0
28), fat mass
The analysis revealed differences between moments for the (P = 0
42), fat-free mass (P = 0
09), squat 1RM (P = 0
93),
condition MS in the squat 1RM, stiff leg deadlift 1RM and squat repetitions maximum (P = 0
25) and stiff leg deadlift
squat repetitions maximum (P = 0
01, P = 0
002, P = 0
04, repetitions maximum (P = 0
20). The high responder group
respectively). For stiff leg deadlift repetitions maximum, no increased stiff leg deadlift 1RM by a higher amount
differences were analysed (P = 0
24). Additionally, ES was (P = 0
007). The percent of increase for high, medium and
1
19 (moderate) for the squat 1RM and 1
83 (large) for the low responders were 25%, 12% and 6%, respectively
squat repetitions maximum, 0
96 (moderate) for the stiff leg (Table 5).
deadlift 1RM and 0
69 (small) for the stiff leg deadlift repeti-
tions maximum (Table 4).
Discussion
There were time effects for the TS method for the squat
and stiff leg deadlift 1RM, and for the squat and stiff leg The main findings of the present study were that squat 1RM,
deadlift repetitions maximum (P = 0
03, P = 0
01, P = 0
05 squat RM and stiff leg deadlift 1RM significantly increased in
and P = 0
02, respectively). Effect size values were 1
00 the MS group, and all muscle strength variables for the TS
method significantly increased. No differences were found
between RT methods for muscle strength and body composi-
Table 3 Body composition variables presented as means and SD.
tion variables. Individual variation in responses to training
Training methods Pretraining Post-training was present, in which the subjects classified as high respond-
ers increased stiff leg deadlift 1RM by a higher amount as
Multiple-sets (n = 6) compared with medium and low responders, confirming the
Age (years) 27
17  8
23 –
initial hypothesis. Interestingly, higher magnitudes of ES were
Body mass (kg) 57
97  2
48 58
40  2
35
Fat mass (kg) 12
15  2
62 11
63  2
25 found for repetitions maximum following the TS as compared
Fat-free mass (kg) 24
50  1
47 25
36  1
51 with the MS method.
Tri-set (n = 5) Our results corroborate with a previously study (Uchida
Age (years) 23
20  2
28 – et al., 2006). They compared the chronic effects of MS and TS
Body mass (kg) 61
74  6
95 62
90  6
39
on muscle strength in trained men (> 1 year of RT experi-
Fat mass (kg) 15
10  3
90 15
00  3
96
Fat-free mass (kg) 23
89  1
99 24
18  1
94 ence). The results revealed an increase in muscle strength for
both groups and an increase in repetitions maximum, but
without differences between training methods. No changes
Table 4 Muscle strength variables presented as means and SD. were observed for the body composition variables and consid-
ering the lower adaptation reserve found in their study and
Training methods Pretraining Post-training ES our study. The increase of more than 10 kg can be valuable
for trained subjects.
Multiple-sets
Squat 1RM (kg) 61
00  9
27 72
00  8
10* 1
19
The ES between studies for the squat exercise was similar
Squat RM (repetitions) 22
83  7
57 36
67  13
72* 1
83 for both training methods. The previously study (Uchida et al.,
Stiff leg deadlift 56
00  13
56 69
00  11
98* 0
96 2006) had an ES of 1
61 and 1
46 and we had an ES of
1RM (kg) 1
19 and 1
00. Effect sizes moderate to large in this study
Stiff leg deadlift RM 26
83  8
26 32
50  8
87 1
69
(repetitions)
Tri-set Table 5 Values between responders for stiff leg deadlift 1RM (kg)
Squat 1RM (kg) 63
20  16
77 80
00  14
14* 1
00 presented as means and SD.
Squat RM (repetitions) 20
40  4
16 33
00  8
15* 3
03
Stiff leg deadlift 65
20  15
97 76
00  11
40* 0
68 Groups Pretraining Post-training D%
1RM (kg)
Stiff leg deadlift RM 23
00  4
24 32
80  3
77* 2
31 H (n = 5) 48
00  8
36 64
00  9
93 25
00
(repetitions) M (n = 4) 66
50  10
75 76
00  10
75 12
50
L (n = 2) 78
00  2
82 83
00  4
24 6
02
ES, effect size; RM, repetitions maximum.
*Intragroup statistically significant difference (P≤0
05). H, high responders; M, medium responders; L, low responders.

