The Brookbush Institute (BOC AP# P10038) is approved by the Board of Certification, Inc. to provide continuing education to Athletic Trainers (ATs). This program is eligible for a maximum of {{credits}} hours/ Category A CEUs. ATs should claim only those hours actually spent in the educational program.

Board Of Certification

PTA Global

American College of Sports Medicine

National Academy of Sports Medicine

Athletics and Fitness Association of America

Canadian Fitness Professionals

Providers of Approved Continuing Education

ACE Course ID: {{aceId}} and Credits: {{aceCredits}}

American Council on Exercise

New York Physical Therapist just a disclaimer The Brookbush Institute (B2C Fitness) is recognized by the New York State Education Department's State Board for Physical Therapy as an approved provider of physical therapy and physical therapist assistant continuing education.

New York State Education Department's State Board for Physical Therapy

World Instructor Training Schools

International Sports Sciences Association

This activity is provided by the Texas Board of Physical Therapy Examiners Accredited Provider 2309052TX and meets continuing competence requirements for physical therapist and physical therapist assistant licensure renewal in Texas.

Texas Physical Therapy Association

CIMSPA course ID: {{cimspaId}} and Credits: {{cimspaCredits}}

Chartered Institute for Management in Sport and Physical Activity

The Brookbush Institute is an AOTA Approved Provider of professional development. PD activity approval ID# {{aotaCourseApprovalNumber}}. This distance learning-independent activity is offered at {{aotaCredits}} CEUs {{aotaLevel}} {{aotaCategory}}.  AOTA does not endorse specific course content, products, or clinical procedures.

American Occupational Therapy Association

Australia Physiotherapists

REPs Ireland

AUSactive #: {{ausActiveId}} and Credits: {{ausActiveCredits}}

AUSactive

Repetition ranges per set for stability, muscle endurance, hypertrophy, maximal strength, and power. Effects of repetition range on hormones, muscle size, performance, and upper limits.

Acute Variables: Repetition Range

Access to all courses with monthly membership

Brookbush Institute

I have almost completed my CPT certification and am half-way through the Human Movement certification to inform my massage practice. The different modalities of reading, watching audiovisual materials, and attending live or recorded webinars have been important to my learning style and for review.

Brookbush Institute has the most detailed, specific and effective tools for online learning for movement and/or bodywork professionals. I love the combination of the videos as well as the text available online.

I recently completed the CPT course. It was demanding yet practical. I would highly recommend it for anyone wanting an education about human movement.

I have my personal trainer certificate through here and am almost finished my human movement specialist certification. Overall, the education that Brookbush has packaged together for clinicians and trainers is invaluable. I am a physio assistant so coming from more of a rehab background I appreciate that this education has been beneficial both as a trainer and in a rehab setting. I love that I have been able to do all learning at my own pace and able to work around my schedule. Thank you for setting up this platform! Highly recommend :)

I have been a massage therapist for 10 yrs and I feel like all the “pieces” I’ve learned throughout the yrs have been put into place and can see the full picture. I am also a member to tons of great content since I love to learn! I plan to get my CPT through them as well.

I have been following Brent Brookbush for nearly a decade- back when I was a personal Trainer and now as a Physical Therapist. BBI is an incredible resource for any movement nerds and corrective exercise specialists! The information is thorough with multiple real world applications. I am looking forward to an in-person Manual Therapist course the second they do one a little bit closer to Virginia ;)

I have taken both the Human Movement Specialist and Certified Personal Trainer certificate programs and have found the value in understanding the how and ways the body moves and functions and from evidence, non-biased, outcome, conceptual, theoretical, and practical approach to helping my clients/patients look better, feel better, and move better.

Over the last years I've returned time and again to Brookbush Institute for stellar coursework as I've worked toward a Human Movement Specialist certification. (I'm currently ACE CPT, and in training with Anatomy Trains for Structural Integration Manual Therapy.) Every Brookbush Institute module is fantastic and each one includes detailed informational videos, written descriptions of how to-do, and, more importantly, why to-do!

I am a 70 yr old chiropractor and no other healthcare provider was able to come up with an exercise protocol particular to my structural and balances and muscle deficits and keep me in the game. And as for continuing education on human skeletal movement, the website is phenomenal full of great exercises for particular mechanical dysfunction.

The H.M.S. is the most valuable certificate I have earned and was a fraction of the the cost of my others. Define the best bang for your buck!

Brookbush is the most efficient Personal Training Certification I have ever come across. All the lessons are well thought out and very straight to the point.

