PLoS One. 2010 Aug 9;5(8):e12033.
Low-load high volume resistance exercise stimulates muscle protein synthesis more than high-load low volume resistance exercise in young men.
Burd NA, West DW, Staples AW, Atherton PJ, Baker JM, Moore DR, Holwerda AM, Parise G, Rennie MJ, Baker SK, Phillips SM.
Exercise Metabolism Research Group, Department of Kinesiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine the effect of resistance exercise intensity (%1 repetition maximum-1RM) and volume on muscle protein synthesis, anabolic signaling, and myogenic gene expression.
METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Fifteen men (21+/-1 years; BMI=24.1+/-0.8 kg/m2) performed 4 sets of unilateral leg extension exercise at different exercise loads and/or volumes: 90% of repetition maximum (1RM) until volitional failure (90FAIL), 30% 1RM work-matched to 90úIL (30WM), or 30% 1RM performed until volitional failure (30FAIL). Infusion of [ring-13C6] phenylalanine with biopsies was used to measure rates of mixed (MIX), myofibrillar (MYO), and sarcoplasmic (SARC) protein synthesis at rest, and 4 h and 24 h after exercise. Exercise at 30WM induced a significant increase above rest in MIX (121%) and MYO (87%) protein synthesis at 4 h post-exercise and but at 24 h in the MIX only. The increase in the rate of protein synthesis in MIX and MYO at 4 h post-exercise with 90FAIL and 30FAIL was greater than 30WM, with no difference between these conditions; however, MYO remained elevated (199%) above rest at 24 h only in 30FAIL. There was a significant increase in AktSer473 at 24h in all conditions (P=0.023) and mTORSer2448 phosphorylation at 4 h post-exercise (P=0.025). Phosporylation of Erk1/2Tyr202/204, p70S6KThr389, and 4E-BP1Thr37/46 increased significantly (P<0.05) only in the 30FAIL condition at 4 h post-exercise, whereas, 4E-BP1Thr37/46 phosphorylation was greater 24 h after exercise than at rest in both 90FAIL (237%) and 30FAIL (312%) conditions. Pax7 mRNA expression increased at 24 h post-exercise (P=0.02) regardless of condition. The mRNA expression of MyoD and myogenin were consistently elevated in the 30FAIL condition.
CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: These results suggest that low-load high volume resistance exercise is more effective in inducing acute muscle anabolism than high-load low volume or work matched resistance exercise modes.
PMID: 20711498 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]PMCID: PMC2918506Free PMC Article
I’m getting right to my low load, high volume program for increased protein synthesis and muscle hypertrophy. ; )
The results were counterintuitive. A lot to critic about this study.
No problem. What are the critics, TPT? I have come across a few.
LOL @ this:
...our data provides further support that low-load contractions performed with numerous repetitions or high-load contractions performed for fewer repetitions will result in similar training induced gains in muscle hypertrophy as previously suggested [52], or even superior gains, as results from the current study would predict.
I’ll leave critic to general experimental design and replicable procedures alone for the moment.
The qoute above from the conclusion of the study was simply an erroneous assumption. No measures of muscle hypertrophy were measured. The results cannot predict ‘superior gains’ not provide strong assumptions of similar conclusions. Protein syntesis was measured and elevated, but protein breakdown was not. Yes. 20-30 repititions of leg extensions could increase protein synthesis and maintain some elevation for long intervels. However, this does not suggest greater muscle hypertrophy. The results were curious, but likely an issue related to other factors.
Can you write something about yourself in the “Introduce Yourself ” thread in the Miscellaneous section please. The same for AlphaOmega too.
I have seen this critique about the conlusion about the study. But I disagree.
Let’ see what the Title says first:
Low-Load High Volume Resistance Exercise Stimulates Muscle Protein Synthesis More Than High-Load Low Volume Resistance Exercise in Young Men
So the title is right.
Let’see what the abstract concludes:
Conclusions/Significance
These results suggest that low-load high volume resistance exercise is more effective in inducing acute muscle anabolism than high-load low volume or work matched resistance exercise modes.
