Training volume and strength and power development

J Cronin & B C r e w t h e r
sport Performance Research Centre, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand.

The purpose of this study was to determine if three training loads equated by volume differed
in terms of the temporal, kinematic and kinetic characteristics of each set. Twelve
experienced weightlifters (30.2_+10.6 years old and 75.8_+13.0 kg} performed three sets (6 x
30% 1RM, 3 x 60% 1RM and 2 x 90% 1RM) of ballistic squats on an instrumented supine
squat machine. Repeated measures ANOVAand Tukey HSD post hoc comparisons were used
to distinguish significant differences beiween the three training loads on a variety of
temporal, kinematic and kinetic variables. Significantly {p< 0.05) greater total time under
tension during the eccentric {41-53%) and concentric phases (27-31%) was observed for the
30% 1RM condition compared to the other two conditions. Similarly, the lighter loading
intensity resulted in significantly greater total eccentric (9-19%) and concentric {14-24%)
force output compared to the other two conditions. Greater total power output was
associated with the 30% 1RM condition for both the eccentric (25-48%) and concentric (4069%) phases. Greater total work (9-24%) was also associated with the 30% 1RM condition.
The 60% 1RM condition produced significantly greater total work, force and power compared
to the 90% 1RM condition. However, greater concentric impulse (29-42%) was associated
with the 90% 1RM condition. It is suggested that strength and power research needs to adopt
a set kinematic and kinetic analysis approach within the research designs so that a better
understanding of the nature of the neuromuscular adaptations elicited by different loading
parameters is achieved.
(J Sci Med Sport 2004;7:2:144-155

Introduction
Muscular strength and power are important components of many athletic
p u r s u i t s a n d e v e r y d a y activities. I m p r o v i n g t h e s e two q u a l i t i e s t h e r e f o r e is t h e
f o c u s of s t r e n g t h , c o n d i t i o n i n g a n d r e h a b i l i t a t i o n p r a c t i c e . However, t h e r e is
d e b a t e a s to t h e m o s t effective r e s i s t a n c e s t r e n g t h t r a i n i n g m e t h o d s to d e v e l o p
s t r e n g t h a n d power. O n e k e y i s s u e is w h i c h load, e x p r e s s e d a s a p e r c e n t a g e of
o n e r e p e t i t i o n m a x i m u m (% 1RM), b e s t f a c i l i t a t e s s t r e n g t h a n d p o w e r d e v e l o p m e n t . L o a d i n g t h e m u s c l e w i t h l o a d s g r e a t e r t h a n 6 0 - 7 0 % 1RM is t h o u g h t
f u n d a m e n t a l to t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of m a x i m a l s t r e n g t h a n d a n i m p o r t a n t
s t i m u l u s for m u s c l e h y p e r t r o p h y 1-3. I n s t r e n g t h - t r a i n e d a t h l e t e s e v e n g r e a t e r
l o a d i n g i n t e n s i t i e s ( 8 0 - 1 0 0 % 1RM) a r e t h o u g h t c r i t i c a l for t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of
m a x i m a l s t r e n g t h 4. T h o u g h m a n y s t u d i e s h a v e d e s c r i b e d t h e effect of l o a d in
inducing muscle growth and improving strength,the exact mechanism by which
s t r e n g t h t r a i n i n g elicits t h e s y n t h e s i s of t h e c o n t r a c t i l e p r o t e i n s to i n c r e a s e t h e
c r o s s s e c t i o n a l a r e a (CSA) of m u s c l e is y e t to b e d e t e r m i n e d a. T h e p o t e n t i a l
s t i m u l i for i n c r e a s i n g s t r e n g t h a n d CSA i n c l u d e h o r m o n a l , m e t a b o l i c a n d
m e c h a n i c a l f a c t o r s 6,7. M a c D o u g a l l 2 s t a t e d h o w e v e r t h a t , w h a t e v e r t h e e x a c t

144

Training volume and strength and power development

m e c h a n i s m for stimulating protein synthesis, loading intensity is the main

factor t h a t determines whether or not an increase in strength a n d / o r size will
occur.
The i m p o r t a n c e of these higher loading intensities (>70% 1RM) in inducing
m a x i m a l strength and hypertrophic changes however m a y be questioned in
relation to r e s e a r c h in this area. For example, m a x i m u m power training using
a load of 30% 1RM w a s found to be equally effective in enhancing a variety of
p e r f o r m a n c e m e a s u r e s (including b e n c h p r e s s and s q u a t 1RM strength) as
c o m p a r e d to combined weight training (75-85% 1RM) a n d plyometric training.
It was concluded t h a t the 30% 1RM m a x i m u m power training resulted in
significant strength gains, as the actual force o u t p u t was high due to a large
acceleration c o m p o n e n t 8. Using a similar methodology, high force training (8085% 1RM) a n d high power training (30% 1RM) were found to be equally effective in improving i/4 s q u a t 1RM a n d mid-thigh pull 1RM strength 9. Similarly
Dahl, Aaserud a n d J e n s e n 1 concluded t h a t explosive strength training at 10%
of 1RM was able to stimulate muscle h y p e r t r o p h y and the h y p e r t r o p h y was of
the s a m e m a g n i t u d e as t h a t of training at 90% 1RM. Schmidtbleicher and
Buehrle 11 c o m p a r e d the changes in force-time curves and cross-sectional area
of subjects who were allocated to a high load group (>90% MVC), a power group
(45% MVC), a high repetition group (70% MVC) and a control group. After 12
weeks of training, similar changes in m a x i m u m force occurred in all the
training groups (18-21%). Changes in cross-sectional a r e a were similar in the
power a n d high load groups and superior in the high repetition group ll. An
interesting r e s e a r c h s t u d y t h a t raised questions as to the i m p o r t a n c e of load
a n d tension in m a x i m a l strength development trained the elbow flexors of the
n o n - d o m i n a n t a r m using loads of 15% (10 reps), 35% (7 reps) and 90% (2 reps)
of 1RM 12. Training volume was equated by m a t c h i n g the total time u n d e r
tension (as m e a s u r e d by EMG) between loads and subjects were encouraged to
move their respective loads with m a x i m a l effort. After nine weeks of training,
significant maximal strength gains were recorded (6-7%) b u t the differences
between the light (15% 1RM) and heavy (90% 1RM) groups were non-significant. It was concluded by the a u t h o r s t h a t the results were not in conflict
with the idea t h a t high tension m a y be the s t i m u l u s for increased maximal
strength, albeit the high forces were of shorter duration. It would s e e m from
this literature t h a t a m i n i m u m load or threshold tension is not as a n i m p o r t a n t
training s t i m u l u s as initially proposed.
Many of the discrepancies in the literature m a y be explained by research
failing to equate training volume (load x repetitions x sets) between t r e a t m e n t s
groups. And, if training volume is equated, it is questionable whether or not
other i m p o r t a n t temporal, Mnematic and kinetic variables are similar between
t r e a t m e n t s . Whilst there is a great deal of literature investigating the kinematics and kinetics of a single repetition 13-17, there is no r e s e a r c h to the
knowledge of these a u t h o r s t h a t h a s investigated kinematics and kinetics of
sets. Research of this n a t u r e would give better insight into the changes and
a d a p t a t i o n s occurring with the repeated application of t h a t training stimulus
and m a y provide a better f r a m e w o r k for u n d e r s t a n d i n g some of the inconsistencies cited earlier. Consequently, the p u r p o s e of this s t u d y was to determine if three training loads (30%, 60% a n d 90% 1RM), equated by volume,
differed in t e r m s of their temporal, kinematic a n d kinetic characteristics. It was
145

Training volume and strength and power development

hypothesised that the kinematics and kinetics of sets would differ even though
total load lifted was equated.

Methods
Subjects
Twelve subjects (seven males and five females) volunteered to participate in this
research. The subjects' m e a n age and mass were 30.2_+10.6 years and
75.8_+13.0 kg respectively. All subjects were weight trainers with a m i n i m u m of
12 months' weight training experience. The H u m a n Subject Ethics Committee
of the Auckland University of Technology approved all the procedures undertaken and all subjects signed an informed consent prior to their participation
in the research.

Equipment
Assessment of leg strength and power was performed on an isoinertial supine
squat machine (see Figure 1}. The supine squat machine was custom built
(Fitness Works, Auckland, NZ) and utilised a 300kg pin loaded weight stack
attached to a sled to assess the subjects. A linear t r a n s d u c e r (P-80A, Unimeasure, Oregon-average sensitivity 0 . 4 9 9 m V / V / m m , linearity 0.05% full
scale) was attached to the weight stack and m e a s u r e d vertical displacement
relative to the ground with an accuracy of 0. lcm. These data were sampled at
1000 Hz by a c o m p u t e r - b a s e d data acquisition and analysis program.
The supine squat machine was designed to allow subjects to perform
maximal squats or explosive squat jumps, with the back rigidly supported,
t h u s minimising the risk associated with s u c h exercises in an upright position.
The sled lay on top of an undercarriage, which enabled the sled to be pegged
every 2 cm, allowing start angles to be standardised according to the height of
the subjects. The reliability of this equipment and protocols for measuring leg
strength and power has been reported previously 18.

Figure 2- Supine squat machine.

146

Training volume and strength and power development

Testing Procedures
Testing was conducted over two sessions. During the first session the one
repetition m a x i m u m (1RIM) of each subject was established. Subjects lay supine
on the squat machine with their feet shoulder-width apart and their knees
flexed at a 90 angle. A w a r m - u p consisting of 50% (15 reps), 100% (10 reps)
and 150% (5 reps) of the subject's bodyweight was performed. Subjects rested
for 2-3 minutes between each w a r m - u p set during which lower body stretches
for the calf, hamstring and quadrieeps muscle groups were performed. This
w a r m - u p was also used to familiarise the subjects with the testing equipment.
To establish each subject's 1RM a single repetition to failure protocol was
used 19. A recovery period of three minutes between each repetition was used
and, if the 1RM was not established within six attempts, the subjects were
invited to r e t u r n to complete their a s s e s s m e n t 2.
The second session began with the subject warming up similarly to the
protocol used in the first session. The subjects then performed a set at three
different load conditions: 30%, 60% and 90% of their 1RM. Each set was
equated by volume (% 1RM x reps) to ensure that total m a s s lifted between
conditions was identical (see Table 1). A rest period of five minutes between sets
was used. The instructions to the subjects for all repetitions were to move the
load as "explosively" as possible. The sequence in which each subject
performed the three sets was randomised to negate order and fatigue effects.