© 2014 Scandinavian Society of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Resistance training methods, P. Garcia et al. 5

demonstrate the degree to which the improvement in strength trained men (Mitchell et al., 2013). This will allow for a better
was present in the population analysed. understanding of the relationship between individual response
Furthermore, our results revealed higher values of effect and RT adaptation.
size for the TS method in the repetitions maximum tests for Limitations in this study are worth to note. The allocation
the squat and stiff leg deadlift. This can be attributed to a of the groups of the present study has bias because more high
higher metabolic demand involved in this type of higher responders were unintended located in the MS method when
intensity training, translating to a greater response for endur- compared with TS method. So this may confound the data
ance performance (Jacobs et al., 2013). interpretation. Future studies must include a familiarization
Considering the individual response, this is the first study period, which might enable a better control for the identifica-
demonstrating the heterogeneity for strength gains in experi- tion of responders and non-responders to RT, as already sug-
enced resistance trained women. The high responders gested (Sampson et al., 2013). Moreover, a longer period of
increased their strength in stiff leg deadlift 1RM by 25% when TS method may reveal different results, as we used only
compared with 12% and 6% for medium and low responders, 2 weeks of this method. To note, we used only 2 weeks due
respectively. In another study (Marshall et al., 2011), research- to the symptoms of fatigue and tiredness reported by the
ers compared the effects of tree different sets volume (1, 4 subjects.
and 8 sets) of high intensity resistance exercise in trained
males and expected some variation in the individual strength
Conclusion
responses to training between groups. They found differences
between high, medium and low responders on muscle Health professionals must be aware of the evidence that differ-
strength. The high responders increased their strength by 29% ent methods of RT as MS and TS do not differ for strength
when compared with 14% and 0
9% for medium and low gains and body composition changes in trained women. In
responders, respectively. addition, the individual response poses as complex reflection
Although accepted that RT induces gain in muscle mass and for strength practitioners and researchers when prescribing
muscle strength. Confounding variables known to affect the and selecting methods with the aim of increasing muscle
response to RT as gender, diet and trainability (Folland & strength and improving body composition. Finally, the
Williams, 2007) will always be present. Moreover, future higher ES for repetitions maximum found for the TS method
studies must consider the identification of responders and may interest those individuals aiming to increase muscle
non-responders subjects as a new confounding variable endurance.
recently verified for muscle strength (Sampson et al., 2013),
creatine kinase (CK) (Machado et al., 2012) and other vari-
Conflict of interest
ables, such as interleukin-6 (IL-6) (Tajra et al., 2013), that has
been recently associated with the hypertrophic response in The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
Assumpcao CO, Tibana RA, Viana LC, Will- JA, Phillips SM. High responders to resis- Jacobs RA, Fluck D, Bonne TC, Burgi S, Chris-
ardson JM, Prestes J. Influence of exercise tance exercise training demonstrate differ- tensen PM, Toigo M, Lundby C. Improve-
order on upper body maximum and sub- ential regulation of skeletal muscle ments in exercise performance with high-
maximal strength gains in trained men. Clin microRNA expression. J Appl Physiol (2011); intensity interval training coincide with an
Physiol Funct Imaging (2013); 33: 359–363. 110: 309–317. increase in skeletal muscle mitochondrial
Brown LE, Weir JP. ASEP procedures recom- Deschenes MR, Kraemer WJ. Performance and content and function. J Appl Physiol (2013);
mentation I: accurate assessment of muscu- physiologic adaptations to resistance train- 115: 785–793.
lar strength and power. J Exerc Physiol Online ing. Am J Phys Med Rehabil (2002); 81: S3–S16. Machado M, Pereira R, Willardson JM. Short
(2011); 4: 1–21. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. intervals between sets and individuality of
Brunelli DT, Caram K, Nogueira FR, Libardi G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power muscle damage response. J Strength Cond Res
CA, Prestes J, Cavaglieri CR. Immune analysis program for the social, behavioral, (2012); 26: 2946–2952.
responses to an upper body tri-set resistance and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods Marshall PW, McEwen M, Robbins DW.
training session. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging (2007); 39: 175–191. Strength and neuromuscular adaptation fol-
(2014); 34: 64–71. Folland JP, Williams AG. The adaptations to lowing one, four, and eight sets of high
Dancey CP, Reidy J. Analysis of differences strength training: morphological and neuro- intensity resistance exercise in trained males.
between three or more conditions. In: Statis- logical contributions to increased strength. Eur J Appl Physiol (2011); 111: 3007–3016.
tics Without Maths for Psychology (ed. Harlow, Sports Med (2007); 37: 145–168. Mitchell CJ, Churchward-Venne TA, Bellamy
E) (2011), vol 5. part 10, pp. 297–383. Jackson AS, Pollock ML, Ward A. Generalized L, Parise G, Baker SK, Phillips SM. Muscular
Prentice Hall/Pearson, New York. equations for predicting body density of and systemic correlates of resistance train-
Davidsen PK, Gallagher IJ, Hartman JW, Tar- women. Med Sci Sports Exerc (1980); 12: ing-induced muscle hypertrophy. PLoS ONE
nopolsky MA, Dela F, Helge JW, TImmons 175–181. (2013); 8: e78636.

