Journal of Sports Sciences
ISSN: 0264-0414 (Print) 1466-447X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20
Effects of drop sets with resistance training on
increases in muscle CSA, strength, and endurance:
a pilot study
Hayao Ozaki, Atsushi Kubota, Toshiharu Natsume, Jeremy P. Loenneke,
Takashi Abe, Shuichi Machida & Hisashi Naito
To cite this article: Hayao Ozaki, Atsushi Kubota, Toshiharu Natsume, Jeremy P. Loenneke,
Takashi Abe, Shuichi Machida & Hisashi Naito (2017): Effects of drop sets with resistance training
on increases in muscle CSA, strength, and endurance: a pilot study, Journal of Sports Sciences,
DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2017.1331042
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2017.1331042
Published online: 22 May 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjsp20
Download by: [The UC San Diego Library] Date: 23 May 2017, At: 20:15
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2017.1331042
Effects of drop sets with resistance training on increases in muscle CSA, strength,
and endurance: a pilot study
Hayao Ozakia,b, Atsushi Kubotaa,b, Toshiharu Natsumec, Jeremy P. Loenneked, Takashi Abed,e, Shuichi Machidaa,b
and Hisashi Naitoa,b
a
Graduate School of Health and Sports Science, Juntendo University, Inzai, Japan; bSchool of Health and Sports Science, Juntendo University, Inzai,
Japan; cInstitute of Health and Sports Science & Medicine, Juntendo University, Inzai, Japan; dDepartment of Health, Exercise Science, & Recreation
Management, Kevser Ermin Applied Physiology Laboratory, School of Applied Sciences, The University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS, USA;
e
Department of Sports and Life Science, National Institute of Fitness and Sports in Kanoya, Kanoya, Japan
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY
To investigate the effects of a single high-load (80% of one repetition maximum [1RM]) set with Accepted 9 May 2017
additional drop sets descending to a low-load (30% 1RM) without recovery intervals on muscle KEYWORDS
strength, endurance, and size in untrained young men. Nine untrained young men performed dumbbell Descending sets; muscle
curls to concentric failure 2–3 days per week for 8 weeks. Each arm was randomly assigned to one of adaptations; strength
the following three conditions: 3 sets of high-load (HL, 80% 1RM) resistance exercise, 3 sets of low-load training; strength-endurance
[LL, 30% 1RM] resistance exercise, and a single high-load (SDS) set with additional drop sets descending continuum
to a low-load. The mean training time per session, including recovery intervals, was lowest in the SDS
condition. Elbow flexor muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) increased similarly in all three conditions.
Maximum isometric and 1RM strength of the elbow flexors increased from pre to post only in the HL
and SDS conditions. Muscular endurance measured by maximum repetitions at 30% 1RM increased only
in the LL and SDS conditions. A SDS resistance training program can simultaneously increase muscle
CSA, strength, and endurance in untrained young men, even with lower training time compared to
typical resistance exercise protocols using only high- or low-loads.
Introduction Contreras, & Sonmez, 2015). Meanwhile, adaptations in muscle
strength and endurance are consistent with the principle of
Skeletal muscle growth from exercise is thought to primarily
specificity. Schoenfeld et al. (2015) demonstrated greater
occur as a result of mechanical tension (i.e. mechanotransduc-
strength gains in the high-load (8–12 RM) condition and
tion) (Campos et al., 2002; McDonagh & Davies, 1984). It has
enhanced muscular endurance adaptations in the low-load
also been hypothesized that the buildup of metabolites in
(25–35 RM) conditions (Schoenfeld et al., 2015). In other
working muscle may also play a role, especially with lower
words, those who trained with high loads tested better with
loads (Pearson & Hussain, 2015; Schoenfeld, 2013). The overall
high loads and those who trained with low loads tested better
contribution of each may determine the magnitude of exer-
at low loads with muscle growth being similar between
cise-induced muscle hypertrophy (Ozaki et al., 2015; Ozaki,
conditions.
Loenneke, Buckner, & Abe, 2016). For instance, Mitchell et al.