I am getting my Master's degree in Kinesiology, and I would like to say that I have benefited greatly from the rich, comprehensive, well-documented scientific content of Brookbush Institute that links theory to practical applications. Proudly I've got my CPT certificate, and I am on my way to get my HMS certificate.

Having courses count towards different certifications makes it so users can transition seamlessly from one certification to another. In my case, going from earning the BI CPT to earning the BI HMS was an easy decision and I am proud to have earned both certifications. I have also had the pleasure of going to a Live HMS workshop that was well taught by Instructor Boettcher and that was excellent to see how the methods and techniques are implemented.



I have been a member of BBI for years and every course I have taken has been incredibly informative. I learn more from these courses than I do at local CEU courses for my PTA license. I also earned my CPT and HMS certifications through the platform. It was so convenient and the content was top notch! Forever member.

We learn principles in academia, we learn cool new modalities via whatever specialty certification, but BBI really concentrates on the nuances of passive treatment and they do a fantastic job. The format in which BBI instructs soft tissue specialists (DPTs, Chiros, ATs) like myself feels like almost like an apprenticeship. You get a thoroughly detailed explanation of the “why’s”, and a visual comprehension of how to apply. Personally, I believe application is where the good and the great are distinguished.

Brookbush has been incredibly helpful since I was in massage school and now as I’m in my career! I run my own practice and it gives me the resources I need to not only improve what I already know, but also help me navigate better, more efficient ways of treatment.

Totally loving the convenience and affordability of this program with my crazy lifestyle! I feel like I am getting a quality education without a massive cost! My favorite part is the videos I can watch in the courses. I learn so much better that way. Once I really spent more time on the site, I figured out how to maneuver around a lot better! I enjoy the sense of humor, as well as the easy explanation, and short tests. And if I am really tired, I can have the computer read me the lessons. 😁

Challenging concepts are explained in very understandable terms without dumbing down the material, and I find this program to be superior in quality to other personal training programs.

Home

Courses

This course discusses the optimal repetition (reps) ranges per set of resistance training for various training goals. That is, this course details the evidence-based ideal reps/set for endurance, hypertrophy, strength, power, athletic performance, and functional training. The details discussed include the effect rep ranges have on muscle adaptations, the influence of rep range on short-term and long-term hormone concentrations, the effect on post-exercise protein synthesis, the influence of rep ranges on muscle growth and muscle fiber type proportions, the effect on EMG activity, rep ranges for strength training with adolescents, and ideal rep ranges for improving the rate of force development for athletes.


Some findings from the included systematic review resulted in counter-intuitive, or at least less conventional recommendations. For example, studies suggest that low, moderate, and high rep range, when sets are performed to failure, resulting in similar increases in muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), muscle mass, and overall lean body mass. However, moderate rep ranges may result in slightly more hypertrophy, when compared to very low or very high rep ranges, due to the dependence of hypertrophy on both load and volume. And, although higher rep ranges may result in larger increases in type I fiber CSA, and lower rep ranges may result in larger increases in type II CSA, these differences likely decrease when multiple exercises are performed for each muscle group, when training volume increases, and/or an individual is more experienced with resistance training (perhaps due to high exercise volume and multiple exercises per muscle group). In summary, the research suggests that the difference between rep ranges is likely less consequential than previously thought.


Movement professionals (personal trainers, fitness instructors, physical therapists, athletic trainers, massage therapists, chiropractors, occupational therapists, etc.) should consider acute variables essential knowledge for optimal exercise programming, and rep range/set one of those acute variables. This course is part of our continued effort to optimize “acute variable” recommendations.

Note: These reps ranges are generalized guidelines. It is not uncommon for research to use ranges that are in-between, or span two of these general ranges; for example, 1- 10 reps, 4 - 8 reps, or 10 -20 reps.

 Low reps (experienced), Moderate reps (novice)

 High Reps (adults), Moderate reps (adolescents)

A trainer demonstrating the horizontal pull up exercise with a client

Course Description: Acute Variables - Repetition Range

Brookbush Institute Acute Variables - Repetition Range Study Guide

Study Guide: Acute Variables - Repetition Range

Summary

Hormone Levels, Anabolic Signaling, and Protein Synthesis and Reps:

 Testosterone and GH levels following resistance training are likely to increase similarly following moderate reps and high reps, and less following low reps (when multi-joint exercises are selected and rest periods are less than 3 minutes).

It may be necessary to perform high rep ranges to achieve an increase in hormone levels when single-joint exercises are selected, or when inter-set rest intervals are longer than 3 minutes.

Resistance exercise (or inter-set rest interval) with any rep range may not significantly influence the post-exercise testosterone level of females.