Load % RM:
Repetitions
Load
TotalVolume

30%

60%

30kg
180kg

60kg
180kg

90%

90kg I
180kgl
I

Table 1: Example of loading parameters used in this study for a IRM of lOOkg.

Data analysis
The displacement time data were filtered using a low pass Hamming filter with
a cutoff frequency of 5 Hz. The filtered data were then differentiated using a five
point derivative approximation (Lagrange polynomial 4th degree about each
point) to determine velocity and acceleration data. The force data were
determined by multiplying the m a s s by the acceleration data. From these data
various temporal, kinematic and kinetic m e a s u r e s were calculated. The reliability and validity of the m e a s u r e s u n d e r consideration have been reported
previously 18,21.
Statistical analysis
The m e a n values of each variable were compared across conditions (30%, 60%
and 90% 1RM) using a repeated m e a s u r e s analysis of variance (ANOVA) with
Tukey HSD post hoc comparisons. The criterion level for statistical significance
was set at p< 0.05.

147

Training volume and strength and power development

Results

It can be observed from Table 2 that, if single repetitions are c o m p a r e d between

loads, greater time u n d e r tension (duration of contraction) is associated with
the heavier loading intensities. However, if time u n d e r tension during each
repetition is totalled, the lighter loading intensity (30% 1RM x 6 reps) resulted
in significantly greater total eccentric (41-53%) a n d concentric (27-31%) tension times as c o m p a r e d to 60% and 90% 1RM conditions. Also, the 60% 1RM
load provided significantly greater total eccentric time u n d e r tension as
c o m p a r e d to the 90% 1RM load b u t they did not differ significantly in t e r m s of
total concentric time u n d e r tension.
Significantly greater concentric m e a n velocities (29-57%) a n d p e a k velocities
(27-53%) occurred during the 30% 1RM condition (p< 0.05) c o m p a r e d to the
6 0 % l R M and 90% 1RM loading conditions (see Table 3). Eccentric m e a n
velocities (16-33%) and p e a k velocities (17-38%) were also greater during the
30% IRM condition, although m e a n velocity was not significantly different to
the 60% 1RM load.

Variables
Duration of Eccentric
Contraction (sec)
Total Duration of Eccentric
Contraction (sec)
Duration of Concentric
Contraction (sec)
Total Duration of Concentric
Contraction (sec)
Contraction Duration (sec)
Total Contraction Duration (sec)

30% 1RM
Mean (SD)

60% 1RM
Mean (SD)

90% 1RM
Mean (SD)

F value
(p value)

0.441 (0.057)13

0.525(0.088)8

0.636(0.123)

13.22 (0.000)

(2.673 (0.350)13

1.591(0.266)8

1.285(0.249)

80.2 (0.000)

0.416 (0.043)~13 0.582 (0.051)8

0.930(0.117)

2.530 (0.263)~

1.764(0.153)8

1.869(0.233)

56.8 (0.000)

0.864 (0.098)~13 1.113 (0.123)8

1.571 (0.207)

68.3 (0.000)

(5.202(0.581)~1~ 3.355 (0.365)8

3.155(0.417)

75.4 (0.000)

134 (0.000)

30% 1RM significantly different to 60% 1RM [3 30% 1RM significantly different to 90% 1RM. 3 60% 1RM
significantly different to 90% 1RM.

Table 2: Time under tension (sec) during eccentric and concentric contractions at 30%, 60% and
90% 1RM.
Variables
Eccentric Mean Velocity (m.s-1)
Eccentric PeakVelocity (m.s-1)
Concentric Mean Velocity (m.s-1)
Concentric PeakVelocity (m.s-1)

30% 1RM
Mean (SD)

60% 1RM
Mean (SD)

0.677 (0.123)13
1.276 (0.185)~13
0.698(0.115)~13
1.491 (0.226)El3

0.572(0.109)8
1.060 (0.189)8
0.496 (0.094)8
1.084(0.231)8

90% 1RM
Mean (SD)
0.454 (0.113)
0.793(0.236)
0.297(0.070)
0.704(0.183)

F value
(p value)
11.2 (0.000)
59.9 (0.000)
52.9 (0.000)
306.3 (0.000)

30% 1RM significantly different to 60% 1RM [3 30% 1RM significantly different to 90% 1RM. ~ 60% 1RM
significantly different to 90% 1RM.

