SIMILARITY IN ADAPTATIONS TO HIGH-RESISTANCE

CIRCUIT VS. TRADITIONAL STRENGTH TRAINING IN

RESISTANCE-TRAINED MEN
PEDRO E. ALCARAZ,
1
JORGE PEREZ-GOMEZ,
2
MANUEL CHAVARRIAS,
1
AND ANTHONY J. BLAZEVICH
3
1
Biomechanics Laboratory, Department of Physical Activity and Sport Sciences, San Antonio Catholic University of Murcia,
Murcia, Spain;
2
Department of Physical Education, Faculty of Sport Science, University of Extremadura, Caceres, Spain; and
3
School Of Exercise, Biomedical, and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia
ABSTRACT
AlCaraz, PE, Perez-Gomez, J, Chavarrias, M, and Blazevich, AJ.
Similarity in adaptations to high-resistance circuit vs. traditional
strength training in resistance-trained men. J Strength Cond
Res 25(x): 000000, 2011To compare the effects of 8 weeks
of high-resistance circuit (HRC) training (36 sets of 6
exercises, 6 repetition maximum [RM], ;35-second interset
recovery) and traditional strength (TS) training (36 sets of
6 exercises, 6RM, 3-minute interset recovery) on physical
performance parameters and body composition, 33 healthy
men were randomly assigned to HRC, TS, or a control group.
Training consisted of weight lifting 3 times a week for 8 weeks.
Before and after the training, 1RM strength on bench press and
half squat exercises, bench press peak power output, and
body composition (dual x-ray absorptiometry ) were determined.
Shuttle run and 30-second Wingate tests were also completed.
Upper limb (UL) and lower limb 1RM increased equally after
both TS and HRC training. The UL peak power at various
loads was signicantly higher at posttraining for both groups
(p # 0.01). Shuttle-run performance was signicantly better
after both HRC and TS training, however peak cycling power
increased only in TS training (p # 0.05). Signicant decreases
were found in % body fat in the HRC group only; HRC and TS
training both resulted in an increased lean but not bone mass.
The HRC training was as effective as TS for improving weight
lifting 1RM and peak power, shuttle-run performance and lean
mass. Thus, HRC training promoted a similar strength-mass
adaptation as traditional training while using a shorter training
session duration.
KEY WORDS muscle strength, resistance training, circuit
training, DEXA, 1RM
INTRODUCTION
A
n important goal of clinical exercise and athletic
training programs is to increase strength and
muscle mass while improving cardiovascular
tness and optimizing body composition. Such
programs typically involve the concurrent use of strength and
endurance training sessions; however, this may be problem-
atic when access to training facilities or supervisors is limited
or when individuals perceive they have limited time to train.
Thus, the identication of a single form of physical training
that promotes broad physical tness adaptations would be of
great benet to physical training specialists.
Clinical and athletic training programs aim to improve
a variety of tness parameters including muscle strength,
muscle mass, cardiovascular tness, and body composition
(4,7,15,40). Indeed, strength training has been shown to
increase both health (3,22,34) and physical tness (19,23,33).
Traditional strength (TS) training, which requires an
individual to lift heavy loads with moderate interset recovery
periods using free weights or resistive machines, is commonly
performed for these purposes (24) and is particularly
associated with substantial increases in bone (8,28,31) and
muscle mass and strength (6,16,30,37). These increases in
mass and strength are important both for improving many
aspects of athletic performance (17,32,41) and movement
function and skeletal health in aged and clinical populations
(11,36,37,39). Nonetheless, there are several disadvantages of
TS training, including that (a) the time required to complete
a training session can be long when many exercise sets are
performed with reasonable interset rest, (b) health-inuenc-
ing cardiovascular benets may be moderate when compared
to other forms of training (e.g., aerobic training), and (c) there
is often minimal body fat loss after a period of training. These
limitations are typically overcome by implementing a con-
current aerobic conditioning program and dietary control.
Alternatively, circuit training, where lighter loads are lifted
with minimal rest, has proven very effective for increasing
maximum oxygen consumption, maximum pulmonary
ventilation, functional capacity, and strength while reducing
body fat and improving body composition (9,15,18,29). Thus,
Address correspondence to Pedro E. Alcaraz, palcaraz@pdi.ucam.edu.
0(0)/19
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
2011 National Strength and Conditioning Association
VOLUME 0 | NUMBER 0 | MONTH 2011 | 1
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
circuit training could be used to improve health and physical
tness, without the additional requirement for specic
aerobic conditioning. To this end, less time needs to be
devoted to physical training to elicit demonstrable improve-
ments in health and physical tness. A signicant drawback
of normal circuit training programs, however, is that the
loads lifted are typically low, so the stimulus for strength and
muscle (18) and bone mass (21) adaptations is minimal. This
is a notable problem for aged and clinical populations, for
whom increasing muscle and bone mass and functional
strength is essential for improving functional capacity, or for
those exercisers whose goals include increasing mass and
strength for other reasons.