Insulin-like growth factor - 1 (IGF - 1), Anabolic Signaling and Protein Synthesis:

 Increases in IGF-1, anabolic signaling, and protein synthesis are likely less influenced by repetition range, and more influenced by shorter inter-set rest intervals (less than 3 minutes), larger loads (intensity/effort), training to failure, potentially more total volume (reps x sets x load) of exercise.

Electromyographic (EMG) Activity and Reps:

EMG activity increases as load increases. When sets are performed to failure, larger loads are generally associated with lower reps.

Increase in Cross-sectional Area (CSA) and Reps:

Studies suggest that low, moderate, and high rep ranges result in similar increases in CSA when sets are performed to failure. However, there is some research to suggest that moderate rep ranges may result in slightly larger increases than low, high, or very high rep ranges.

 Higher rep ranges may result in larger increases in type I fiber CSA, and lower rep ranges may result in larger increases in type II CSA; however, it is likely that these differences decrease when multiple exercises are performed for each muscle group, when training volume increases, and/or an individual is more experienced with resistance training (perhaps contributing to increases in volume, including multiple exercises per muscle group).

Low, and moderate rep ranges result in similar increases in isometric strength, higher rep ranges are less effective, and very high rep ranges are unlikely to result in any significant change.

The dynamic strength of all groups improved less following high reps sets when compared to moderate or low rep ranges. The dynamic strength of novice lifters and women may improve similarly following low reps or moderate reps. Experienced lifters may benefit more from lower reps (higher loads) than moderate reps.

 Studies unanimously demonstrate that high reps improve strength endurance more than moderate reps; however, studies also suggest that increasing reps per set by 5 or less will not have a significant impact on results.

Strength Endurance for Aerobic Performance:

 Rep range likely has little effect on the benefits attained from strength training for improving aerobic performance.

Power (High-velocity Training): Introduction

 There is currently no research comparing rep ranges for high-velocity activities, but based on the most commonly used rep ranges in power training studies, 3-10 reps/set is likely a reasonable recommendation. A more specific recommendation would be to limit repetitions to the number of reps that can be performed at maximum velocity.

 Studies suggest that 1-RM strength in adolescents improves similarly following moderate reps or low reps; further, strength endurance also improves similarly following these rep ranges. Considering that higher loads (lower reps) may be correlated with an increased risk of injury, and higher reps may be associated with lower compliance, it may be reasonable to recommend that adolescents begin training with moderate loads and moderate rep ranges.

 Elderly individuals are likely to see larger improvements in functional outcomes from moderate reps when compared to high reps, especially during longer intervention periods (more than 12 weeks).

 Studies imply that very high rep ranges (more than 20+ reps, less than 60% of 1-RM to failure) result in little, if any improvement in hormone levels, CSA, max strength or endurance.

Hormones and Rep Ranges

Studies have demonstrated that repetition range may influence hormone levels; however, additional factors are inter-related including inter-set rest period, compound vs. single-joint exercise, and volume.

Testosterone likely increases more following moderate or high repetition ranges (reps) when compared to low reps; however, inter-set rest interval and reps may need to be considered together. Hakkinen et al. demonstrated that testosterone increased following 10-repetition maximum (10-RM) sets, but did not increase following 1-RM sets with inter-set rest intervals of 3 minutes (1). Kraemer et al. demonstrated that 10-RM sets resulted in greater increases in testosterone than 5-RM sets with inter-set rest intervals of 1-3 minutes; however, the 5-RM group did exhibit higher levels when tested again 60-minutes post-exercise (2). Morton et al. demonstrated that high reps (20-25 reps or 30-50% 1-RM) and moderate reps (8-12 reps or 75-90% 1-RM) resulted in similar increases in testosterone with inter-set rest intervals of 1 minute (3). Conversely, Popov et al. and Vinogradova et al. demonstrated that high reps (50-60% of 1-RM) had no effect on testosterone when inter-set rest intervals were 10 minutes (4, 5). These studies suggest that testosterone levels following resistance training are likely to increase similarly following moderate reps and high reps, and less following low reps (when rest periods are less than 3 minutes). Further research is needed to investigate the effect of longer rest intervals, and the effect of intensity and rep range on changes in testosterone 60 minutes or more post-exercise.

Note, the majority of these studies did not include female participants (1, 3, 4, 5); however, the study by Kraemer et al. demonstrated that testosterone increased in men but not women (2). This may imply that repetition range (or inter-set rest interval) does not influence the testosterone levels of resistance training in females.