© 2014 Scandinavian Society of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
6 Resistance training methods, P. Garcia et al.

Prestes J, Frollini AB, de Lima C, Donatto FF, Rhea MR, Phillips WT, Burkett LN, Stone WJ, exercise in elderly obese women. J Sci Med
Foschini D, de Cassia Marqueti R, Figueira Ball SD, Alvar BA, Thomas AB. A compari- Sport (2013); 18: S1440–S2440.
A, Fleck SJ. Comparison between linear and son of linear and daily undulating period- Tibana RA, Prestes J, Nascimento DdaC, Mar-
daily undulating periodized resistance train- ized programs with equated volume and tins OV, De Santana FS, Balsamo S. Higher
ing to increase strength. J Strength Cond Res intensity for local muscular endurance. J muscle performance in adolescents com-
(2009); 23: 2437–2442. Strength Cond Res (2003); 17: 82–87. pared with adults after a resistance training
Ratamess NA, Alvar BA, Evetoch TK, Housh Sampson JA, McAndrew D, Donohoe A, Jen- session with different rest intervals. J Strength
TJ, Kibler WB, Kraemer WJ, Triplett NT. kins A, Groeller H. The effect of a familiari- Cond Res (2012); 26: 1027–1032.
American College of Sports Medicine posi- sation period on subsequent strength gain. J Uchida MC, Aoki MS, Navarro F, Tessutti VD,
tion stand. Progression models in resistance Sports Sci (2013); 31: 204–211. Bacurau RFP. Effects of different resistance
training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc Tajra V, Tibana RA, Vieira DC, de Farias DL, training protocols over the morphofunc-
(2009); 41: 687–708. Teixeira TG, Funghetto SS, Silva AO, de tional, hormonal and immunological
Rhea MR. Determining the magnitude of Sousa NMF, Willardson J, Karnikowiski parameters. Revista Brasileira de Medicina do
treatment effects in strength training MGO, Prestes J. Identification of high Esporte (2006); 12: 18–22.
research through the use of the effect size. J responders for interleukin-6 and creatine
Strength Cond Res (2004); 18: 918–920. kinase following acute eccentric resistance

© 2014 Scandinavian Society of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd