Mangine, G. T., Hoffman, J. R., Gonzalez, A. M., Townsend, J. R., Wells, A. J., Jajtner, A. R., & … Stout, J. R. (2015). The effect of training volume and intensity on improvements in muscular strength and size in resistance-trained men. Physiological Reports, 3(8), n/a. doi:10.14814/phy2.12472
What’s thiiiiis? The article is accessible through PubMed. I’m able to access it through my University, so I don’t know if its freely available. Here’s a copy of the abstract (which is available freely of course):
“This investigation compared the effect of high-volume ( VOL) versus high-intensity ( INT) resistance training on stimulating changes in muscle size and strength in resistance-trained men. Following a 2-week preparatory phase, participants were randomly assigned to either a high-volume ( VOL; n = 14, 4 × 10-12 repetitions with ~70% of one repetition maximum [1 RM], 1-min rest intervals) or a high-intensity ( INT; n = 15, 4 × 3-5 repetitions with ~90% of 1 RM, 3-min rest intervals) training group for 8 weeks. Pre- and posttraining assessments included lean tissue mass via dual energy x-ray absorptiometry, muscle cross-sectional area and thickness of the vastus lateralis ( VL), rectus femoris ( RF), pectoralis major, and triceps brachii muscles via ultrasound images, and 1 RM strength in the back squat and bench press ( BP) exercises. Blood samples were collected at baseline, immediately post, 30 min post, and 60 min postexercise at week 3 ( WK3) and week 10 ( WK10) to assess the serum testosterone, growth hormone ( GH), insulin-like growth factor-1 ( IGF1), cortisol, and insulin concentrations. Compared to VOL, greater improvements ( P < 0.05) in lean arm mass (5.2 ± 2.9% vs. 2.2 ± 5.6%) and 1 RM BP (14.8 ± 9.7% vs. 6.9 ± 9.0%) were observed for INT. Compared to INT, area under the curve analysis revealed greater ( P < 0.05) GH and cortisol responses for VOL at WK3 and cortisol only at WK10. Compared to WK3, the GH and cortisol responses were attenuated ( P < 0.05) for VOL at WK10, while the IGF1 response was reduced ( P < 0.05) for INT. It appears that high-intensity resistance training stimulates greater improvements in some measures of strength and hypertrophy in resistance-trained men during a short-term training period.”
I was wondering whether we could discuss what this article actually shows vs what it purports to show, at least with regards to muscle hypertrophy and strength.
The article appears to show that volume is not a superior training variable when compared to intensity. One group went through a higher volume protocol and another group went through a lower volume but higher intensity protocol, and the latter showed superior gains in muscular hypertrophy and strength. I think it’s clear, however, after digging in the article a bit, that while the high volume group is indeed higher volume than the lower volume group, the lower volume group falls more in line with what we would see in a properly programmed strength program, at least merely in terms of set/reps and not exercise variation, etc. The conclusion this would actually support, then, is that there are more and less effective intensity ranges for muscular hypertrophy and strength–which is nothing new. A more informative study would have been to compare similar intensities, say at around that 3-5 rep range, but with different volumes. (They label the 3-5 rep range as “~90%”, but I think we all know well and good that with 3 min rests, with ExSci studies in general, they’re not working with 90%.)
Is this a decent partial analysis?