Rep range also has a significant impact on growth hormone (GH) levels; however, the effect of rep ranges may be influenced by the selection of compound versus single-joint exercises, and/or inter-set rest interval length. Hakkinen et al. demonstrated that moderate reps (10-reps) with compound exercises resulted in a larger increase in GH than low reps (1-rep) (1). Two studies by Kraemer et al. also demonstrated larger increases in GH following moderate reps (10-reps) with compound exercises when compared to low reps (5-reps) (2, 6). Morton et al. demonstrated that high reps (20-25 reps) and moderate reps (8-12 reps) with compound exercises resulted in similar increases in GH levels (3). However, Fink et al. demonstrated high reps (20-reps) resulted in larger increases in GH than moderate reps (8-reps) when single-joint exercises were selected (i.e. - bicep curls and tricep extensions) (9). Further, Vinogradova et al. demonstrated that high reps (50-70% 1-RM) resulted in a larger increase in GH levels than moderate reps (80-85% 1-RM) when using extended rest intervals (10-minutes between sets) (5). Last, a study by Vanhelder et al. suggests that there is a limit to how much rep range may be increased to elicit larger increases in GH, demonstrating that very high reps (28% of a 7-RM) with compound exercises had no effect on GH levels (8). In summary, moderate (10 reps) and high reps (20 reps) resulted in similar increases in GH levels when compound exercises were selected, which were higher than levels exhibited during low reps. Additionally, it may be necessary to perform high reps (20 reps) to achieve an increase in GH levels when inter-set rest intervals are long, or single-joint exercises have been selected.

Rep range likely has little if any influence on increases in IGF-1; however, levels of IGF-1 may be influenced by inter-set rest intervals. Studies by Kraemer et al. demonstrated that low reps (5-RM) and moderate reps (10-RM), with inter-set rest intervals of 1-3 minutes, resulted in similar increases in IGF-1 (2, 6, 7). Lamon et al. demonstrated that low reps (3-5 reps) and high reps (20-28 reps), with inter-set rest periods of 1-3 minutes, also resulted in similar increases in IGF-1 (10). Morton et al. demonstrated that moderate reps (8-12 reps) and high reps (20-25 reps) with inter-set rest periods of 1-minute resulted in similar increases in IGF-1 levels (3). Interestingly, Vinogradova et al. demonstrated that high reps (50-70% 1-RM) increased IGF-1 levels, and moderate reps (80-85% 1-RM) had no effect on IGF-1 levels; however, this study used inter-set rest intervals of 10 minutes (4). A study by Popov et al. also demonstrated that moderate reps (80% 1-RM) with inter-set rest intervals of 10-minutes had no effect on IGF-1 (3). In summary, research suggests that rep range does not influence IGF-1 levels; however, shorter inter-set rest periods (1-3 minutes) may result in a larger increase in IGF-1 than longer inter-set rest intervals (10-minutes).

Like IGF-1, reps may not have a significant influence on anabolic signaling (e.g. increase in mTor) and protein synthesis, as all rep ranges result in similar increases. Burd et al. demonstrated that anabolic signaling was greater than baseline following high reps (24 +/- 1.1) or low reps (5 +/- 0.2), with high reps resulting in a greater increase than low reps (11). However, Kumar et al. demonstrated that if participants did not exercise to failure, then low reps (3-9 reps) resulted in a larger increase in anabolic signaling than high reps (14-27 reps) (12). Leger et al. demonstrated that high reps (20-28 reps) and low reps (3-5 reps) resulted in similar increases in anabolic signaling when averaged over an 8-week training period (13). Last, Mitchell et al. compared the legs of each participant, demonstrating that moderate reps (80% 1-RM) and high reps (30% 1-RM), performed to failure, resulted in similar increases in anabolic signaling and hypertrophy (14). This likely implies that rep range has less influence on anabolic signaling and that other factors such as inter-set rest interval or training to failure.

Studies have demonstrated that increases in protein synthesis mirror increases in anabolic signaling (11, 12, 14, 15). Two studies by Burd et al. demonstrated that protein synthesis increased more following high reps (24 +/- 1.1 reps); however, low reps (5 +/- 0.2 reps) also increased protein synthesis above baseline (11, 15). Kumar et al. demonstrated that when the volume was matched for each rep range, lower reps (3-9 reps) resulted in larger increases in protein synthesis when compared to higher reps (14-27 reps) (12). As mentioned above, Mitchell et al. demonstrated that moderate reps (80% 1-RM) and high reps (30% 1-RM) performed to failure, resulted in similar increases in protein signaling (14). In summary, protein synthesis is likely affected less by rep range, and more by factors such as volume, intensity, and training to failure.