It was recently shown that healthy subjects were able to
produce the same muscle performance under heavy loading
conditions during a heavy strength training circuit session
lasting ;12 minutes as they could during a TS training
session, yet the cardiovascular response to the circuit was
signicantly greater (1). These data are suggestive of the
novel possibility that circuit training programs using heavy
loads might elicit substantial strength and bone and muscle
mass gains while improving cardiovascular tness and body
composition. To our knowledge, the response to chronic
heavy circuit training has not been determined previously
despite it being the best possibility of promoting broad
physical tness adaptations. Thus, to determine the efcacy
of such a program, this study compared the effects of high-
resistance traditional and circuit strength training on muscle
size and strength, body composition, and measures of
cardiovascular tness in healthy young adults.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
A longitudinal, randomized design with a 1-week familiar-
ization phase was used. The independent variable was
training program. Dependent variables included muscle size
and strength, power, body composition, and measures of
cardiovascular tness. After the 1-week familiarization phase,
the subjects were divided into 3 groups: high-resistance
circuit (HRC) training, TS training, and a control group (C).
Subjects
Forty healthy (HRC = 15; TS = 15; and C = 10 participants),
trained men volunteered for the study (age: 22.7 63.3 years).
By the end of the study, 33 participants (body mass: 75.2 68.1
kg; height: 1.76 60.6 m) completed the study with the largest
portion of withdrawals resulting frominjury sustained outside
the research (HRC, TS, and control groups contained 15, 11,
and 7 subjects, respectively). Attendance at training sessions
was monitored. Two subjects were omitted from the study,
because ,85% of scheduled sessions were completed. All
subjects had been regularly performing resistance training
(RT) in a gymnasium (e.g., ca. 612 repetitions per set, 3 sets
per exercise, 24 dwk
21
; no Olympic or power lifting
training) for at least the previous 12 months, could produce
a force equal to twice their body mass during an isometric
squat lift and had no recent injuries or medical conditions
that would prevent maximal exertion. All subjects performed
upper- and lower-body RT twice per week. The participants
agreed not to take ergogenic aids, supplements, or medi-
cations that might inuence performance. The subjects read
and signed statements of informed consent before participa-
tion in the study. Approval for the study was given by the
Human Subjects Ethics Committee of the San Antonio
Catholic University of Murcia, Spain.
Protocol
Subjects completed 1 week of familiarization RT before the
8-week training period. During the 1-week familiarization
phase, the subjects performed 3 RT sessions. The purpose of
such training was to ensure the subjects were performing
similar training and that their training compliance was high
before the specic training phase. In each RT session, loads
were adjusted so that subjects could perform only 6 repetition
maxima (6RM) of leg curl, bench press, standing calf raise, lat
pull-down, half squat, and preacher (biceps) curl exercises,
which were typical of the RTexercises used by the subjects in
their previous training and were used in this study.
Training
Traditional Strength Training. Subjects in the TS group
performed RT 3 times a week for 8 weeks with at least 1
day of rest between each training day. The volume progressed
from 3 sets for each exercise in the rst week to 6 sets in the
eighth week (i.e., 1 set increase every 2 weeks). To warm up,
the subjects performed 2 sets of 3 exercises (leg curl, bench
press, standing calf raise) using the following sequence:
10 repetitions at 50% of 6RM, 1-minute rest, 8 repetitions at
75%of 6RM, 2-minute rest, and then the rst main training set
(i.e., 100% of 6RM). The 6RM load was adjusted for the
subsequent test by approximately 2% if a subject performed
61 repetition, and was adjusted by approximately 5% if
a subject performed 62 repetitions (22). In every session of
each week, the subjects lifted weights that allowed only
6 repetitions to be performed (6RM, ca. 8590% of 1RM).
The eccentric phase of each exercise was performed for
approximately 3 seconds, whereas the concentric phase
was performed at maximum velocity. This sequence was
standardized in the rst training week and eccentric phase
duration was regularly timed as feedback for the subjects.
Three minutes of passive rest separated sets (Figure 1). After
completion of the rst 3 exercises, the subjects completed the
other 3 exercises (lat pull-down, half squat, and preacher curl)
with the same warm-up sequence (;5 minutes). The subjects
were supervised by an experienced lifter to ensure that
volitional fatigue was achieved safely, and the control of the
rest was strict. The total training time in the TS group ranged
between 105 minutes (3 sets) and 125 minutes (6 sets).
High-Resistance Circuit Training. Training performed by the
HRCgroup differed from TS only in the rest interval between
2 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the TM
High Circuit and Traditional Strength Training
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the exercises. Although subjects in the TS group performed
the exercises one after the other with a rest between each set,
HRC subjects executed the training in 2 short circuits. The
rst circuit consisted of leg curl, bench press, and standing calf
raise exercises. The second circuit consisted of lat pull-down,
half squat, and preacher curl exercises (Figure 1). These
2 short circuits were performed for 36 series (progressing
biweekly). A ;5-minute period between the circuits allowed
for a warm-up using the exercises used in the second series.
Approximately 35 seconds separated each exercise, which
was enough time only to move safely between exercises. The
warm-up, intensity, and the volume of exercise were the same
as that completed by TS. Again, the subjects were supervised
by an experienced lifter to ensure that volitional fatigue was
achieved safely, and the rest periods were strictly adhered to.
The total training time in the HRC group ranged between
55 minutes (3 sets) and 78 minutes (6 sets).