Table 3: Mean and peak velocities (m,s 1) during eccentric and concentric contractions at 30%,
60% and 90% 1RM.
148

Training volume and strength and power development

variables
Total Eccentric Mean Force (N)
Eccentric Mean Force (N)
Eccentric Peak Force (N)
Total Concentric Mean Force (N)
Concentric Mean Force (N)
Concentric Peak Force (N)

30% 1RM
Mean (SD)

60% 1RM
Mean (SD)

90% 1RM
Mean (SD)

F value
(p value)

4829 (1323)~i3
804 (220)~I3
970 (276)~13
5084 (1370)~13
847 (228)El3
943 (258)~13

4409 (1139)5
1469 (379)5
1874 (499)5
4399 (1112)5
1466 (370)5
1630 (406)5

3925 (1001)
1962 (501)
2778 (782)
3876 (984)
1937 (492)
2214 (548)

62.1 (0.000)
27.3 {0.000)
109 (0.000)
86.4 (0.000)
24.9 (0.000)
215 (0.000)

a 30% 1RM significantly different to 60% 1RM 1330% 1RIV]significantly different to 90% 1RM. 8 60% tRM
significantly different to 90% 1RM.

Table 4: Mean, peak and total force output (N) during eccentric and concentric contractions at
30%, 60% and 90% 1RM.

Variables
Total Eccentric Mean Power (W)
Eccentric Mean Power (W)
Total Concentric Mean Power (W)
Concentric Mean Power (W)
Concentric Peak Power (W)

30% 1RM
Mean (SD)

60% 1RM
Mean (SD)

90% 1RM
Mean (SD)

F value
(p value)

3233 (1001)~13
538 (166)~13
3626 (1123)~13

2450 (763)5
816 (254)
2194 (684)5

1704 (546)
852 (273)
1139 (361)

36.6 (0.000)
6.32 (0.005)
92.1 (0.000)

604 (187)
1199 (369)~13

731 (228)
1564 (519)

569 (180)
1406 (485)

2.17 (0.130)
14.4 (0.000)

30% 1RM significantly different to 60% 1RM [3 30% 1RM significantly different to 90% 1RM. 8 60% IRM
significantly different to 90% 1RM.

Table 5: Mean,peak and total power output (W) during eccentric and concentric contractions at
30%, 60% and 90% 1RM.

The 90% 1RM condition resulted in significantly greater m e a n and p e a k force

o u t p u t (p<0.05) during the eccentric and concentric p h a s e s (see Table 4).
However, due to the higher n u m b e r of repetitions of the 30% 1RM condition (six
reps) c o m p a r e d to the 60% and 90% 1RM conditions (three reps a n d two reps)
the total m e a n force o u t p u t was significantly higher during the eccentric (919%) and concentric (14-24%) p h a s e s for the lighter condition.
It c a n be observed from Table 5 t h a t greater power was a b s o r b e d (eccentric
m e a n power) in the 90% 1RM condition w h e n single repetitions were compared.
In t e r m s of power production (concentric m e a n power), no load was found to be
significantly different to the other. The greatest concentric p e a k power was
found in the two heavier conditions. W h e n the power o u t p u t s were totalled for
each condition, significantly greater total m e a n power o u t p u t was found during
the 30% 1RM loading during the eccentric (25-48%) and concentric (40-69%)
phases. Greater eccentric a n d concentric total power o u t p u t can also be
observed in the 60% 1RM condition as c o m p a r e d to the 90% 1RM condition.
If single repetitions are c o m p a r e d it c a n be observed from Table 6 t h a t greater
work is done during the 90% 1RM condition for b o t h the eccentric and
concentric p h a s e s as c o m p a r e d to the 30% 1RM and 60% 1RM conditions.
149

Trainingvolume and strength and power development

Variables
Eccentric Total Work Done (J)
Eccentric Mean Work Done (J)
Concentric Total Work Done (J)
Concentric Mean Work Done (J)

30% 1RM
Mean ($D)

60% 1RM
Mean (SD)

90% 1RM
Mean (SD)

F value
(p value)

1433 (414)~13
239 (69)El3
1510 (437)v
262 (65)~13

1311 (372)8
435 (125)8
1309 (371)5
436 (123)8

1168 (328)
583 (164)
1153 (321)
576 (160)

66.2 (0.000)
22.658 (0.000)
86.9 (0.000)
19.626 (0.000)

30% 1RM significantly different to 60% IRM 1330% 1RM significantly different to 90% 1RM. 5 60% 1RM
significantly different to 90% 1RM.
Table 6-

Mean and total work done Uoules) during eccentric and concentric contractions at 30~
60% and 90% 1RM.

variables
Total Eccentric Impulse (N-sec"1)
Eccentric Impulse (N,sec"1)
Total Concentric Impulse (N,sec1)
Concentric Impulse (N,sec1)

30% 1RM
Mean (SD)

60% 1RM
Mean (SD)

90% 1RM
Mean (SD)

2116 ( 5 6 7 )
352 (94)~13
2111 (536)~13
351 (89)~

2319(695)
773 (231)5
2591 (724)8
863 (241)8

2535 (936)
1239 (494)
3632 (1093)
1816 (546)

F value
(p value)
3.13 (0.063)
23.1 (0.000)
58.4 (0.000)
54.4 (0.000)

30% IRM significantly different to 60% 1RM 1330% 1RM significantly different to 90% 1RM. ~ 60% 1RM
significantly different to 90% 1RM.
Table 7: Mean and total impulse (N.sec.1) during eccentric and concentric contractions at 30%. 60%
and 90% 1RM.