The above knowledge supports the hypothesis that the
(2012) compared muscle adaptations between high- and low-
simultaneous execution of both high and low loads (i.e. a
load resistance training (Mitchell et al., 2012) in untrained
high level of both mechanical and metabolic stimuli) in an
participants and found a similar hypertrophic effect between
exercise protocol may maximize muscle hypertrophy while
3 sets at 80% of one repetition maximum (1RM) and 3 sets at
inducing concomitant increases in both muscle strength and
30% 1RM when each set was performed until concentric fail-
endurance. Therefore, we were interested in the effectiveness
ure. These findings have been recently confirmed in resistance
of drop sets (also known as descending sets or breakdown
trained individuals (Morton et al., 2016). It has been hypothe-
sets). Drop sets involve performing a set to concentric failure
sized that high-load resistance training induces more mechan-
with a given load and then immediately reducing the load and
ical stress and less metabolic fatigue than does low-load
continuing to train until subsequent failure (Schoenfeld, 2011).
resistance training, whereas low-load resistance training pro-
A recent study demonstrated that 2 sets of resistance training
duces less mechanical stress and more metabolic fatigue
consisting of performing repetitions to concentric failure at
(Pearson & Hussain, 2015). Regardless of the mechanism, a
80%1RM immediately followed by repetitions to concentric
similar hypertrophic effect would be expected for skeletal
failure at 30%1RM simultaneously increased muscle size,
muscle following both high- and low-load resistance training
strength and endurance in untrained aging adults
to failure (Mitchell et al., 2012; Schoenfeld, Peterson, Ogborn,
CONTACT Hayao Ozaki ozaki.hayao@gmail.com Graduate School of Health and Sports Science, Juntendo University, 1-1, Hirakagakuendai, Inzai, Chiba,
Japan
© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 H. OZAKI ET AL.
(Johannsmeyer, Candow, Brahms, Michel, & Zello, 2016). We n = 6], 3 sets of low-load [30% 1RM] resistance exercise [LL, n = 6],
hypothesized that even a single high-load (80% 1RM) set with or a single high-load (80% 1RM) set with additional drop sets
additional drop sets descending to a low load (30% 1RM) descending to a low load (30% 1RM) [SDS, n = 6]. In all conditions,
without recovery intervals would simultaneously induce mus- participants performed each set until concentric failure, with
cle hypertrophy and an increase in muscle strength and contractions as fast as possible in the concentric phase (approxi-
endurance. Furthermore, the use of the single drop sets mately 1 s) and 2 s in the eccentric phase using a metronome.
would reduce the exercise duration. The recovery intervals between sets were 3 min in the HL condi-
The aims of this pilot study were to investigate the effects tion and 90 s in the LL condition. In the SDS condition, partici-
of a single high-load (80% 1RM) set with additional drop sets pants performed a single high-load (80% 1RM) set and then four
descending to a low load (30% 1RM) without recovery inter- drop sets at 65%, 50%, 40% and 30% 1RM without recovery
vals on muscle size, strength, and endurance in untrained intervals between sets. Five dumbbells for these loads were
young men, and to compare this to a typical high- or low- prepared before the start of the training sessions and the dumb-
load resistance training condition. bells were exchanged within 5 seconds after each failure.
Methods Muscle cross-sectional area
Participants MRI was performed using an E-scan XQ (0.2-T: ESAOTE, Genoa,
Italy). A T1-weighted, spin-echo, axial plane sequence was per-
Nine untrained young men (mean ± SEs; age, 26 ± 1 year; height, formed with a 740-ms repetition time and an 18-ms echo time.
1.73 ± 0.02 m; weight, 65.1 ± 2.5 kg) volunteered to participate in To avoid any influence of fluid shifts within the muscle, all MRI
the study. Participants were recruited through printed advertise- procedures were performed at approximately the same time of
ments and by word-of-mouth. No participants had participated in day. No strenuous activity was permitted within 24 h of the MRI,
any regular resistance training during the previous year. and the participants rested quietly in the supine position for
Participants were instructed to avoid other physical activities and 30 min prior to each scan. Continuous transverse images with
not change their dietary patterns throughout the duration of the 0.5 cm slice thickness (0 cm interslice gap) were obtained from
study. Past or present smokers and anyone taking any medications both upper arms. Muscle CSA of the elbow flexor muscles
were excluded. All participants were informed of the methods, (biceps brachii and brachialis) was evaluated at 60% distal
procedures, and risks, and signed an informed consent document between the lateral epicondyle of the humerus and the acromial
before participating in the study. This study was conducted process of the scapula. ImageJ software (U.S. National Institutes
according to the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by of Health, Bethesda, MD) was used to determine the area of
the Ethics Committee for Human Experiments of Juntendo each slice. The test-retest (inter-session) reliabilities of MT mea-
University, Japan. surements were calculated using intraclass correlation coeffi-
cient (ICC), standard errors of measurement (SEM), and
Study design minimal difference. These values were previously determined 8
young participants in terms of muscle CSA of the elbow flexor
Each participant visited the laboratory four separate times for muscles, and 0.974, 0.26 cm2, and 0.72 cm2.