Testing
Before and after the 8-week specic training phase, and over
successive days, testing included (a) body composition
examination using dual x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA), (b)
maximum dynamic strength (1RM) testing on the bench
press and half squat exercises, and peak power output in the
bench press exercise using resistances of 30, 45, 60, 70, and
80% of 1RM, and (c) maximum lactate (Lact
max
) and
maximum power testing during a 30-second Wingate test.
Two days later, a shuttle-run test was completed. Test order
was repeated in the same order at the same time of day at
posttraining. Three days of rest separated the last training
session of each phase from the start of testing. Subjects were
required to attend testing in a fully hydrated state.
Maximum Dynamic Strength. The subjects were carefully
familiarized with the testing procedures of voluntary force
production of the muscle groups tested. In all tests of physical
performance, external verbal encouragement was given to
each subject.
A modied Smith machine that consisted of a bar that
moved freely on rollers in the vertical plane was used to
measure maximal bilateral concentric force production of the
lower and upper limbs (ULs). The 1RM half squat strength
was recorded as the maximum weight that subjects were able
to lift in a half squat (90 knee angle); an assistant gave a go
signal when the lifter attained the proper joint angle (this was
practiced extensively in familiarization). For safety, we limited
the range of motion to a maximum of 80 by placing an
adjustable chair under the subjects, and each repetition was
inspected to ensure the knee angle was ;90. After the
general warm-up, subjects performed a specic warm-up
using 50% (10 reps), 75% (6 reps), and 85% (3 reps) of their
estimated 1RM. After this warm-up, the subjects resistances
were xed at a critical value of 5% below the expected 1RM
and were gradually increased after each successful perfor-
mance until failure. The interval between each trial was
23 minutes, and 1RM was achieved within 35 attempts.
The same procedure was used for the 1RM bench press
strength. In this test, the bar could not be bounced off the
Figure 1. Experimental design. Traditional strength training performed 36 sets of each exercise with a 3-minute rest between sets, although a 5-minute rest was
allowed after the third exercise. A standardized warm-up was performed before each set of exercise (see text for details). High-resistance circuit training performed
36 series of 2 circuits with a 5-minute rest. A warm-up for all 3 exercises in a series was performed before the series began; the warm-up for the second series
was performed in the 5-minute rest period. RM = repetition maximum.
VOLUME 0 | NUMBER 0 | MONTH 2011 | 3
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the TM
| www.nsca-jscr.org
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
chest, the feet had to remain in contact with the oor, and the
buttocks had to remain in contact with the bench. In both
tests, the last acceptable extension with the highest possible
load was taken as 1RM.
Power Testing. On a modied Smith machine, a rotary encoder
(Real Power, Globus, Codogne, Italy) attached to the barbell
and interfaced with a computer allowed the recording of bar
position with an accuracy of 0.002 second; the system was
calibrated before each testing session, and bar velocity and
power (using the measured load) were subsequently calcu-
lated. The validity and reliability of the device have been
reported elsewhere (13).
Fifteen minutes after testing for the maximum strength
of the ULs, the subjects were asked to perform 5 sets of
3 repetitions of bench presses using resistances of 30, 45, 60,
70, and 80%of 1RMwith a 3-minute passive rest between sets.
The subjects were spotted by an experienced lifter to ensure
that maximum velocity was achieved safely and the subject
was condent under the weight. Loud verbal encouragement
was given throughout. The eccentric phase of the lift was
performed over 3 seconds and was timed by a digital
metronome, whereas the concentric phase was performed
at maximum velocity. Because of the signicant load lifted,
the subjects were able to push maximally throughout the
movement range without the bar escaping the subjects grip at
the top of the movement; experienced spotters ensured that
the bar was stopped at the top of its trajectory. Bar velocity
and power during the concentric phase of the movement
were measured for the exercise and for each repetition.
Body Composition. Total and regional bone, fat and lean (body
mass [fat mass + bone mass]) masses were assessed by
DEXA(XR-46, Norland Corp., Fort Atkinson, WI, USA). The
DEXA scanner was calibrated using a lumbar spine phantom
as recommended by the manufacturer. Subjects were scanned
in the supine position. Lean mass (g), fat mass (g), total area
(cm
2
), and bone mineral content (BMC) (g) were calculated
from total and regional analysis of the whole body scan.
Areal bone mineral density (BMD; gcm
22
) was calculated
using the formula BMD = BMC 3 area
21
. Lean mass of
the limbs was assumed to be equivalent to the muscle mass.
The testretest reliability (intraclass correlation coefcient
[ICC]) for this device was very high (R
2
= 0.999; p = 0.001) in
both cases.
Anaerobic Power. Maximum lactate and maximum power
were determined using the Wingate Anaerobic Test. A cycle
ergometer (828E, Monark, Vansbro, Sweden) tted with
a photoelectric cell to count the number of revolutions of the
pedals was used. Seat height was adjusted to suit the subject,
and toe clips were used to prevent the feet from slipping off
the pedals. Subjects warmed up by pedaling for 3 minutes
against a 2-kp load at 60 rpm. At the end of each minute, they
were required to pedal as fast as possible against the actual
relative resistance that they would be working against for
5 seconds. After the warm -p, and after 2 minutes of rest, the
test started. The subjects were instructed to pedal as fast as
possible from the beginning of the test and to try to maintain
maximum pedaling speed throughout the 30-second period.
The resistance applied was adjusted relative to body mass
(0.075 3 body mass, in kg) (27). The pedal revolutions were
recorded mechanically for 30 seconds by a cycle monitor.