Furthermore the 60% 1RM condition resulted in greater work as compared to

the 30% 1RM condition. However, the total work done u n d e r the 30% 1RM
condition (6x30% 1RM) was significantly greater during the eccentric (9%-19%)
and concentric (13%-24%) p h a s e s as compared to the 60%lRM and 90% 1RM
conditions.
It can be observed from Table 7 that, if single repetitions are compared, the
impulse during the 90% 1RM condition was significantly greater (p<0.05)
during the concentric phase. Total impulse values for the 90% 1RM condition
were also significantly greater t h a n the 30% IRM and 60% 1RM loads during
the eccentric (9%-16%) and concentric (42%-29%) phases. Greater impulses
were also associated with the 60% 1RM condition as compared to the 30% 1RM
condition.

DiSCUSSiOn
It is t h o u g h t that training loads need to be maximal or near maximal and of
sufficiently long duration if maximal strength and CSA are to increase 4,22,2a. In
terms of time u n d e r tension, the utilisation of heavier loads (90% 1RM) no
doubt increases the duration of the eccentric and concentric p h a s e s and hence
the total time u n d e r tension if single repetitions are compared between loads
(see Table 1). However, when equated by volume, the lighter load (30% 1RM)
resulted in greater total time u n d e r tension due to the greater n u m b e r of

150

Training volume and strength and power development

repetitions t h a t were performed. If time u n d e r tension is a critical stimulus for

strength and h y p e r t r o p h y gains, the similar results reported previously using
lighter training intensities (<50% 1RM) as c o m p a r e d to the heavier paradigms
(>70% 1RM) might be explained.
The relationship between force a n d velocity is i m p o r t a n t for understanding
movement, as all m o v e m e n t is a combination of these two qualities. This
relationship is directly observable in Tables 3 and 4, which clearly show t h a t
velocity decreases as force increases due to increasing loads. At slower
velocities,there is greater time for crossbridge s to generate tension and hence
generate force output. The ballistic s q u a t techniques utilised in this research
allow superior force-velocity o u t p u t s as c o m p a r e d to more conventional
strength training techniques. T h a t is, m o v e m e n t t h a t allows the projection of
oneself or a load, as in j u m p or throw training, results in improved kinematics
and kinetics as opposed to non-projection strength training techniques la,14.
One of the m a j o r benefits of ballistic training is t h a t the velocity profiles better
simulate those OCCUlTing during everyday activity. T h a t is, higher velocities are
achieved later in the concentric phase. Newton et a114 reported t h a t the b e n c h
p r e s s throw allowed the b a r to be accelerated for 96% of the throw m o v e m e n t
as opposed to 60% for a traditional b e n c h p r e s s m o v e m e n t using a load of 45%
1RM. As a result higher accelerations and shorter deceleration p h a s e s are
p r o d u c t s of this type of training. As acceleration and force are proportional,
these acceleration characteristics have quite significant effects on force output
and hence the variables described hereafter.
In t e r m s of force output, a single repetition at 90% 1RM produced superior
m e a n and p e a k forces during b o t h the eccentric and concentric p h a s e s (see
Table 4). However, w h e n equated by volume, greater total eccentric and
concentric force was observed in the 30% 1RM condition. If high force is a
f u n d a m e n t a l r e q u i r e m e n t to increases in strength, power and hypertrophy,
t h e n the i m p o r t a n c e of heavier loads (>70% 1RM) once more a p p e a r s questionable. These findings certainly enable a better u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the strength,
power and hypertrophic adaptations found with lighter load (10-30% 1RM)
training cited previously. T h a t is, techniques t h a t are explosive in intent and
ballistic in nature, equated by volume, a p p e a r to produce superior force
o u t p u t s a n d therefore m a y be equally effective to heavier load training in
increasing CSA, strength and power s,12. F u r t h e r m o r e it m a y be t h a t these
lighter loads produce higher strain rates during the stretching of the muscle,
which h a s also b e e n suggested as i m p o r t a n t p r e c u r s o r s to inducing hypertrophy 24,25. Certainly the necessity of a m i n i m u m load or threshold tension
s e e m s questionable.
It can be observed from the results of this s t u d y t h a t the u s e of heavier loads
resulted in greater power absorption (mean eccentric power) w h e n single
repetitions were compared. It should also be noted t h a t the power absorbed for
the two heavier conditions was greater t h a n the power produced, whereas the
opposite is true for the 30% 1RM condition. For the heavier loading intensity
(60% a n d 90% 1RM), the power a b s o r b e d exceeded power production by 111149% respectively. If the m e a n power can be interpreted as an indicator of how
effectively energy is transferred between body segments in the execution of a
m o v e m e n t 26, load obviously affects this efficiency. It a p p e a r s at heavier loading