Acute muscle Anabolism bascially means muscle protein synthesis. So the abstract is right.
And now look at their hypothesis:
We hypothesized that the anabolic response to exercise would be similar between exercise bouts designed to elicit maximal fibre activation (i.e., 90FAIL and 30FAIL) [11]; however, exercise intensity would important to maximize the anabolic response between work-match exercise modes (90FAIL>30WM) [6].
In fact, the study showed that the 30 Fail group had a significantly greater hypertrophy than the 90Fail. Just like us, even the researchers didn’t see that coming.
Now let’s look at the conclusion int the end of the study:
However, it is important to recognize that acute scientific studies simply supply the framework on which to build future training studies upon to directly test if a cause-and-effect relationship does in fact exist.
In conclusion, we have demonstrated that low-load high volume resistance exercise has a potent stimulatory effect on anabolic signalling molecules, MyoD and myogenin mRNA expression and muscle protein synthesis. Our results support previous findings that demonstrated after 16 weeks of isometric training at 30% maximal voluntary contraction that significant increases in fibre area can be achieved [52]. Although, the contraction type employed in the current study (i.e., dynamic) differed from Alway and colleagues [52] (i.e., isometic), our data provides further support that low-load contractions performed with numerous repetitions or high-load contractions performed for fewer repetitions will result in similar training induced gains in muscle hypertrophy as previously suggested [52], or even superior gains, as results from the current study would predict. This premise is further supported by data which demonstrates that short-term changes in muscle protein synthesis [1], [2] are predictive of training induced gains in muscle mass [3], [4]; however, a training study in which these distinctly different exercise loads (90FAIL and 30FAIL) are utilized is clearly warranted to confirm our speculation.
And anytime when you do study you have to write about the external validity or the generalization of the study. How the study will apply to the training for strength and muscle and how it relates to other studies. And to be fair, the author has mentioned how a “long term study is warranted to confirm the speculation” and “acute studies only provide the framework to build future training studies to study the cause and effect relationship”.
And the conclusion is right too. So I think that will be my least concerns about the study.
Anoopbal.. will you post up here when his long term study comes? Any idea how long it will be? Could take years before it’s published if we’re unlucky.
I’m very interested to see the long term results of this, thought I don’t really think it will change the way we train for size.
Anoopbal.. will you post up here when his long term study comes? Any idea how long it will be? Could take years before it’s published if we’re unlucky.
I think it will change the way. I am not sure about advanced, but beginners and older people can train with lighter weights and still gain muscle without worrying about injury or pushing too hard.
And if it is indeed true, a lot of people will stay injury free for years by doing lighter weights (12-20 reps). And mind you people still do high rep for lower body exercises.
And it takes time in science. Nothing changes overnight. Each study adds a piece to the puzzle.
While we are still somewhat in the dark (in terms of scientifically verifiable theory) regarding the exact load magnitude, training volumes and training frequencies that best elicit hypertrophy, we are comparatively settled on the question of the best methods to elicit strength (namely; high loadings, relatively lower volumes than traditional hypertrophy-based protocols).
And, since we also know that there is an intimate connection between muscle strength and muscle cross-section size, the default stance is (and ought to be, IMHO) that whatever improves strength is also likely to improve size. It’s a simple case of transitive logic; A > B > C (where A is high load, low volume training, B is muscular strength, and C is muscular hypertrophy).
Having said that, I agree with Anoop that beginners do not need the same magnitudue of load to elicit hypertrophy. But, this is not because there is a nexus between strength development and size development in beginners. Rather, it is because the loads required to elicit maximal strength in beginners is comparitively lower than for advanced trainers. So, beginners get bigger on low loads because they also get stronger on low loads; in contrast, advanced lifters only get bigger on higher loads because they can only get stronger on higher loads (this conforms to the maxim that loading intensities need to increase in proportion to the training age of the lifter). In either case, strength is the necessary condition; and size rises in roughly concomitant order.