Maximum power was calculated as the highest power output
reached over a 5-second interval (38), and maximum lactate
was determined as the maximum value registered after the
30-second test. Blood lactate was recorded using a nger
prick test every 2 minutes after the Wingate test until the
lactate concentration started to decrease. Blood was collected
in a capillary tube and then placed in the portable blood lactate
analyzer (Accusport, Sports Resource Group, Boehringer
Mannheim, Hawthorne, NY, USA). This portable lactate
analyzer has been found to be valid and reliable (5).
Shuttle-Run Test. Aerobic endurance was assessed using the
20-m multiple-shuttle-run test (25). The rst 2 stages of
the 20-m test were used as familiarization and for a light
warm-up before starting the test. Each subject ran between
markers placed 20 m apart, starting at a speed of 8.5 kmh
21
(2.36 ms
21
). The running speed was increased by 0.5 kmh
21
Figure 2. Maximum dynamic strength (1RM) for the bench press and
squat exercises for each group. Signicant differences between pre and
posttraining; *Signicant difference between the training groups and
Control (p # 0.05). RM = repetition maximum.
4 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the TM
High Circuit and Traditional Strength Training
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
(0.14 ms
21
) every minute. The running pace was regulated
by a prerecorded CD of the instructions being played loudly
during the testing, which signaled when the subjects needed
to be at one or the other end of the 20-m course. Subjects
tried to complete as many stages of the shuttle-run test as
possible, and the test was terminated when they were unable
to maintain the prescribed pace. The subjects were given
a warning the rst time they were behind the sound signal,
and the test was stopped on the third warning. Results of the
20-m shuttle-run test are presented as time devoted to
complete the test.
Statistical Analyses
A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used
to examine pretraining differences in test performances;
no signicant differences were found so the groups were
equivalent before the intervention. Main and interaction
effects resulting from the intervention were analyzed using
single or MANOVAs with repeated measures. Signicant time
effects were further analyzed using paired samples t-tests.
Interaction (time 3 group) effects were examined using
independent samples t-tests on the change scores for each
group (i.e., prepost changes). In some instances, the
TABLE 1. Changes in bench press concentric peak power at 30, 45, 60, 70, and 80% of 1 RM.*
Group P
30%
(W) P
45%
(W) P
60%
(W) P
70%
(W) P
80%
(W)
TS Pre 652 6 185 642 6 152 584 6 131 540 6 140 475 6 143
Post 839 6 145 795 6 121 687 6 225 639 6 136 550 6 148
D 187 6 172 153 6 105 184 6 107 99 6 107 93 6 121
HRC Pre 767 6 160 762 6 132 714 6 141 680 6 116 560 6 130
Post 859 6 159 872 6 143 790 6 104 745 6 104 624 6 120
D 97 6 83 111 6 66 76 6 75 66 6 70 64 6 82
Control Pre 668 6 147 611 6 117 574 6 190 512 6 137 454 6 200
Post 709 6 187 676 6 174 608 6 180 572 6 157 564 6 186
D 41 6 69 65 6 99 34 6 34 60 6 47 110 6 60
*P = power; D = change; TS = traditional strength training; HRC = high-resistance circuit training.
Values are given as mean 6 SD.
Signicant differences between pre and posttraining (p # 0.05).
TABLE 2. Changes in Wingate and shuttle-run test performances.*
Wingate Shuttle run
P
max
(W) Lact
max
(mmolL
21
) Time (s) HRmax (bmin
21
)
TS Pre 694 6 87 11.6 6 2.0 466 6 97 197 6 6
Post 757 6 93 11.9 6 1.7 503 6 82 198 6 8
D 63 6 62 0.2 6 2.5 37 6 49 0.8 6 4.2
HRC Pre 796 6 77 10.8 6 1.6 455 6 94 195 6 12
Post 821 6 60 10.9 6 2.2 480 6 85 192 6 9
D 25 6 58 0.1 6 2.1 25 6 46 23.2 6 9.7
Control Pre 766 6 118 11.4 6 2.5 470 6 90 194 6 4
Post 802 6 123 13.0 6 2.5 446 6 81 193 6 5
D 37 6 68 1.6 6 2.2 225 6 18 21.1 6 2.5
*P = power; max = maximum; Lact = lactate; HR = heart rate; D = change; TS = traditional strength training; HRC= high-resistance
circuit training.
Values are given as mean 6 SD.
Signicant differences between pre and posttraining.
Signicant difference between the training groups and control (p # 0.05).
VOLUME 0 | NUMBER 0 | MONTH 2011 | 5
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the TM
| www.nsca-jscr.org
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
assumption of equality of variance was violated, according to
Levenes test of equality of variance. In these cases, unequal
variances were assumed. Effect sizes were calculated using
Cohens d and were reported when appropriate (small effect
size; d = 0.20.3). An alpha level of 0.05 was set as the
criterion for statistical signicance for all analyses.