measurements approximately a week before the start of train-
ing period (PRE). On the first day, they underwent a measure-
ment of muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) using magnetic 1RM strength test
resonance imaging (MRI) and were then instructed on proper All participants performed the following warm-up sets: 8 reps
lifting technique using submaximal and near-maximal loads. at 40%, 5 reps at 60% and 2 reps at 80% of the predicted 1RM
On the second day, they participated in the 1RM test and were from the familiarization session. The initial load was estimated
familiarized with the maximal isometric strength test which from the familiarization session, and the load was increased or
was taken on the third day. On the fourth pre visit, participants reduced by 0.15–1.0 kg after each trial until a true 1RM was
were tested on their muscular endurance. After 4 weeks of achieved in a controlled manner through a full range of
training, muscle CSA and 1RM were reevaluated in a single day motion. For each participant, 1RM was identified within 5 trials
(MID). After the training periods, they completed all the mea- to minimize the effect of fatigue. Rest intervals of 3-5 minutes
surements without the familiarization sessions within a week were allowed between trials. The training loads for weeks 5–8
(POST). Participants performed dumbbell curls 2 days per were adjusted based on the MID 1RM test. The test-retest
week for the first 2 weeks and 3 days per week in the final (inter-session) reliabilities of dumbbell curl 1RM measurements
6 weeks except the 5th and 8th week. The number of training were calculated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
sessions per week was decreased to perform the MID tests on The test-retest (inter-session) reliabilities of dumbbell curl 1RM
the first session of 5th week and minimize the effect of fatigue measurements calculated using the ICC, SEM, and minimal
for the POST tests. difference were 0.998, 0.18 kg, and 0.50 kg.
Resistance training intervention Maximum isometric strength
Each arm was randomly assigned to one of the following three Maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVC) of the elbow
conditions: 3 sets of high-load (80% 1RM) resistance exercise [HL, flexors was determined using a System 4 Pro dynamometer
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 3
(Biodex, Shirley, NY) using the manufacturer’s recommended Table 1. Mean number of repetitions per set.
guidelines for positioning. During the test, the participant was Set
seated, with the shoulder and hip joint angle positioned at 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
approximately 25° and 85° of flexion, respectively, and the HL, reps 8.8 6.3 5.1
forearm was supinated. Participants were secured by straps (1.3) (1.2) (1.2)
LL, reps 104.3 41.3 31.8
to minimize extraneous and compensatory movements. The (22.3) (10.0) (5.6)
elbow joint center of rotation was visually aligned with the SDS, reps 6.2 4.9 5.3 5.8 12.9
axis of the dynamometer’s lever arm. Several warm-up con- (1.0) (0.8) (0.6) (1.0) (1.8)
tractions (4–5 submaximal contractions and 1–2 near-maximal Data are presented as means (SEs). Reps: repetitions, HL: 3 sets of high-load
resistance exercise, LL: 3 sets of low-load resistance exercise, SDS; a single
contractions) were performed before testing. Participants were high-load set preceding multiple drop sets descending to a low load.
then instructed to perform maximal isometric elbow flexion
for approximately 5 seconds at a fixed elbow joint angle of 60°
(an elbow joint angle of 0° corresponds to full extension of the different between conditions (HL, 6.8 ± 0.1 min; LL,
elbow). Two maximal efforts were performed. If the MVC 11.6 ± 2.3 min; SDS, 2.1 ± 0.1 min); the SDS condition had
torque varied by more than 5% between efforts, an additional the lowest training time per session.
MVC was performed. The highest value was used for data
analysis. The test-retest (inter-session) reliabilities of maximal
isometric elbow flexion measurements using the ICC, SEM, and Muscle cross sectional area
minimal difference were 0.987, 1.74 Nm, and 4.82 Nm.