151

Training vc)lume and strength and power development

intensities t h a t the power production p h a s e is u n a b l e to utilise all the power

t h a t h a s been absorbed or stored. It h a s b e e n stated that, if the potential
energy were stored slowly, the energy would b e c o m e available slowly 27. The
longer eccentric p h a s e a n d slower average a n d p e a k eccentric velocities of the
heavier loading intensity suggest a slower rate of storage. It m a y be speculated
t h a t the slower rate of storage a n d release, increased coupling times and longer
concentric p h a s e s affect the utilisation of the power absorbed. Realising t h a t
r e b o u n d e n h a n c e s the initial p h a s e of the concentric contraction, it a p p e a r s
that, in conditions t h a t allow for a s u b s t a n t i a l time to elapse, the benefits of
the eccentric p h a s e are not fully realised. This p h e n o m e n o n m a y aid hypertrophy and strength development in t h a t the potentiating effects of the
eccentric contraction have dissipated before the completion of the concentric
phase. As such, there m a y be greater contribution from the contractile
m a c h i n e r y to create the force to move the heavier loads, hence greater contractile damage. It m a y be speculated t h a t one of the benefits of heavier loads
is to maximise the concentric or contractile contribution a n d minimise the
elastic a n d reflexive contribution to force production. If the s t i m u l u s to
exercise-induced h y p e r t r o p h y is micro-injury to the connective tissue and
muscle tissue t h r o u g h high intensity loading 3, t h e n s u c h a hypothesis is
attractive in explaining the potential benefits of utilising heavier loads.
However, it m u s t also be acknowledged t h a t a n e a r m a x i m u m eccentric
c o m p o n e n t of a m u s c l e action c a n result in higher m u s c l e tension a n d strain
rates a n d create more d a m a g e t h a n typical concentric contractions 2s. F u r t h e r
r e s e a r c h t h a t is m e c h a n i s t i c in n a t u r e is needed to investigate w h e t h e r the
d a m a g e induced by eccentric- or concentric-only training is similar in quality
and quantity.
In t e r m s of power production (concentric m e a n a n d p e a k power), the results
w h e n single repetitions are c o m p a r e d suggest t h a t there is little difference in
power o u t p u t s between the three conditions. The only significant difference
was found between the 60% 1RM condition and the 30% 1RM condition for
p e a k power output. However, if the total power produced (mean a n d peak) is
c o m p a r e d between conditions, the total power o u t p u t associated with the 30%
1RM condition was 40-69% greater t h a t the 60% 1RM and 90% 1RM conditions
respectively. It is t h o u g h t t h a t m a x i m a l power o u t p u t occurs at approximately
30% of m a x i m u m isometric strength a n d 30% of m a x i m u m shortening
velocity29-31. However, recent findings using isoinertial multiarticular movem e n t s in vivo suggest t h a t heavier loading intensities (50-70% 1RM) m a y be
superior in maximising the power o u t p u t of m u s c l e 13,32,aa. These findings are
b a s e d on the c o m p a r i s o n of a single repetition. The findings of this s t u d y
unequivocally suggest however t h a t the utilisation of lighter loads maximise
the m e c h a n i c a l power o u t p u t of muscle if equi-volume loading p a r a m e t e r s are
compared.
It m a y be t h a t force alone does not adequately a c c o u n t for increases in
strength a n d CSA b u t r a t h e r the distance over which t h a t force acts (work).
Stone et al 2s argued t h a t changes in body composition are to a large extent
related to the a m o u n t of work accomplished. In attempting to explain the
increases in 1RM strength and CSA of their 35% 1RM-training group (G35),
Moss and colleagues 12 found t h a t G35 performed 70% m o r e work t h a n their
152

Training volume and strength and power development

90% 1RM training group. They concluded t h a t the total a m o u n t of work was
i m p o r t a n t for m u s c l e hypertrophy. Similarly, greater total work for both the
eccentric and concentric p h a s e s (9-24%) was associated with the 30% 1RM
condition as c o m p a r e d to the two heavier conditions in this study, though
nowhere n e a r the m a g n i t u d e cited by Moss a n d colleagues. Given t h a t greater
total work is associated with the 30% 1RM condition, it m a y be p r e s u m e d that
greater metabolic and m e c h a n i c a l stress is associated with this condition, both
of which are t h o u g h t i m p o r t a n t for increasing strength and CSA 6. However, this
interpretation m a y be s o m e w h a t simplistic given t h a t m a x i m a l strength and
hypertrophic gains m a y also depend on a related fatigue stimulus. It h a s been
suggested that, if muscle fibres are recruited b u t not fatigued, they are not
trained a4.35. Greater training-induced increases in MVC and cross-sectional
area of the quadriceps were associated with elevated changes in p h o s p h a t e
metabolites and pH 36. Carey Smith and Rutherford 5 found t h a t concentric-only
resistance training with s u b - m a x i m a l loads t h a t resulted in a higher metabolic
cost was more effective in increasing m a x i m u m strength t h a n eccentric-only
training using maximal loads with a lower metabolic cost. They concluded that
metabolic cost a n d not high forces alone were involved in the stimuli for muscle
h y p e r t r o p h y and strength gains 5. The relationship between load a n d fatigue is
further complicated given t h a t loading s u c h as the 90% 1RM condition is more
likely to induce neural fatigue. This type of fatigue h a s b e e n associated with
neurochemical changes t h a t m a y have time courses for recovery longer t h a n
t h a t of muscle metabolic fatigue aT. It would s e e m from the results of this s t u d y
t h a t the 30% 1RM condition would be m o r e likely to induce greater metabolic
fatigue given the greater n u m b e r of maximal repetitions completed. However,
w h e t h e r s u c h a light loading intensity optimises the fatigue stimulus and
produce the metabolic changes n e c e s s a r y for hypertrophic and strength adaptation as c o m p a r e d to higher intensity loading, certainly w a r r a n t s investigation.
Although the 30% 1RM condition resulted in significantly greater total force
o u t p u t and total time u n d e r tension for b o t h the eccentric and concentric
phases, greater concentric and eccentric total impulse was associated with the
9 0 % l R M condition. If high forces a n d greater time u n d e r tension were
i m p o r t a n t for increasing the strength and CSA of muscle, t h e n the 30% 1RM
condition would a p p e a r the load of choice. However, the p r o d u c t of force and
time (impulse) m a y be the more i m p o r t a n t stimulus to induce changes in
strength and CSA. If so, heavier loads would a p p e a r a superior training
stimulus to achieve these changes, as heavier loads were associated with
greater total impulse. The relationship between impulse a n d increases in
strength and h y p e r t r o p h y however is not well documented.

