Resistance training intensity and volume affect changes in rate of force development in resistance-trained men

• Published in: European journal of applied physiology Vol. 116; no. 11-12; pp. 2367 - 2374
• Main Authors: Mangine, Gerald T., Hoffman, Jay R., Wang, Ran, Gonzalez, Adam M., Townsend, Jeremy R., Wells, Adam J., Jajtner, Adam R., Beyer, Kyle S., Boone, Carleigh H., Miramonti, Amelia A., LaMonica, Michael B., Fukuda, David H., Ratamess, Nicholas A., Stout, Jeffrey R.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01-12-2016; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Biomedical and Life Sciences; Biomedicine; Female; High-Intensity Interval Training - methods; Human Physiology; Humans; Isometric Contraction - physiology; Male; Muscle Strength - physiology; Muscle, Skeletal - physiology; Occupational Medicine/Industrial Medicine; Original Article; Physical Exertion - physiology; Physical Fitness - physiology; Resistance Training - methods; Sports Medicine; Strength training; Success; Velocity; Young Adult; United States > US; Rate of force development; Back squat velocity; Isometric strength; Bench press velocity
• ISSN: 1439-6319; 1439-6327
• DOI: 10.1007/s00421-016-3488-6

Purpose
To compare the effects of two different resistance training programs, high intensity (INT) and high volume (VOL), on changes in isometric force (FRC), rate of force development (RFD), and barbell velocity during dynamic strength testing.
Methods
Twenty-nine resistance-trained men were randomly assigned to either the INT (
n
 = 15, 3–5 RM, 3-min rest interval) or VOL (
n
 = 14, 10–12 RM, 1-min rest interval) training group for 8 weeks. All participants completed a 2-week preparatory phase prior to randomization. Measures of barbell velocity, FRC, and RFD were performed before (PRE) and following (POST) the 8-week training program. Barbell velocity was determined during one-repetition maximum (1RM) testing of the squat (SQ) and bench press (BP) exercises. The isometric mid-thigh pull was used to assess FRC and RFD at specific time bands ranging from 0 to 30, 50, 90, 100, 150, 200, and 250 ms.
Results
Analysis of covariance revealed significant (
p
 < 0.05) group differences in peak FRC, FRC at 30–200 ms, and RFD at 50–90 ms. Significant (
p
 < 0.05) changes in INT but not VOL in peak FRC (INT: 9.2 ± 13.8 %; VOL: −4.3 ± 10.2 %), FRC at 30–200 ms (INT: 12.5–15.8 %; VOL: −1.0 to −4.3 %), and RFD at 50 ms (INT: 78.0 ± 163 %; VOL: −4.1 ± 49.6 %) were observed. A trend (
p
 = 0.052) was observed for RFD at 90 ms (INT: 58.5 ± 115 %; VOL: −3.5 ± 40.1 %). No group differences were observed for the observed changes in barbell velocity.
Conclusions
Results indicate that INT is more advantageous than VOL for improving FRC and RFD, while changes in barbell velocity during dynamic strength testing are similarly improved by both protocols in resistance-trained men.