There was no group x time interaction (Figure 1, p = 0.111, ES:
0.216) for elbow flexor muscle CSA, however, there was a main
Muscle endurance test effect of time (p < 0.001, ES: 0.830) with the CSA increasing
Muscular endurance was tested by performing dumbbell curls from PRE to MID [1.4 (1.0, 1.7) cm2, p < 0.001] and from MID to
at 30% 1RM for as many repetitions as possible to failure with POST [0.7 (0.4, 1.1) cm2, p < 0.001].
proper form. As during training, participants performed the
exercise test with contractions as fast as possible in the con-
centric phase (approximately 1 s) and 2 s in the eccentric Muscle strength
phase using a metronome.
There was a group x time interaction for elbow flexor 1RM
(Figure 2(a), p = 0.027, ES: 0.298). There were no significant
Statistical analyses differences between groups at PRE (p = 0.924), MID (p = 0.999)
Results are expressed as means and standard errors. Change or POST (p = 0.635). Across time, the HL condition significantly
scores are represented by means and 95% Confidence increased from PRE to MID [1.3 (0.23, 2.4) kg, p = 0.027] and
Intervals. For muscle CSA and 1RM we used a repeated mea- from MID to POST [1.9 (1.3, 2.5) kg, p < 0.001] and the SDS
sures ANOVA on time with a between participant factor of condition significantly increased from PRE to POST [1.7 (0.6,
group. Effect size (ES) was calculated using partial eta squared. 2.7) kg, p = 0.009] and MID to POST [1.0 (0.3, 1.6) kg, p = 0.012]
If there was a significant interaction, post hoc tests were but not PRE to MID [0.7 (−0.1, 1.5) kg, p = 0.085]. There were
performed by Fisher’s least significance difference (LSD) test.
For repetitions to failure and isometric strength, a repeated
measures ANOVA on time with a between participant factor of
group was used. If there was a significant interaction, one-way
ANOVA’s with LSD post-hoc tests were used across groups
within each time point and a paired sample’s t-test was used
across time within each group. If there was no interaction,
main effects were analyzed. Statistical significance was set at
p < 0.05.
Results
All participants completed the study, and overall attendance
was good, with a mean participation rate of 100% in HL, 99.2%
in LL, and 99.2% in SDS. No significant differences between
conditions were evident in any baseline values. The mean
number of repetitions per set throughout the entire training
period is shown in Table 1. The total training volume was Figure 1. Changes in elbow flexor muscle cross-sectional area. Data are pre-
significantly (p < 0.05) higher in the LL condition sented as means ± SEs. HL, 3 sets of high-load (80% 1RM) resistance exercise;
(15365 ± 3251 kg) than in HL (4724 ± 354 kg) and SDS LL, 3 sets of low-load (30% 1RM) resistance exercise; SDS, a single high-load
(80% 1RM) set preceding multiple drop sets descending to a low load (30%
(5308 ± 408 kg) conditions. The mean training time per ses- 1RM); PRE, before training; MID, after 4 weeks of training; POST, after 8 weeks of
sion, including recovery intervals, was significantly (p < 0.05) training.
4 H. OZAKI ET AL.
Figure 2. (a) Changes in dumbbell one repetition maximum. (b) Changes in elbow flexor isometric strength. Data are presented as means ± SEs. HL, 3 sets of high-
load (80% 1RM) resistance exercise; LL, 3 sets of low-load (30% 1RM) resistance exercise; SDS, a single high-load (80% 1RM) set preceding multiple drop sets
descending to a low load (30% 1RM); PRE, before training; MID, after 4 weeks of training; POST, after 8 weeks of training. * p < 0.05 vs. PRE, ** p < 0.01 vs. PRE.
no significant changes across time for the LL (PRE to POST
change of [1.2 (−0.6, 3.2) kg, p = 0.158] condition.
There was a group x time interaction for elbow flexor
isometric torque (Figure 2(b), p = 0.028, ES: 0.38). There were
no significant differences between groups at PRE (p = 0.773)
or POST (p = 0.673). Within each condition, the HL [4.6 (1.3,
8.0) Nm, p = 0.016] and SDS [5.4 (3.0, 7.8) Nm, p = 0.002]
increased from PRE to POST, however, there were no signifi-
cant changes within the LL condition [0.8 (−2.2, 3.9) Nm,
p = 0.516].
Muscle endurance
There was a group x time interaction for maximum repetitions
completed at 30% 1RM (Figure 3, p = 0.011, ES: 0.449). There
were no significant differences between groups at PRE Figure 3. Changes in the maximum repetitions of dumbbell curls at 30% 1RM.