RESULTS
Bench Press and Squat Strength
Repeated measures ANOVA revealed a signicant effect
of time (p = 0.001) and an interaction effect (bench press,
p = 0.001; squat, p = 0.002); there was no group effect (d ,
0.2 in both variables). Bench press strength improved for the
HRC group (19.5 6 10.6 kg; p = 0.001) and traditional
training (TS; 17.7 6 9.0 kg; p = 0.001) but not the control
group (Control; 1.94 6 5.2 kg; p = 0.328) (Figure 2). Squat
strength increased for HRC (44.2 6 24.1 kg; p = 0.001) and
TS (45.0 6 21.3 kg; p = 0.001) but not for Control (11.3 6
14.6 kg; p = 0.065). Independent t-tests showed that the
increase in HRC was greater than in Control for bench press
(p = 0.017) and for squat (p = 0.049) strength; the assumption
of equality of error variances (Levenes test) was not satised,
so unequal variances were assumed. The increase in TS was
also greater than for Control in bench press (p = 0.001) and
squat (p = 0.001). There were no differences in the changes in
HRC vs. TS.
Bench Press Power
For the bench press (Table 1), there was an increase in power
in HRC at 30% (p = 0.003), 45% (p = 0.001), 60% (p = 0.002),
and 80% (p = 0.015), and increases in TS at 30% (p = 0.005),
45% (p = 0.001), 60% (p = 0.002), 70% (p = 0.002), and 80%
(p = 0.007). There were no between-group differences in the
bench power changes (d # 0.2 for all variables) and no
statistical change in the control group.
Shuttle Run Test
The repeated measures ANOVA revealed a signicant in-
teraction effect (p = 0.018). Paired t-tests revealed a signicant
decrease in the running time of Control subjects (224.6 6
18.5 seconds; p = 0.012) (Table 2) but a signicant increase in
the running time of HRC (29.6 6 44.3 seconds; p = 0.027;
d = 0.2) and TS (36.7 6 48.8 seconds; p = 0.032) subjects.
These improvements were not related to the subjects running
harder in posttraining tests because there was no difference
in maximum heart rate at the volitional end of the test.
Independent t-tests showed that the changes in HRC
(p = 0.014) and TS (p = 0.006) were signicantly different
from the changes in Control (d = 0.2). There were no
differences in the changes between HRC and TS (p = 0.535).
Wingate Test
There was no change in the peak lactate values recorded after
the Wingate test for any group; however, there was both
a time and time 3 group interaction effect for maximum
power (d # 0.2 for both tests). For maximum power, paired
t-tests showed no change in Control (36.6 6 68.6 W; p =
0.175) or HRC (25.1 6 57.8 W; p = 0.128) but a signicant
increase in TS (63.3 6 61.6 W; p = 0.007).
Body Composition
The repeated measures ANOVA revealed a signicant main
effect of time for the change in body fat (%) (p = 0.005;
d = 0.2), total lean mass (p = 0.009, d = 0.2) and total fat
mass (p = 0.017, d = 0.2). There were no changes in total
BMD and BMC in any of the training groups. Paired t-tests
revealed no changes in the Control group. The
HRC decreased their body fat percentage by 1.5 6 1.6%
(p = 0.002), and TS showed a trend toward a decrease of
1.1 6 1.9% (p = 0.082); HRC also increased lean mass
by 1.5 6 1.9 kg (p = 0.002) and TS increased lean mass by
1.2 6 1.6 kg (p = 0.036) (Table 3).
TABLE 3. Changes in body composition.*
%Fat Lean mass Fat mass BMD
total
BMC
total
TS Pre 21.8 6 3.8 55.2 6 5.9 16.3 6 3.5 1.1 6 0.1 3,141 6 357
Post 20.7 6 3.0 56.4 6 5.3 15.5 6 2.5 1.1 6 0.1 3,143 6 352
D 21.1 6 1.9 1.2 6 1.6 20.8 6 1.8 0.0 6 0.0 2.6 6 40.0
HRC Pre 20.1 6 6.7 58.8 6 4.6 16.3 6 7.3 1.1 6 0.1 3,255 6 206
Post 18.6 6 6.5 60.3 6 5.2 15.2 6 7.0 1.1 6 0.1 3,251 6 216
D 21.5 6 1.6 1.5 6 1.9 21.1 6 1.5 0.0 6 0.0 23.9 6 39.0
Control Pre 20.3 6 6.5 57.3 6 4.7 15.7 6 6.0 1.1 6 0.1 3,112 6 284
Post 19.9 6 5.9 57.6 6 5.2 15.3 6 5.5 1.0 6 0.1 3,114 6 280
D 20.4 6 2.2 0.3 6 2.3 20.5 6 1.9 0.0 6 0.0 2.9 6 89.2
*BMD = bone mineral density; BMC = bone mineral content; D = change; TS = traditional strength training; HRC= high-resistance
circuit training.
Values are given as mean 6 SD.
Signicant difference between pre and posttraining (p # 0.05).
6 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the TM
High Circuit and Traditional Strength Training
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
DISCUSSION
The major nding of the present research was that 8 weeks of
HRC training, which was similar to that which has been
previously shown to elicit a considerable cardiovascular
response (1), resulted in strength and muscle mass improve-
ments that were similar to those obtained with TS training.
This is an important nding because circuit training using
lower loads has previously been shown not to promote
comparable strength and muscle mass increases as traditional
weights training (10). These results are also important
because the strength increases were obtained in healthy men
who had a consistent history of strength training (albeit using
loads that were lighter than those used in this study) where
further increases in strength are considered difcult to obtain
(2). The ability for HRC training to improve strength and
muscle mass in already-trained individuals is suggestive that
it might be of substantial benet in athletic populations, and
perhaps be of even greater benet in elderly and clinical
populations who begin training programs with a limited
physical capacity.
