Fisher, James

Steele, James

English

Solent Electronic Archive

	

	
 !

∀!!#
∃%	!&&


∋&((&
	
	
	
	
			
	
	
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Scientific Rigour: a Heavy or Light Load to Carry?
James Steele • James Fisher
 Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013
We read with interest the recent publication by Schoenfeld
[1]. Whilst agreeing with the practicality of suggesting ‘‘a
moderate repetition range (6–12RM) using a controlled
lifting cadence’’ we write raising concerns about the sci-
entific rigour used by the author to reach this conclusion.
Initially, we raise issue with use of the term intensity in
reference to what is in fact load in resistance training (RT).
Multiple publications have discussed definition and misuse
of this term, clarifying why intensity is not scientifically
accurate when referring to load [2, 3]. Whilst tradition
suggests intensity is often accepted to mean load, we might
consider the sage words of Leo Tolstoy—‘‘Wrong does not
cease to be wrong because the majority share in it’’ [4]. We
ask that scientific terminology be expressed accurately.
Researchers, authors, editors and reviewers might consider
the term load as a reference to absolute weight lifted or
intensity of load as a reference to relative load or %1RM.
Considering Table 1 of intervention studies (the only
valid methodology examining training results), we are
unclear as to how Schoenfeld used this evidence to reach
his conclusions. Of nine publications cited, only three [5–
7] reported any statistical significance in favour of high-
load training. Campos et al. [5] and Schuenke et al. [7]
measured muscle fibre hypertrophy using muscle biopsy
from pre- to post-intervention. Whilst muscle biopsy is a
validated method, it should be considered that anaesthe-
tising and invasively withdrawing cells has the potential to
affect those cells. In addition we might regard that most
persons wishing to increase their muscularity might be less
concerned with in vitro research and more concerned with
change in cross-sectional area (CSA) or thickness of their
muscles as a whole.
The other article that found significant differences in
favour of high-load training was Holm et al. [6], which
Schoenfeld [1] raised concerns with regarding the training
method used for the low-load group. In this study [6],
participants in the low-load group performed a single
repetition with a load of 15.5 % 1RM every 5 s for a 3-min
period totalling 36 repetitions per set, completing 10 sets in
total. Schoenfeld [1] questions the extent of fatigue when
performing this protocol due to the extremely low-load and
significant rest between repetitions. Indeed we reiterate
these concerns that this certainly represents a low intensity
of effort. However, Schoenfeld [1] also failed to mention
that the authors report muscle CSA, as measured by mag-
netic resonance imaging (MRI), at proximal, middle and
distal locations of the thigh. In fact Holm et al. [6] only
report a significant difference in favour of the high-load
group at the middle location, with no significant differences
between high- and low-load groups at the proximal and
distal locations.
Of the other six studies, which do not support high-load
RT for muscular hypertrophy, two [8, 9] are actually the
same study published in two different articles reporting
different outcome measures. This is evident looking at the
participant information (e.g. age, height, weight and max-
imal oxygen uptake), which are identical between the
publications. This has been confirmed by communication
with the corresponding author (who was the same for each
article). Although a relatively simple mistake to make, it
seems that someone reading an article with the expected
intricacy to discuss it in review might have noticed this. In
addition, in Table 1 the Design column states of the Le´ger
et al. [8] article ‘‘Random assignment to either low-
J. Steele (&)  J. Fisher
Centre for Health Exercise and Sport Science,
Southampton Solent University, East Park Terrace,
Southampton SO14 0YN, UK
e-mail: james.steele@solent.ac.uk
Sports Med
DOI 10.1007/s40279-013-0113-2
intensity (3–5RM) or a high intensity (20–28RM) exer-
cise’’—one can only assume that this is a typographic error
since the concept of the review [1] generally discusses
higher intensity (load) as associated with lower repetitions,
and vice versa.
Part of the rationale for Schoenfeld’s [1] review was that
recently a number of authors have suggested that low-load
RT (B50 % 1RM) induces similar responses to high-load
RT, assuming it is continued to momentary muscular
failure (MMF), and thus maximum intensity of effort.
However, if we consider only studies cited in Table 1 of
Schoenfeld’s review [1] that controlled for this between
high- and low-load groups by having them train to MMF,
and measured hypertrophy using whole muscle methods
(MRI, computed tomography, ultrasonography), five of five
studies examined suggest no difference between high- and
low-load RT [8–13].
A difficulty with studies examining high- and low-loads
is that volume is often not equated between groups and thus
could be a factor responsible for the results observed
independent of load. This is a point raised in discussion by
Schoenfeld [1]. Le´ger et al. [8] and Lamon et al. [9],
however, controlled for volume between the high- and low-
load groups, had participants train to MMF and again
report no difference between high- and low-load groups.
Finally, a number of other publications that compare
high- and low-load training for muscular hypertrophy are
inexplicably not included in the review [14–16]. Each of
these papers report significant increases for both high- and
low-load training interventions with no significant differ-
ences between the groups.
We question Schoenfeld’s [1] comments that research is
generally mixed and conflicting in this area as there is in
fact a majority of better controlled studies suggesting no
difference resulting from differing RT loads. In light of the
lack of rigour regarding inclusion of appropriate research,
combined with limitations discussed herein, Schoenfeld’s
conclusion that a particular load during training is more
beneficial for hypertrophy than any other load when both
are performed to MMF lacks evidence. Instead we suggest
that the more rigorous and valid studies consistently sup-
port both high- and low-load RT continued to MMF yields
similar hypertrophic adaptations. We note though that we
share Schoenfeld’s [1] concerns regarding the lack of
research utilising trained participants examining this area
and support further research looking to examine this.
Acknowledgments The authors have no conflicts of interest that are
directly relevant to the content of this letter.
References
1. Schoenfeld B. Is there a minimum intensity threshold for resis-
tance training-induced hypertrophic adaptations? Sports Med.
Epub 2013 Aug 19.
2. Fisher J, Smith D. Attempting to better define ‘‘intensity’’ for
muscular performance: is it all wasted effort? Eur J Appl Physiol.
2012;112(12):4183–5.
3. Steele J. Intensity; in-ten-si-ty; noun. 1. Often used ambiguously
within resistance training. 2. Is it time to drop the term alto-
gether? Br J Sports Med. Epub 2013 Feb 12.
4. Tolstoy L. A confession. New York: WW Norton & Company
Inc; 1983.
5. Campos GER, Luecke TJ, Wendeln HK, et al. Muscular adap-
tations in response to three different resistance-training regimens:
specificity of repetition maximum training zones. Eur J Appl
Physiol. 2002;88(1–2):50–60.
6. Holm L, Reitelseder S, Pedersen TG, Doessing S, Petersen SG,
Flyvbjerg A, et al. Changes in muscle size and MHC composition
in response to resistance exercise with heavy and light loading
intensity. J Appl Physiol. 2008;105(5):1454–61.
7. Schuenke MD, Herman JR, Gliders RM, Hagerman FC, Hikida
RS, Rana SR, et al. Early-phase muscular adaptations in response
to slow-speed versus traditional resistance training regimens. Eur
J Appl Physiol. 2012;112(10):3585–95.
8. Le´ger B, Cartoni R, Praz M, Lamon S, Deriaz O, Crettand A,
et al. Akt signalling through GSK-3beta, mTOR, and Foxo1 is
involved in human skeletal muscle hypertrophy and atrophy.
J Physiol. 2006;576(Pt 3):923–33.
9. Lamon S, Wallace MA, Le´ger B, Russell AP. Regulation of
STARS and its downstream targets suggest a novel pathway
involved in human skeletal muscle hypertrophy and atrophy.
J Physiol. 2009;587(Pt 8):1795–803.
10. Tanimoto M, Ishii N. Effects of low-intensity resistance exercise
with slow movement tonic force generation on muscular function
in young men. J Appl Physiol. 2006;100:1150–7.
11. Tanimoto M, Sanada K, Yamamoto K, et al. Effects of whole
body low-intensity resistance training with slow movement and
tonic force generation on muscular size and strength in young
men. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22(6):1926–38.
12. Mitchell CJ, Churchward-Venne TA, West DW, Burd NA, Breen
L, Baker SK, Phillips SM. Resistance exercise load does not
determine training-mediated hypertrophic gains in young men.
J Appl Physiol. 2012;112(10):3585–95.
13. Ogosowara R, Loenneke JP, Thiebaud RS, Abe T. Low-load
bench press training to fatigue results in muscle hypertrophy
similar to high-load bench press training. Int J Clin Med.
2013;4:114–21.
14. Hisaeda H, Miyagawa K, Kuno SY, et al. Influence of two dif-
ferent modes of resistance training in female subjects. Ergo-
nomics. 1996;39(6):842–52.
15. Kraemer WJ, Nindl BC, Ratamess NA, et al. Changes in muscle
hypertrophy in women with periodised resistance training. Med
Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36(4):697–708.
16. Popov DV, Swirkun DV, Netreba AI, et al. Hormonal adaptation
determines the increase in muscle mass and strength during low-
intensity strength training without relaxation. Human Physiol.
2006;32(5):609–14.
J. Steele, J. Fisher