Data are presented as means ± SEs. HL, 3 sets of high-load (80% 1RM) resistance
(p = 0.349) but there was at POST (p = 0.015) with the LL exercise; LL, 3 sets of low-load (30% 1RM) resistance exercise; SDS, a single high-
group completing significantly more repetitions than the HL load (80% 1RM) set preceding multiple drop sets descending to a low load (30%
[difference of 56 (19, 93) repetitions, p = 0.005] and SDS 1RM); PRE, before training; POST, after 8 weeks of training. * p < 0.05 vs. PRE, **
p < 0.01 vs. PRE, † p < 0.05 vs. LL, †† p < 0.01 vs. LL.
[difference of 39 (2, 76) repetitions, p = 0.037] groups. Across
time, the LL [51 (2, 99) repetitions, p = 0.041] and the SDS [21
(11, 30) repetitions, p = 0.002] conditions significantly
increased from PRE to POST, however, there was no significant muscle growth occurs across a wide range of loading patterns.
change for the HL [−12 (−41, 17) repetitions, p = 0.329]. In fact, a recent study has shown that the hypertrophic effect
induced by unilateral elbow flexion exercise was similar even
between no external (e.g. flexing muscle) load and high-load
Discussion
(70% 1RM) conditions (Counts et al., 2016). Although these
The major finding of this study was that a single high-load previous studies included only one loading pattern per condi-
(80% 1RM) set with additional drop sets descending to a low tion, we hypothesized that a high-load (80% 1RM) set imme-
load (30% 1RM) without recovery intervals can simultaneously diately followed by additional drop sets would enhance
increase muscle CSA, dynamic strength, isometric torque, and hypertrophy through a high level of both mechanical and
muscular endurance in untrained young men. Furthermore, metabolic stimuli. Contrary to our hypothesis, there were no
these training effects were achieved with an overall lower differences in muscle growth between the three conditions.
training time compared to typical resistance exercise protocols This suggests that resistance exercise completed to muscular
using high load only or low load only. failure is sufficient to maximize the growth response across a
In the present study, muscle growth was similar between variety of protocols. We reasoned that combining “metabo-
the low load and high load conditions. This is consistent with lites” with “high mechanical loads” may augment the muscle
the results of previous studies (Mitchell et al., 2012; Morton growth response over and above that observed with tradi-
et al., 2016; Schoenfeld et al., 2015) which have found that tional resistance training. However, these findings along with
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 5
another recent study (Dankel et al., 2016) fail to provide sup- meaningful rest between sets. It seems likely that a condition
port for the hypothesis that the buildup of metabolites per se, that completed a set of high load resistance training followed
will produce an anabolic response over that achieved with by multiple sets of low load exercise with similar rest as the LL
sufficient mechanical tension. Although muscle growth was condition would have produced similar strength to HL and
similar between conditions, significant pre to post increases in similar endurance to the LL condition; particularly if using the
1RM and maximal isometric strength were observed only in same absolute load used at PRE.
the HL and SDS conditions following the 8 weeks of dumbbell Of note, our LL condition completed an extraordinary
curl exercise, which suggests that 1RM strength gains favor amount of repetitions within the present study. For example,
protocols including high loads. Overall, these within condition in the first training session, the LL condition completed an
responses are in partial agreement with previous studies. For average of 63 repetitions in the first set which increased to
example, those with consistent practice lifting with a high load 115 by the 10th training session. Because the load lifted was
have been observed to test better in the 1RM than conditions adjusted based on the new 1RM at the MID test, the amount
repeatedly training (i.e. practicing) with a lower load (Martin- of repetitions competed in the first set decreased to 80
Hernandez et al., 2013; Mitchell et al., 2012; Ogasawara, repetitions in the 11th training session, but then increased
Loenneke, Thiebaud, & Abe, 2013). However, when partici- to 147 repetitions by the final training session. Previous data
pants were tested on a movement than both had equal prac- in the lower body (Mitchell et al., 2012) showed that the
tice with (i.e. isokinetic/isometric testing), strength was similar average repetitions completed in the first set to failure was
between conditions (Martin-Hernandez et al., 2013; Mitchell about 35 repetitions which is much less than that observed
et al., 2012). In fact, Morton et al. found that just practicing the in the present study. It is possible that this is muscle specific,
1RM test every 3 weeks can largely make up the difference in as Farup et al. (2015) found that participants completing
1RM between high load and low load conditions (Morton elbow flexion exercise were able to complete over 100
et al., 2016). Based on this “practice” hypothesis (Buckner repetitions in the first set (Farup et al., 2015). Another factor
et al., 2017), we would have expected the isometric torque could be the absolute load lifted by the participant. Notably,
to change similarly pre to post across all conditions. However, in the present study there tended to be a correlation
we found that isometric torque only increased across time in between the 1RM at PRE and the number of repetitions
the HL and SDS conditions. This is similar to Jenkins et al. completed in the first set (r = −0.780, p = 0.068). Further,
(Jenkins et al., 2016) who found that 1RM and isometric the participant with the highest 1RM achieved 45 repetitions
strength significantly increased only in the 80% 1RM group in the first set and the participant with the lowest 1RM
following 4 weeks of elbow flexor training, however, this was completed 110 repetitions.