Electromyography (EMG) Activity and Rep Ranges

Research demonstrates that electromyographic (EMG) activity increases with load, which is generally correlated with lower rep ranges (reps). Studies by Akima et al. and Jenkins et al. demonstrated that moderate reps (70-80% 1-RM) resulted in greater quadriceps EMG activity than high reps (30-50% 1-RM) during knee extensions (16, 17). Similarly, Cook et al. demonstrated that moderate reps (70% of peak dynamic torque) resulted in greater quadriceps EMG activity than high reps (20% of peak dynamic torque) during knee extensions (18). Studies investigating leg press and squats support the same notion of higher loads and lower reps resulting in higher EMG activity. Schoenfeld et al. demonstrated that moderate reps (75% 1-RM) resulted in greater quadriceps and 

 EMG activity than high reps (30% 1-RM) during leg press (19). And, Looney et al. demonstrated that low reps (90% 1-RM) resulted in greater quadriceps EMG activity than moderate reps (70% 1-RM), and moderate reps resulted in greater quadriceps EMG activity than high reps (50% 1-RM) during squats (20). The same relationship is demonstrated during upper body exercises, such as the bench press and bicep curls. Studies by Sakamoto et al. and Schoenfeld et al. demonstrated that moderate reps (8-12 reps) resulted in greater 

, and triceps brachii EMG activity compared to high reps (22-30 reps) during the bench press (21, 22). And, Jenkins et al. noted the same trend with biceps curls, demonstrating that moderate reps (6-8 reps) resulted in greater biceps brachii EMG activity when compared to high (22-45 reps) reps (23). Interestingly, Sundstrup et al. demonstrated that high reps (15-reps) during a lateral raise resulted in greater medial 

, and splenius capitis muscle activity compared to low reps (3-reps); however, participants only trained to fatigue in the high rep group (24). In summary, research has demonstrated that EMG activity increases with larger loads, which is generally associated with lower reps when sets are performed to failure.

Dr. Brent Brookbush demonstrating a lateral lunge

Muscle Cross-Sectional Area (CSA) and Rep Ranges

Research has demonstrated that both novice and experienced, young men and women, exhibit similar increases in upper body cross-sectional area (CSA) in response to all rep ranges when sets are performed to failure. Fink et al. compared moderate reps (8 - 12 reps, 80 % 1-RM), high reps (30-40 reps, 30 % 1-RM), and mixed groups (moderate and high reps), performing isolated preacher curls for 8 weeks, demonstrating all groups exhibited similar increases in 

 CSA (25). Ogasawara et al. compared moderate reps (75% of 1-RM) and high reps (30% of 1-RM) of bench press, also demonstrating similar increases in 

 CSA (26). Schoenfeld et al. demonstrated that moderate reps (8-12 reps) and high reps (25-35 reps) of 7 exercises for major muscle groups resulted in similar increases in 

 CSA (27). Further, the study by Ogasawara et al. demonstrated that moderate reps (10-reps) and high reps (30% 1-RM) resulted in similar increases in 

 CSA (26). These studies suggest that moderate reps and high reps result in similar increases in CSA for upper body musculature. Chestnut et al. demonstrated that moderate reps (8-12 reps) and low reps (2-4 reps) of forearm extensor and flexor exercises to failure resulted in similar increases in CSA (28). In another study by Schoenfeld et al. using a 7 exercise full-body routine, 3 sets of 10-RM with 90-second inter-set rest intervals were compared to 7 sets of 3-RM with 3-minute inter-set rest intervals, resulting in similar increases in 

 CSA (28, 29). Last, Kraemer et al. also demonstrated that a multi-exercise full-body routine with moderate reps (8-12 reps) or low reps (3-8 reps) resulted in similar increases in 

 CSA (30). These studies comparing both low reps to moderate reps, and moderate reps to high reps, suggest that reps do not significantly influence increases in upper body muscle CSA.

Similar trends are noted for lower body musculature; research has demonstrated that both novice and experienced male exercisers exhibit similar increases in lower body cross-sectional area (CSA) in response to all rep ranges, with only small differences noted in a few studies. Previously mentioned studies have compared leg extensions to failure with moderate reps (6-15 reps/80-90% 1-RM) and high reps (15+ reps/50-60% 1-RM), resulting in similar increases in thigh CSA (3, 4, 5, 14). Additional studies including Jenkins et al. comparing moderate reps (80% 1-RM) and high reps (30% 1-RM) of leg extensions, and Tanimoto et al. comparing relatively slow reps (50% 1-RM) and normal speed reps at (80% 1-RM) of leg extensions, also demonstrated similar increases in thigh CSA (31, 32). A previously mentioned study by Schoenfeld et al. included several lower body exercises, but also demonstrated that moderate reps (8-12 reps) and high reps (25-35 reps) resulted in similar changes in thigh CSA (27). Further, previously mentioned studies by Lamon et al. and Leger et al. demonstrated that low reps (3-5 reps) and high reps (20-28 reps) resulted in similar increases in quadriceps CSA (10, 13). In summary, these studies demonstrate that low, moderate, and high rep ranges result in similar increases in lower body muscle CSA, in male exercisers.