My final issue is more speculative than empirical; namely, if low load protocols can elicit equal or greater hypertrophy than high load protocols (without achieving concomitant increases in strength), then we will presumably end up with lifters that are similar in muscular appearance, but with vastly differing muscular strength. I find this highly counter-intuitive; the world of animals and humans is typically constituted by forms that follow function (horses have massive thigh musculature and speed that reflects this, bulls exhibit massive overall musculature and are massively strong in equal measure etc.) . If the theory supported by this study is true, and lifters adopt it to achieve high levels of “low-functioning hyperophy”, there will arise a massive dislocation between form and function that is hitherto unique in the biological canon…
I think there is a big misconception that strength is best improved with low reps. And there is a big misconception that for some reason the neural adaptation for low reps is much better for strength.
Strength is specific to the repetition range.
A person who trains with low reps will improve strength in low reps. Another person who trains with high reps will improve strength in high reps. This will be a good topic for a new article.
Powerlifters train with low reps not because low reps are best for strength but low reps are the best to increase strength in the low rep range.
I think the whole training with low reps (1-6) or muscle is better for advance is just theoretical. We have seen plenty of people who grow their legs with high rep squats (20 rep squats). Why is that? Could it be different for upper body? Maybe.
In werborm paper there is a sentence that in known studies eccentric work beneficial for advanced athletes.
eccentric work = more load
So, I wouldn’t say it’s pure theoretical assumption
And the real world is so full in drugs that you can’t really relay on anecdotes.
Can you write something about yourself in the “Introduce Yourself ” thread in the Miscellaneous section please. The same for AlphaOmega too.
I will because you’re so damn polite. : )
I have seen this critique about the conlusion about the study. But I disagree.
Let’ see what the Title says first:
Low-Load High Volume Resistance Exercise Stimulates Muscle Protein Synthesis More Than High-Load Low Volume Resistance Exercise in Young Men
So the title is right.
We’re not criticing the title. Not germane.
Let’see what the abstract concludes:
Conclusions/Significance
These results suggest that low-load high volume resistance exercise is more effective in inducing acute muscle anabolism than high-load low volume or work matched resistance exercise modes.
Acute muscle Anabolism bascially means muscle protein synthesis. So the abstract is right.
Sure. The abrstract might be correct, but critic is more than the abstract. Critical appraisal is not about the abract. Never trust the abstract because they are typically misleading. Also, the authors use of the term ‘anabolism’ suggesting increased anabolism will lead to muslce hypertrophy from the low-load volume. Invalid.
And now look at their hypothesis:
We hypothesized that the anabolic response to exercise would be similar between exercise bouts designed to elicit maximal fibre activation (i.e., 90FAIL and 30FAIL) [11]; however, exercise intensity would important to maximize the anabolic response between work-match exercise modes (90FAIL>30WM) [6].
In fact, the study showed that the 30 Fail group had a significantly greater hypertrophy than the 90Fail. Just like us, even the researchers didn’t see that coming.
Do you really want to get into critic of the methodology in procedures? Who knows beyond the authors what or how the work-match variable was coordinated and measured? Completely unreplicable.
Now let’s look at the conclusion int the end of the study:
However, it is important to recognize that acute scientific studies simply supply the framework on which to build future training studies upon to directly test if a cause-and-effect relationship does in fact exist.
In conclusion, we have demonstrated that low-load high volume resistance exercise has a potent stimulatory effect on anabolic signalling molecules, MyoD and myogenin mRNA expression and muscle protein synthesis. Our results support previous findings that demonstrated after 16 weeks of isometric training at 30% maximal voluntary contraction that significant increases in fibre area can be achieved [52]. Although, the contraction type employed in the current study (i.e., dynamic) differed from Alway and colleagues [52] (i.e., isometic), our data provides further support that low-load contractions performed with numerous repetitions or high-load contractions performed for fewer repetitions will result in similar training induced gains in muscle hypertrophy as previously suggested [52], or even superior gains, as results from the current study would predict. This premise is further supported by data which demonstrates that short-term changes in muscle protein synthesis [1], [2] are predictive of training induced gains in muscle mass [3], [4]; however, a training study in which these distinctly different exercise loads (90FAIL and 30FAIL) are utilized is clearly warranted to confirm our speculation.