not found in the 30% 1RM group. The reason for these differ- The SDS method of resistance training may be a time
ences is unknown but may be related to the exercise type, effective way of training because there is no meaningful rest
number of sets completed, or the manner or angle in which between sets. Performing the SDS training protocol could
isometric strength is measured. It must also be acknowledged simultaneously improve not only muscle size but also the
that there were only within condition changes across time in maximum muscle strength and muscular endurance. This
the HL and SDS conditions but no actual differences between could be potentially beneficial for athletes and/or fitness
any of the conditions at PRE, MID, or POST suggesting that enthusiasts with limited time available for exercise. However,
these changes in strength may need to be interpreted with because one of noted limitations in the current study includes
caution. a small sample size of untrained men, it is uncertain if the
Relatively low load resistance combined with high repeti- results pertain to resistance trained men. Further, the results
tions is typically recommended to develop muscular endur- are specific to a single joint exercise involving a small muscle
ance (Campos et al., 2002; de Salles et al., 2009; Schoenfeld group (elbow flexors) and cannot necessarily be generalized to
et al., 2015). For example, Campos et al. compared the change compound exercises requiring larger muscle groups.
in maximum repetitions after 8 weeks of resistance training in In conclusion, the present study is the first to show that a
the following three groups: 3-5RM group, 9-11RM group, and single high-load (80% 1RM) set with additional drop sets
20-28RM group and observed a greater increase in maximum descending to a low load (30% 1RM) without recovery inter-
repetitions in the group that was repeatedly training with vals can simultaneously increase muscle size, strength, and
higher repetitions (Campos et al., 2002). Similarly, our study endurance in untrained young men, despite lower training
found that the conditions repeatedly completing low load time compared to typical resistance exercise protocols using
repetitions to failure performed better in the muscular endur- only high or low loads. Further work is needed to define the
ance test. However, based on the principle of specificity, this training protocols required to maximize these training effects.
would have been expected given that muscular endurance
was determined by how good someone was at completing
low load repetitions to failure (Table 1). Although the SDS Disclosure statement
condition increased muscular endurance, it was not to that No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
observed with the LL condition. Although speculative, it seems
plausible that this result may have been related to the exercise
protocol employed. Our goal was to test the effectiveness of References
SDS, but this condition never reached the same number of Buckner, S. L., Jessee, M. B., Mattocks, K. T., Mouser, J. G., Counts, B. R.,
repetitions in training as the LL group since they had no Dankel, S. J., & Loenneke, J. P. (2017). Determining strength: A case for