A second major nding of the study was that the circuit
training elicited similar increases in muscular power as
traditional heavy strength training, as measured using a range
of loads (3080% of 1RM) in the bench press test. Given that
circuit training is typically associated with greater muscle
fatigue and hence positive adaptations in muscular endurance
(12), this result might seem somewhat surprising. However,
the increased power could be attributable to 2 main factors:
(a) the low-repetition, high-load training resulted in
comparable strength improvements to the TS training, and
(b) the loads were lifted with the intention of moving fast. In
this sense, increases in both force-generating capacity and
muscle shortening speed (for a given load) or rate of force
development could be expected, and thus increases in power
are likely to result. In future studies, the importance of lifting
the loads quickly in the concentric phase should be explored
further; the possibility exists that this movement constraint is
important for improvements in muscle power with this type
of training.
A secondary, but interesting, result is that the strength and
muscle mass changes in the circuit training group were
accompanied by signicant reductions in body fat (1.5%), as
measured by DEXA, and increases in performance in the
20-m shuttle-run test. The decrease in body fat percentage
resulted from a simultaneous increase in lean mass (+1.5 kg)
and decrease in fat mass (21.1 kg) with the circuit training,
which compared to lean and fat mass changes of +1.2and
20.8 kg, respectively, with traditional heavy strength training.
It would be of interest to determine whether these (non-
signicant) between-group differences become more appar-
ent with longer training periods, as substantial changes in
already-training individuals are notoriously difcult to obtain.
Further research is also required to examine the effects of
dietary interventions that may be implemented concurrently
with these training practices because these will strongly
inuence body fat loss (26); subjects in this study were asked
to maintain their normal diets but no restrictions were placed
on them. The increase in the performance in the 20-m
shuttle-run test is also intriguing. One explanation for the
improvement is that the circuit training elicited a strong
cardiovascular benet, which resulted in transferable im-
provements in aerobic performance (20). However, there was
also a signicant increase in the TS training group, who
would not likely have received such benets. Another
explanation is that the subjects performed better on the
second occasion because of a learning effect, however, the
statistical decrease in the non-training control group, who
ran for ;25 seconds less after 8 weeks, is suggestive that
learning effects were small or nonexistent. More than likely,
the increased endurance performance in the strength training
groups resulted from an increase in functional capacity
resulting from their increase in strength and power. Although
VO
2
max was not being directly measured, one might
hypothesize a greater oxygen use in maximal exercise when
muscle mass increases, and this possibility should be
examined in further research. Either way, the present data
are suggestive that increases in strength, power and muscle
mass might also be associated with improvements in
functional performance in unrelated activities, which has
implications for athletic and clinical populations alike.
Despite there being similar increases in strength, power and
muscle mass, the TS group improved more in their peak cycle
power (as measured in the rst few seconds of the 30-second
Wingate test). This result is difcult to explain because both
groups improved their lower limb muscle strength equally
(as measured in the squat lift test) and had similar increases in
lean mass in the lower limb muscles (data not shown)
according to the DEXAscans. Also, the lack of change in peak
lactate concentrations after the 30-second test in both groups
is suggestive that peak anaerobic metabolism was not altered,
although, the possibility exists that any changes were
mirrored by increases in the rate of lactate clearance.
Although the result is curious, and might be examined in
further detail in future studies, the functional signicance of
the result in this cycle-specic test is probably minor
compared to the more important increases in strength and
muscle power shown in the other tests.
It is worth mentioning that, although there were signicant
increases in muscle mass after training, there were no changes
in BMD or BMC in either the training or control groups
(Table 3). This result is unsurprising given that the subjects
were active young men who had a high BMC before the
study. Increases in BMC tend not to occur in healthy,
skeletally mature men (14), and changes in BMC need long-
term training However, given that it has been shown to have
positive effects in elderly subjects (35), and the circuit training
performed in this study elicited the same neuromuscular
adaptations as traditional training, it could be hypothesized
that heavy circuit training would have a signicant positive
VOLUME 0 | NUMBER 0 | MONTH 2011 | 7
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the TM
| www.nsca-jscr.org
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
effect on BMC in older individuals. Future research should
examine further the effects of this type of training on skeletal
health in older populations.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The present data show that 8 weeks of high-resistance (6RM)
circuit training is both well tolerated and can lead to
substantial strength, power and muscle mass gains in young,
healthy individuals. Remarkably, these gains are identical to
those obtained with traditional, heavy strength training.
These results are of particular signicance for athletic
populations who might have relatively little time to devote
to physical conditioning because of the need to perform more
specic sports practice. The results also have implications for
program design because both groups were able to complete
the same work and achieve the same strength increases but
the HRC group did so in less time. Thus, the HRC was more
efcient and might therefore be useful for individuals who
perceive that a lack of time available for training is a substantial
exercise deterrent. Nonetheless, given the previously detailed
benets of circuit training on maximum strength, health and
aerobic capacity, and the previously documented cardiovas-
cular load induced by heavy resistance circuit training, a more
extensive program of research should also examine its effects
on strength, muscle and bone mass, and health status, in
elderly and clinical populations.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The researchers would like to express gratitude to the subjects
in this investigation who made this study possible. In addition,
the authors would like to acknowledge Los Rectores Sport
Gym (Espinardo, Murcia, Spain) for their assistance through-
out this project. No funding was received for this article. The
results from this study do not constitute endorsement of the
products by the authors or by the National Strength and
Conditioning Association.