As I said earlier the following is not true based on the results of the study:
further support that low-load contractions performed with numerous repetitions or high-load contractions performed for fewer repetitions will result in similar training induced gains in muscle hypertrophy as previously suggested [52], or even superior gains, as results from the current study would predict. This premise is further supported by data which demonstrates that short-term changes in muscle protein synthesis [1], [2] are predictive of training induced gains in muscle mass [3], [4];
And anytime when you do study you have to write about the external validity or the generalization of the study. How the study will apply to the training for strength and muscle and how it relates to other studies. And to be fair, the author has mentioned how a “long term study is warranted to confirm the speculation” and “acute studies only provide the framework to build future training studies to study the cause and effect relationship”.
The problem was the overgeneralization and presented threats to external validity. And of course they did mention of long term studies being needed.
And the conclusion is right too. So I think that will be my least concerns about the study.
A person who trains with low reps will improve strength in low reps. Another person who trains with high reps will improve strength in high reps.
I think we might be talking about two different things here; namely exercise performance on the one hand, and absolute strength on the other hand.
I agree that exercise performance is specific to the repetition range (or more correctly, is specific to all factors involved in the performance of that movement, be it time under tension, the type of fatigue involved, the magnitude of the loads, the psychological and physical pain/discomfort associated with the exercise etc.). In practice, this implies that someone who trains a certain movement under certain conditions will gain performance proficiency on that movement under those conditions (SAID). Note, however, that this does not necessarily mean that the person’s absolute strength has significantly increased to mediate that increase in performance.
It is, for example. possible that a subject practicing sets of 15 repetition can increase their performance over time up to a point where they can perform 20 repetitions with the same load. Does this mean that they have increased their absoluite strength by 33% ? Perhaps. But it could also mean that they have (1) developed increased movement efficiency (i.e. meaning that the same quantum of absolute strength now performs more work due to enhanced bio-mechanical leverages); and/or (2) developed a higher muscular fatigue tolerance (so that sets that were previously terminated at 15 reps can now be carried through to 20 reps with no corresponding increase in absolute strength); and/or (3) developed higher psychological tolerance to the pain that is associated with high-repetition sets (which again generates an increase in repetitions performed with no corresponding increase in absolute strength).
So, clearly we can show that performance increases in high repetition sets can be mediated by factors other than absolute strength increases. However, it is also important to note that significant increases in absolute strength will directly influence performance in longer duration/high repetition activities. While a powerlifter may not hit as many repetitions at 75% 1RM as an equally muscled bodybuilder (I believe Dr Fred Hatfield was involved in an experiment that examined this issue), there is no question that the powerlifter, having increased his 1RM, will have also increased his 5RM and 12RM. Of course the relationship will not be linear, but the transfer is demonstrable (Mark Rippetoe uses the example of a cyclist in his book “Strong Enough"p. 169; the cyclist who increases his absolute strength is automatically decreasing the percentage of 1RM that is being performed with each pedal stroke, thus decreasing fatigue and enhancing endurance performance).
On the other hand, the transfer between say, 15RM exercise performance and absolute strength is less demonstrable, and the transfer between endurance performance and absolute strength is non-existent. This strongly suggests a “gradient of influence”, whereby the transfer between exercise performance and absolute strength is most direct where the exercise performed is closer to the 1RM.
So, to reiterate:
A person who trains with low reps will improve strength in low reps
Yes, but they will more importantly, be improving absolute strength, which is transferable;
Another person who trains with high reps will improve strength in high reps
They will improve performance at high reps; but this is unlikely to be due to increases in absolute strength, given the assymetry in transfer between increases in 1RM performance and higher repetition and endurance performance.
And, on a purely anecdotal note, I have seen many a powerlifter do ‘back-off’ sets of 10 or 12 reps with weights that are the equal (or more usually, that surpass) of the 10RM loads used by their equally sized bodybuilding counterparts. On the other hand, I have never seen a bodybuilder do a 1RM that even goes close to their powerlifting counterparts.