Conclusions
A great deal of r e s e a r c h h a s failed to equate loading between training protocols
in a n y form. Unfortunately the results from s u c h studies are difficult to
interpret as the reported differences between various training protocols m a y in
fact be c o n t a m i n a t e d by differences in training volume, rather t h a n the specific
kinematic and kinetic characteristics of the training p r o g r a m s utilised. Making
conclusions a b o u t the efficacy a n d / o r a d a p t a t i o n s of various training protocols
t h a t are not equated in some m a n n e r would a p p e a r highly questionable.
Research in this area t h a t does a t t e m p t to equate training loads in some
153

Training ~/olumeand strength and power development

m a n n e r w h e n comparing different protocols, usually does so by equating

training volume. However, the results of this s t u d y indicate t h a t equating by
volume still results in a great deal of difference in t e r m s of the temporal,
kinematic and kinetic characteristics within a set. T h a t is, equating by volume
can lead to very different total time u n d e r tensions, forces, power, etc.
Therefore the a d a p t a t i o n s elicited by equi-volume resistance training is for the
m o s t p a r t not well understood. It m a y be t h a t specific p a r a m e t e r s need to be
equated (eg, time u n d e r tension, force, power, etc) to truly u n d e r s t a n d the
n a t u r e of the n e u r o m u s c u l a r a d a p t a t i o n s elicited b y different training
protocols. For example, to ascertain whether or not time u n d e r tension is a
critical s t i m u l u s for increased strength a n d hypertrophy, training p r o g r a m s
would be equated on this p a r a m e t e r a n d training induced a d a p t a t i o n s noted
thereafter. Similarly equating by volume is not a d e q u a t e in comparing the
forces or powers associated with various loading p a r a m e t e r s , as is obvious
from the results of this study. To gain a better appreciation of how force affects
strength, power or hypertrophy, training p r o g r a m s need to be equated by force.
To u n d e r s t a n d the effect of fatigue and associated metabolic changes on
strength a n d hypertrophic adaptation, loading protocols need to be equated by
work. Unfortunately, the great majority of r e s e a r c h in strength and conditioning does not a d o p t s u c h an approach. As a result, m a n y of the suggested
c o n c l u s i o n s a n d practical applications are f u n d a m e n t a l l y flawed. Until
strength a n d power r e s e a r c h adopts a set kinematic a n d kinetic analysis within
its r e s e a r c h designs, m u c h of the r e s e a r c h will not contribute greatly to our
u n d e r s t a n d i n g of how various training p r o g r a m s optimise strength a n d power
development. With this in m i n d one should r e m a i n cognisant of the limitations
t h a t exist in the interpretation of r e s e a r c h d a t a in this field.

References
1. Atha J. Strengthening muscle. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 1981;9:1-73.
2. MacDougall JD. Hypertrophy or hyperplasia. In Komi PV (Ed), Hypertrophy or hyperplasia.
Oxford. Blackwell Scientific Publications. 1992.
3. McDonagh MJN and Davies CTM. Adaptive response of mammalian skeletal muscle to
exercise with high loads. Eur J Appl Physiol 1984;52:139-155.
4. Komi PV and Hakkinen K. Strength and power. In Dirix A, Knuttgen HG and Tittel K (Ed),
Strength and power. Boston. Blackwell Scientific. 1988.
5. Carey Smith R and Rutherford OM. The role of metabolites in strength training. 1.
Acomparison of eccentric and concentric contractions. Eur J Appl Physio11995;71:332-336.
6. Enoka R. Neuromechanical basis of kinesiology. Champaign, IL. H u m a n Kinetics: 1994.
7. J o n e s DA, Rutherford OM and Parker DF. Physiological changes in skeletal muscle as a
result of strength training. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Physiology 1989;74 {3):233-56.
8. Lyttle AD, Wilson GJ and Ostrowski KJ. Enhancing performance: maximal power versus
combined weights and plyometrics training. J Strength Cond Res 1996; 10 (3): 173-179.
9. Harris GR, Stone MH, O'Bryant HS, et al. Short-term performance effects of high power,
high force, or combined weight-training methods. J Strength Cond Res 2000;14 (1):14-20.
10. Dahl HA, Aaserud R and J e n s e n J. Muscle hypertrophy after light and heavy resistance
training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1992;24 (5):$55.
11. Schmidtbleicher D and Buehrle M. Neuronal adaptation and increase of cross-sectional
area studying different strength training methods. In Biomechanics: Champaign, Illinois.
1987. 615-617.
12. Moss B, Refsnes PF, Abildgaard A, et al. Effects of maximal effort strength training with
different loads on dynamic strength, cross-sectional area, toad-power and load-velocity
relationships. Eur J Appl Physiol 1997;75:193-199.
13. Cronin JB, McNair PJ and Marshall RN. Developing explosive power: a comparison of
technique and training. J Sci Med Sport 2001;4 (1):59-70.