A few studies suggest that some small differences may exist between rep ranges. Weiss et al. compared 3-5 RM, 13-15 RM, and 23-25 RM squat training groups, demonstrating similar changes in 

 thickness; however, the moderate and high reps groups did exhibit more thigh CSA than the low reps group (33). Further, the two previously mentioned studies by Popov et al. and Vinogradova et al. demonstrated that moderate reps (80-85% 1-RM) resulted in a greater increase in 

 CSA when compared to high reps (50% 1-RM) (4, 5). These studies may suggest that increases in CSA are correlated with total volume, intensity, or certain muscles may be more prone to hypertrophy than others. Two additional studies compared rep ranges when sets were not performed to failure. Tanimoto et al. demonstrated that 3 sets of high reps (50% 1RM) of leg extensions, with sets not performed to failure, resulted in no increase in quadriceps CSA (34). Conversely, Holm et al. compared a high volume (10-sets) program with sets not performed to failure, to high reps (36-reps) program with sets performed to failure, demonstrating similar increases in quadriceps CSA (35). These studies may imply that sets to failure are not necessary to achieve increases in CSA; however, the alternative may be very high volume as used in the Holm et al. study (34). Further, research is recommended to determine ideal rep versus volume ratios. Two studies have compared rep ranges in elderly individuals (60+ years old). Kalapotharakos et al. demonstrated that moderate reps (8-reps) of leg extensions performed to failure resulting in a greater increase in thigh CSA than high reps (15-reps) (36). And, Van Roie et al. compared high reps (10-15 reps) to very high reps (80-100 reps) of leg extensions, demonstrating similar increases in thigh CSA in elderly men (37). These studies suggest that elderly men may benefit more from moderate reps than high or very high rep ranges. In summary, there is some research suggesting that moderate rep ranges may result in larger increases than low, high, or very high rep ranges for certain lower body muscles, in young and elderly men.

Research has also investigated the influence of rep range on thigh (quadriceps and 

) cross-sectional area (CSA) in women; however, the available studies have only included participants with little or no resistance training experience. In a study mentioned above, Kraemer et al. compared a multi-exercise full-body routine with moderate reps (8-12 reps) to the same routine with low reps (3-8 reps), demonstrating similar increases in thigh CSA (30). Hisaeda et al. compared 4-5 sets of 15-20 RM to 8-9 sets of 4-6 RM of leg extensions, also demonstrating similar increases in thigh CSA (38). Schuenke et al. compared a routine of leg press, squats, and knee extensions with standard speed and moderate reps (6-10 reps), slow speed of moderate reps, and a standard speed of high reps (20-30 reps), demonstrating that only the high reps group exhibited no improvement in quadriceps CSA (39). This study, like others, may imply an upper limit for rep ranges. Two studies compared rep ranges when sets were not performed to failure. Bemben et al. compared a total body routine with moderate reps (8-reps) or high reps (16-reps), not performed to failure, in postmenopausal women (mean age of 51.4 +/- 5.5), demonstrating both routines resulted in similar increases in rectus femoris CSA (40). And, Taaffe et al. demonstrated that elderly women (60+ years old) performing leg press, knee extension, and knee flexion exercises for 3 sets with moderate reps (7-reps) exhibited a larger increase in thigh CSA than 3 sets of high reps (14-reps) (41). Interestingly, both of these studies included relatively high volume programs, which may be congruent with similar studies on men which demonstrated that increases in CSA may be achieved when sets are not performed to failure if volume is sufficient and perhaps relatively high. Last, two studies mentioned above also included elderly women, Kalapotharakos et al. demonstrated that moderate reps (8-reps) of leg extensions performed to failure resulting in a greater increase in thigh CSA when compared to high reps (15-reps) (36). And, Van Roie et al. compared high reps (10-15 reps) to very high reps (80-100 reps) of leg extensions to failure and demonstrated similar increases in thigh CSA (37). In summary, research on women suggests similar responses to resistance training as studies on men. There is some research suggesting that moderate rep ranges may result in larger increases in CSA than low, high, or very high rep ranges; however, the differences are likely small.