REFERENCES
1. Alcaraz, PE, Sanchez-Lorente, J, and Blazevich, AJ. Physical
performance and cardiovascular responses to an acute bout of heavy
resistance circuit training versus traditional strength training.
J Strength Cond Res 22: 667671, 2008.
2. Alway, SE, MacDougall, JD, Sale, DG, Sutton, JR, and McComas, AJ.
Functional and structural adaptations in skeletal muscle of trained
athletes. J Appl Physiol 64: 11141120, 1988.
3. Benson, AC, Torode, ME, and Fiatarone Singh, MA. Effects of
resistance training on metabolic tness in children and adolescents:
A systematic review. Obes Rev 9: 4366, 2008.
4. Bird, SP, Tarpenning, KM, and Marino, FE. Designing resistance
training programmes to enhance muscular tness: A review of the
acute programme variables. Sports Med 35: 841851, 2005.
5. Bishop, D. Evaluation of the Accusport lactate analyzer. Int J Sports
Med 22: 525530, 2001.
6. Blazevich, AJ, Cannavan, D, Coleman, DR, and Horne, S. Inuence
of concentric and eccentric resistance training on architectural
adaptation in human quadriceps muscles. J Appl Physiol 103:
15651575, 2007.
7. Blazevich, AJ, Cannavan, D, Horne, S, Coleman, DR, and Aagaard, P.
Changes in muscle force-length properties affect the early rise of
force in vivo. Muscle Nerve 39: 512520, 2009.
8. Bocalini, DS, Serra, AJ, dos Santos, L, Murad, N, and Levy, RF.
Strength training preserves the bone mineral density of post-
menopausal women without hormone replacement therapy. J Aging
Health 21: 519527, 2009.
9. Camargo, MD, Stein, R, Ribeiro, JP, Schvartzman, PR, Rizzatti, MO,
and Schaan, BD. Circuit weight training and cardiac morphology: A
trial with magnetic resonance imaging. Br J Sports Med 42: 141145,
2008.
10. Campos, GE, Luecke, TJ, Wendeln, HK, Toma, K, Hagerman, FC,
Murray, TF, Ragg, KE, Ratamess, NA, Kraemer, WJ, and Staron, RS.
Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-
training regimens: specicity of repetition maximum training zones.
Eur J Appl Physiol 88: 5060, 2002.
11. Chandler, JM, Duncan, PW, Kochersberger, G, and Studenski, S.
Is lower extremity strength gain associated with improvement in
physical performance and disability in frail, community-dwelling
elders? Arch Phys Med Rehabil 79: 2430, 1998.
12. Chtara, M, Chaouachi, A, Levin, GT, Chaouachi, M, Chamari, K,
Amri, M, and Laursen, PB. Effect of concurrent endurance and
circuit resistance training sequence on muscular strength and power
development. J Strength Cond Res 22: 10371045, 2008.
13. Cronin, J, Hing, R, and McNair, P. Reliability and validity of a linear
position transducer for measuring jump performance. J Strength
Cond Res 18: 590593, 2004.
14. Forwood, MR and Burr, DB. Physical activity and bone mass:
Exercises in futility? Bone Miner 21: 89112, 1993.
15. Gettman, LR, Ayres, JJ, Pollock, ML, Durstine, JL, and
Grantham, W. Physiologic effects on adult men of circuit strength
training and jogging. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 60: 115120, 1979.
16. Ha kkinen, K, Alen, M, and Komi, PV. Changes in isometric
force- and relaxation-time, electromyographic and muscle bre
characteristics of human skeletal muscle during strength training
and detraining. Acta Physiol Scand 125: 573585, 1985.
17. Hakkinen, K, Kallinen, M, Izquierdo, M, Jokelainen, K, Lassila, H,
Malkia, E, Kraemer, WJ, Newton, RU, and Alen, M. Changes in
agonist-antagonist EMG, muscle CSA, and force during strength
training in middle-aged and older people. J Appl Physiol 84:
13411349, 1998.
18. Harber, MP, Fry, AC, Rubin, MR, Smith, JC, and Weiss, LW. Skeletal
muscle and hormonal adaptations to circuit weight training in
untrained men. Scand J Med Sci Sports 14: 176185, 2004.
19. Kelemen, M. H., K. J. Stewart, R. E. Gillilan, C. K. Ewart, S. A. Valenti,
J. D. Manley, and M. D. Kelemen. Circuit weight training in cardiac
patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 7: 3842, 1986.
20. Kelemen, MH, Stewart, KJ, Gillilan, RE, Ewart, CK, Valenti, SA,
Manley, JD, and Kelemen, MD. Circuit weight training in cardiac
patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 7: 3842, 1986.
21. Kerr, D, Morton, A, Dick, I, and Prince, R. Exercise effects on bone
mass in postmenopausal women are site-specic and load-de-
pendent. J Bone Miner Res 11: 218225, 1996.