154

Training volume and strength and power development

14. Newton RU, Kraemer WJ, Hakkinen K, et al. Kinematics, kinetics and muscle activation
during explosive upper body movements. J Appl Biomech 1996; 12:31-43.
15. Newton RU, Murphy AJ, Humphries BJ, et al. Influence of load and stretch shortening
cycle on the kinematics, kinetics and muscle activation that occurs during explosive upper
body movements. Eur J Appl Physiol 1997; 75:333-342.
16. Newton R and Wilson G. The kinetics and kinematics of powerful upper body movements:
the effect of load. In X/Vth International Series on Biomechanics: Paris, France. 1993. 936-937.
17. Wilson G and Newton R. A comparison of velocity and muscular activity between
plyometric and traditional weight training techniques. JAppl Sport Sci Res 1992;6 (3): 191.
I8. Cronin JB, McNair PJ and Marshall RN. Relationship between strength qualities and
motor skills associated with court performance. J Hum Movt Studies 2001;40:207-224.
19. Heyward VII. Assessing muscular strength and endurance. In (Ed), Assessing muscular
strength and endurance. Champaign, IL. Human Kinetics. 1991.
20. Abernethy P, Wilson G and Logan P. Strength and power assessment: issues, controversies
and challenges. Sports Med 1995;19 (6):41-417.
21. Cronin JB, McNair PJ and Marshall RN. The role of maximal strength and load on initial
power production. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000;32 (10): 1763-1769.
22. Komi PV and Buskirk ER. Effect of eccentric and concentric muscle conditioning on
tension and electrical activity of h u m a n muscle. Ergonomics 1972;15 (4):417-434.
23. Moritani MA and deVries HA. Neural factors versus hypertrophy in the time course of
muscle strength gain. American Journal of Physical Medicine 1979;58 (3): 115-130.
24. Antonio J. Nonuniform response of skeletal muscle to heavy resistance training: Can
bodybuilders induce regional muscle hypertrophy? J Strength Cond Res 2000;14 (1): 102-113.
25. Lieber RL and Bodine-Fowler SC. Skeletal muscle mechanics: implications for
rehabilitation. Phys Ther 1993;73 (12):844-856.
26. Dowling J and Vamos L. Identification of kinetic and temporal factors related to vertical
j u m p performance. J Appl Biomech 1993;9:95-110.
27. Huijing PA. Elastic potential of muscle. In Komi PV {Ed), Elastic potential of muscle. Boston.
Blaekwell Scientific Publications. 1992.
28. Stone MH, Plisk SS, Stone ME, et at. Athletic performance development: volume load - 1
set vs multiple sets, training velocity and training variation. Strength and Conditioning

1998;(December):22-31.
29. Faulkner JA, Claflin DR and Cully KK. Power output of fast and slow fibres from h u m a n
skeletal muscles. In J o n e s NL, McCartney N and McComas AJ (Ed), Power output of fast and
slow fibres ffom human skeletal muscles. Champaign, Illinois. Human Kinetics. 1986.
30. Moritani T. Time course of adaptations during strength and power training. In Komi PV
(Ed), Time course of adaptations during strength and power training. Boston. Blackwell
Scientific Publications. 1992.
31. Perrine J J . The biophysics of maximal muscle power output: methods and problems of
measurement. In J o n e s LM, McCartney N and McComas AJ (Ed), The biophysics of maximal
muscle power output: methods and problems of measurement. Champaign, IL. Human Kinetics.
1986.
32. Baker D, Nance S and Moore M. The load that maximizes the average mechanical power
output j u m p squats in power trained athletes. J Strength Cond Res 2001;15 (1):92-97.
33. Baker D, Nance S and Moore M. The load that maximizes the average mechanical power
output during explosive bench press throws in highly trained athletes. J Strength Cond Res
2001;15 (1):20-24.
34. Sale DG. Influence of exercise and training on motor unit activation. In Pandolf KB (Ed),
Influence of exercise and training on motor unit activation. New York. McMillan Publishing
Company. 1987.
35. Zatsiorsky VM. Science and practice of strength training. Champaign. Illinois. Human
Kinetics: 1995.
36. Schott J, McCully K and Rutherford OM. The role of metabolites in strength training.II.
Short versus long isometric contractions. Eur J Appl Physiol 1995; 71 (337-341)
37. Bloomer RJ and Ives JC. Varying neural and hypertrophic influences on a strength
program. J Strength Cond Res 2000;22 (2):30-35.

155