Cross sectional view of the lower leg muscles, including gastrocnemius, soleus, and tibialis muscles

Repetition Ranges and Their Effect on Muscle Fiber Type Cross-Sectional Area

The effect of rep ranges on the cross-sectional area (CSA) of individual fiber types (type I or II) has been investigated in several studies. Vinogradova et al. demonstrated that moderate reps (80-85% 1-RM) resulted in greater increases in type II fiber CSA, and high reps (50% 1-RM) resulted in greater increases in type I fiber CSA when performing multiple sets of a single exercise (leg press) (5). Netreba et al. also demonstrated that moderate reps (85-90% 1-RM) resulted in a greater increase in type II fiber CSA, and high reps (20-25% 1-RM) resulted in a greater increase in type I fiber CSA when performing multiple sets of a single exercise (leg extension) (42). These studies imply that the resulting increases in CSA from certain rep ranges are specific to fiber type; however, additional studies suggest less specificity. Mitchell et al. demonstrated that performing leg extension with moderate reps (80% 1-RM) or high reps (30% 1-RM) resulted in similar increases in type I and II fiber CSA in the vastus lateralis of experienced male exercisers. (14). Campos et al. demonstrated that high reps (20-28 reps) and low reps (3-5 reps) resulted in similar increases in type I and type II fiber type CSA when performing multiple exercises (leg press, squat, and knee extension) with novice exercisers (43). Similarly, Morton et al. demonstrated that individuals with at least 2-years of resistance training experience exhibited similar increases in type I and type II fiber CSA following 12 weeks of whole-body resistance training with moderate reps (8-12 reps) or high reps (20-25 reps) (3). And, counter to some of the previous studies, Dons et al. compared sets of leg extensions to failure with 50% of 1-RM and 80% of 1-RM, demonstrating that the fiber type proportion of the vastus lateralis did not change; however fast-twitch fiber area increased significantly more in the 50% 1-RM group (44). In summary, there is some evidence to suggest that higher rep ranges may result in larger increases in type I fiber CSA and lower rep ranges may result in larger increases in type II CSA; however, it is likely that these differences decrease when multiple exercises are performed for each muscle group, when training volume increases, and/or an individual is more experienced with resistance training (perhaps contributing to increases in volume, including multiple exercises per muscle group).

Max Strength and Reps

Research has investigated the effect of various rep ranges on isometric strength. Note, all studies were performed with young inexperienced exercisers, an exercise frequency of three times per week, and training periods ranging from 6-12 weeks. O’Shea et al. demonstrated that low reps (2-3 reps) and moderate reps (9-10 reps) of leg extensions resulted in similar increases in knee extension maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) (45). Fisher et al. demonstrated that moderate reps (avg reps of 9.66 +/- 1.94) and high reps (avg reps of 20.16 +/- 4.6) resulted in similar increases in knee extension MVIC (46). However, Hisaeda et al. noted a difference in rep ranges, demonstrating that low reps (2-5 reps) resulted in a greater increase in knee extension MVIC than high reps (15-20) (38). These studies likely imply that lower rep ranges result in larger increases in strength, but that similar benefits can be attained from a relatively wide range of repetitions, for example, 8 - 20 reps may result in similar increases in isometric strength. Additional studies demonstrate similar findings for upper body musculature. Studies by Fink et al. demonstrated that moderate reps (8-reps) resulted in a larger increase in elbow flexion MVIC compared to high reps (20-reps) (9, 25). And, Holm et al. demonstrated that very high reps (60 reps at approximately 15.5% 1RM) did not improve knee extension MVIC (35). These studies likely imply that for increasing isometric strength low and moderate rep ranges result in similar increases, higher rep ranges are less effective, and very high rep ranges are unlikely to result in any significant increase.