6 H. OZAKI ET AL.
multiple methods of measurement. Sports Medicine, 47(2), 193–195. Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 52(2), 139–155. doi:10.1007/
doi:10.1007/s40279-016-0580-3 BF00433384
Campos, G. E., Luecke, T. J., Wendeln, H. K., Toma, K., Hagerman, F. C., Mitchell, C. J., Churchward-Venne, T. A., West, D. W. D., Burd, N. A., Breen,
Murray, T. F., . . . Staron, R. S. (2002). Muscular adaptations in response L., Baker, S. K., & Phillips, S. M. (2012). Resistance exercise load does not
to three different resistance-training regimens: Specificity of repetition determine training-mediated hypertrophic gains in young men. Journal
maximum training zones. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 88(1– of Applied Physiology, 113(1), 71–77. doi:10.1152/
2), 50–60. doi:10.1007/s00421-002-0681-6 japplphysiol.00307.2012
Counts, B. R., Buckner, S. L., Dankel, S. J., Jessee, M. B., Mattocks, K. T., Morton, R. W., Oikawa, S. Y., Wavell, C. G., Mazara, N., McGlory, C.,
Mouser, J. G., . . . Loenneke, J. P. (2016). The acute and chronic effects of Quadrilatero, J., . . . Phillips, S. M. (2016). Neither load nor systemic
“NO LOAD” resistance training. Physiology & Behavior, 164, 345–352. hormones determine resistance training-mediated hypertrophy or
doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2016.06.024 strength gains in resistance-trained young men. Journal of Applied
Dankel, S. J., Buckner, S. L., Jessee, M. B., Mattocks, K. T., Mouser, J. G., Physiology (1985), 121(1), 129–138. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00154.2016
Counts, B. R., . . . Loenneke, J. P. (2016). Post-exercise blood flow restric- Ogasawara, R., Loenneke, J. P., Thiebaud, R. S., & Abe, T. (2013). Low-load
tion attenuates muscle hypertrophy. European Journal of Applied bench press training to fatigue results in muscle hypertrophy similar to
Physiology, 116(10), 1955–1963. doi:10.1007/s00421-016-3447-2 high-load bench press training. International Journal of Clinical
de Salles, B. F., Simao, R., Miranda, F., Novaes, J. D., Lemos, A., & Willardson, Medicine, 4, 114–121. doi:10.4236/ijcm.2013.42022
J. M. (2009). Rest interval between sets in strength training. Sports Ozaki, H., Abe, T., Mikesky, A. E., Sakamoto, A., Machida, S., & Naito, H.
Medicine, 39(9), 765–777. doi:10.2165/11315230-000000000-00000 (2015). Physiologocal stimuli necessary for muscle hypertrophy. The
Farup, J., De Paoli, F., Bjerg, K., Riis, S., Ringgard, S., & Vissing, K. (2015). Journal of Physical Fitnesss and Sports Medicine, 4(1), 43–51.
Blood flow restricted and traditional resistance training performed to doi:10.7600/jpfsm.4.43
fatigue produce equal muscle hypertrophy. Scandinavian Journal of Ozaki, H., Loenneke, J. P., Buckner, S. L., & Abe, T. (2016). Muscle growth
Medicine & Science in Sports, 25(6), 754–763. doi:10.1111/sms.12396 across a variety of exercise modalities and intensities: Contributions of
Jenkins, N. D., Housh, T. J., Buckner, S. L., Bergstrom, H. C., Cochrane, K. C., mechanical and metabolic stimuli. Medical Hypotheses, 88, 22–26.
Hill, E. C., . . . Cramer, J. T. (2016). Neuromuscular adaptations after 2 and doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2015.12.026
4 weeks of 80% versus 30% 1 repetition maximum resistance training Pearson, S. J., & Hussain, S. R. (2015). A review on the mechanisms of
to failure. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 30(8), 2174– blood-flow restriction resistance training-induced muscle hypertrophy.
2185. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000001308 Sports Medicine, 45(2), 187–200. doi:10.1007/s40279-014-0264-9
Johannsmeyer, S., Candow, D. G., Brahms, C. M., Michel, D., & Zello, G. A. Schoenfeld, B. (2011). The use of specialized training techniques to max-
(2016). Effect of creatine supplementation and drop-set resistance imize muscle hypertrophy. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 33(4), 60–
training in untrained aging adults. Experimental Gerontology, 83, 112– 65. doi:10.1519/SSC.0b013e3182221ec2
119. doi:10.1016/j.exger.2016.08.005 Schoenfeld, B. J. (2013). Potential mechanisms for a role of metabolic
Martin-Hernandez, J., Marin, P. J., Menendez, H., Ferrero, C., Loenneke, J. P., stress in hypertrophic adaptations to resistance training. Sports
& Herrero, A. J. (2013). Muscular adaptations after two different Medicine, 43(3), 179–194. doi:10.1007/s40279-013-0017-1
volumes of blood flow-restricted training. Scandinavian Journal of Schoenfeld, B. J., Peterson, M. D., Ogborn, D., Contreras, B., & Sonmez, G. T.
Medicine & Science in Sports, 23(2), e114–e120. doi:10.1111/sms.12036 (2015). Effects of low- vs. high-load resistance training on muscle strength
McDonagh, M. J., & Davies, C. T. (1984). Adaptive response of mammalian and hypertrophy in well-trained men. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
skeletal muscle to exercise with high loads. European Journal of Applied Research, 29(10), 2954–2963. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000000958