22. Kraemer, WJ, Adams, K, Cafarelli, E, Dudley, GA, Dooly, C,
Feigenbaum, MS, Fleck, SJ, Franklin, B, Fry, AC, Hoffman, JR,
Newton, RU, Potteiger, J, Stone, MH, Ratamess, NA, and Triplett-
McBride, T. American College of Sports Medicine position stand.
Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 34: 364380, 2002.
23. Kraemer, WJ, Mazzetti, SA, Nindl, BC, Gotshalk, LA, Volek, JS,
Bush, JA, et al. Effect of resistance training on womens strength/
power and occupational performances. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33:
10111025, 2001.
24. Kraemer, WJ and Ratamess, NA. Fundamentals of resistance
training: Progression and exercise prescription. Med Sci Sports Exerc
36: 674688, 2004.
8 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the TM
High Circuit and Traditional Strength Training
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
25. Le ger, LA, Mercier, D, Gadoury, C, and Lambert, J. The multistage
20 metre shuttle run test for aerobic tness. J Sports Sci 6: 93101,
1988.
26. Lutes, LD, Winett, RA, Barger, SD, Wojcik, JR, Herbert, WG,
Nickols-Richardson, SM, and Anderson, ES. Small changes in
nutrition and physical activity promote weight loss and mainte-
nance: 3-month evidence from the ASPIRE randomized trial. Ann
Behav Med 35: 351357, 2008.
27. Melhim, AF. Aerobic and anaerobic power responses to the practice
of taekwon-do. Br J Sports Med 35: 231235, 2001.
28. Menkes, A, Mazel, S, Redmond, RA, Kofer, K, Libanati, CR,
Gundberg, CM, Zizic, TM, Hagberg, JM, Pratley, RE, and Hurley, BF.
Strength training increases regional bone mineral density and bone
remodeling in middle-aged and older men. J Appl Physiol 74: 2478
2484, 1993.
29. Monteiro, WD, Simao, R, Polito, MD, Santana, CA, Chaves, RB,
Bezerra, E, and Fleck, SJ. Inuence of strength training on adult
womens exibility. J Strength Cond Res 22: 672677, 2008.
30. Narici, MV, Hoppeler, H, Kayser, B, Landoni, L, Claassen, H,
Gavardi, C, Conti, M, and Cerretelli, P. Human quadriceps cross-
sectional area, torque and neural activation during 6 months strength
training. Acta Physiol Scand 157: 175186, 1996.
31. Nelson, ME, Fiatarone, MA, Morganti, CM, Trice, I, Greenberg, RA,
and Evans, WJ. Effects of high-intensity strength training on multiple
risk factors for osteoporotic fractures. A randomized controlled trial.
JAMA 272: 19091914, 1994.
32. Paavolainen, L, Ha kkinen, K, Hamalainen, I, Nummela, A, and
Rusko, H.Explosive-strength training improves 5-km running time
by improving running economy and muscle power. J Appl Physiol 86:
15271533, 1999.
33. Perez-Gomez, J, Olmedillas, H, Delgado-Guerra, S, Ara, I, Vicente-
Rodriguez, G, Ortiz, RA, Chavarren, J, and Calbet, JA. Effects of
weight lifting training combined with plyometric exercises on
physical tness, body composition, and knee extension velocity
during kicking in football. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 33: 501510,
2008.
34. Phillips, SM. Resistance exercise and strong healthy children:
Safe when done right! Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 33: 545546,
2008.
35. Ryan, AS, Ivey, FM, Hurlbut, DE, Martel, GF, Lemmer, JT, Sorkin, JD,
Metter, EJ, Fleg, JL, and Hurley, BF. Regional bone mineral density
after resistive training in young and older men and women. Scand J
Med Sci Sports 14: 1623, 2004.
36. Suetta, C, Aagaard, P, Rosted, A, Jakobsen, AK, Duus, B, Kjaer, M,
and Magnusson, SP. Training-induced changes in muscle CSA,
muscle strength, EMG, and rate of force development in elderly
subjects after long-term unilateral disuse. J Appl Physiol 97:
19541961, 2004.
37. Suetta, C, Andersen, JL, Dalgas, U, Berget, J, Koskinen, S, Aagaard, P,
Magnusson, SP, and Kjaer, M. Resistance training induces qualitative
changes in muscle morphology, muscle architecture, and muscle
function in elderly postoperative patients. J Appl Physiol 105:
180186, 2008.
38. Vandewalle, H, Peres, G, and Monod, H. Standard anaerobic
exercise test. Sports Med 4: 264268, 1987.
39. Weiss, LW, Coney, HD, and Clark, FC. Gross measures of
exercise-induced muscular hypertrophy. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther
30: 143148, 2000.
40. Wilmore, JH, Parr, RB, Girandola, RN, Ward, P, Vodak, PA, Barstow, TJ,
Pipes, TV, Romero, GT, and Leslie, P. Physiological alterations
consequent to circuit weight training. Med Sci Sports 10: 7984, 1978.
41. Wilson, GJ, Newton, RU, Murphy, AJ, and Humphries, BJ. The
optimal training load for the development of dynamic athletic
performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 25: 12791286, 1993.
VOLUME 0 | NUMBER 0 | MONTH 2011 | 9
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the TM
| www.nsca-jscr.org
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.