A confession.

Akt signalling through GSK-3beta, mTOR, and Foxo1 is involved in human skeletal muscle hypertrophy and atrophy.

Attempting to better deﬁne ‘‘intensity’’ for muscular performance: is it all wasted effort?

Changes in muscle hypertrophy in women with periodised resistance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc.

Changes in muscle size and MHC composition in response to resistance exercise with heavy and light loading intensity.

Early-phase muscular adaptations in response to slow-speed versus traditional resistance training regimens.

Effects of low-intensity resistance exercise with slow movement tonic force generation on muscular function in young men.

Effects of whole body low-intensity resistance training with slow movement and tonic force generation on muscular size and strength in young men.

Hormonal adaptation determines the increase in muscle mass and strength during lowintensity strength training without relaxation. Human Physiol.

Inﬂuence of two different modes of resistance training in female subjects.

Intensity; in-ten-si-ty; noun. 1. Often used ambiguously within resistance training. 2. Is it time to drop the term altogether? Br J Sports Med. Epub

Is there a minimum intensity threshold for resistance training-induced hypertrophic adaptations? Sports Med. Epub

Low-load bench press training to fatigue results in muscle hypertrophy similar to high-load bench press training.

Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: speciﬁcity of repetition maximum training zones.

Regulation of STARS and its downstream targets suggest a novel pathway involved in human skeletal muscle hypertrophy and atrophy.

Resistance exercise load does not determine training-mediated hypertrophic gains in young men.

Scientific rigour: a heavy or light load to carry?

http://ssudl.solent.ac.uk/3131/1/Scientific%20Rigour%20a%20Heavy%20or%20Light%20load%20to%20carry.pdf

Scientific rigour: a heavy or light load to carry?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Solent Electronic Archive