Research has investigated various rep ranges and their effect on dynamic strength during single-joint exercises. Note, these studies were performed on young, inexperienced exercisers, training with a frequency of three times per week for 7-12 weeks. Hisaeda et al. demonstrated that knee extension exercises with low reps (4-5 reps) resulted in greater increases in knee extension dynamic strength compared to high reps (15-20 reps) (38). Aagard et al. demonstrated that isolated knee extension and flexion exercises with moderate reps (8-reps) resulted in greater increases in knee extension and flexion dynamic strength compared to high reps (24-reps) (47). Similarly, Holm et al. demonstrated that moderate reps (8-reps) resulted in greater increases in knee extension dynamic strength compared to high reps (36-reps) (35). These studies suggest that lower rep ranges are more beneficial for increasing strength than higher rep ranges when performing single-joint exercises. Several additional studies have investigated the effects of rep range on strength when performing multi-joint exercises (e.g. squats or leg-press). Weiss et al. demonstrated that low reps (3-5 reps), moderate reps (13-15 reps), and high reps (23-25 reps) of squats resulted in similar increases in knee extension and flexion dynamic strength (48). Further, Netreba et al. demonstrated that moderate reps (6-10 reps) and high reps (35-50 reps) of leg press resulted in similar increases in knee extension and flexion dynamic strength (42). An additional study by Netreba et al. demonstrated moderate reps (80-85% 1-RM) and high reps (50% 1-RM) of several multi-joint exercises also resulted in similar increases in knee extension and flexion dynamic strength (49). These studies suggest that lower rep ranges increase strength more than higher ranges when performing single-joint exercises; however, the difference in strength gained from various rep ranges decreases when performing multi-joint exercises or multiple exercises.

Research has investigated various rep ranges and their effect on bench press 1-repetition maximum (1-RM) strength. Note, these studies included young participants training 3-4 times per week and training periods of 8 - 24 weeks. Berger et al. demonstrated that moderate reps (4-8 reps) resulted in a greater increase in bench press 1-RM strength when compared to low reps (2-reps) in novice male exercisers (50). Further, Anderson et al. demonstrated that moderate reps (6-8 reps) resulted in a greater increase in bench press 1-RM strength when compared to high reps (30-40 reps) in novice male exercisers (51). These studies suggest that moderate reps result in larger improvements in bench press 1-RM strength compared to low reps or high reps for this group; further, studies including female exercisers demonstrate similar trends. Kraemer et al. demonstrated that low reps (3-8 reps) and moderate reps (8-12 reps) resulted in similar increases in bench press 1-RM strength in novice female exercisers (30). Further, Stone et al. demonstrated that moderate reps (6-8 reps) resulted in a greater increase in bench press 1-RM strength compared to high reps (15-20 reps) in novice female exercisers (52). These studies suggest that females may respond similarly to low and moderate rep ranges; however, similar to men high reps are not as effective for improving strength. Additional studies have included experienced male exercises. Schoenfeld et al. demonstrated that low reps (2-4 reps) resulted in a greater increase in bench press 1-RM strength compared to moderate reps (8-12 reps) in experienced male exercisers (29). Previously mentioned studies Morton et al. and Schoenfeld et al. demonstrated that moderate reps (8-12 reps) resulted in a greater increase in bench press 1-RM strength when compared to high reps (20-35 reps) in experienced male exercisers (3, 27). This suggests that low reps result in larger improvements than moderate reps, and moderate reps result in larger improvements than high reps in experienced male exercisers for bench press 1-RM strength. In summary, research suggests that novice lifters are likely to exhibit similar increases in 1-RM bench strength with low or moderate reps, and high reps are less effective. However, experienced exercises are likely to improve 1-RM bench strength more with lower rep ranges than moderate reps.

Dr. Brent Brookbush demonstrating a dumbbell chest press

Research has investigated the effect of various rep ranges on squat strength as measured by a 1-repetition maximum (1-RM). Note, all studies included young participants, an exercise frequency of 2-3 times per week, and training periods of 6 - 24 weeks. Schoenfeld et al. demonstrated that low reps (2-4 reps) resulted in a greater increase in squat 1-RM strength when compared to moderate reps (8-12 reps) in men (29). Similarly, Campos et al. demonstrated that low reps (3-5 reps) resulted in a greater increase in squat 1-RM strength when compared to moderate reps (9-11 reps) in men (43). And, Weiss et al. demonstrated that low reps (3-5 reps) resulted in a greater increase in squat 1-RM strength when compared to high reps (13-15 reps) in men (4). Conversely, women may not respond differently to low and moderate reps. Kraemer et al. demonstrated that low reps (3-8 reps) and moderate reps (8-12 reps) resulted in a similar increase in squat 1-RM strength in young women (30). Note, the lack of difference may also be related to training experience, as alluded to in the studies investigating 1-RM bench press strength. Last, Rana et al. demonstrated that moderate reps (6-10 reps) resulted in a greater increase in squat 1-RM strength when compared to high reps (20-30 reps) in women (53). These studies suggest that lower rep ranges result in a greater increase in 1-RM squat strength; however, women may not experience significant differences between low and moderate rep ranges (this may also be attributable to training experience).

A relatively large number of studies have compared moderate and high repetition ranges (reps) and their effect on 1-repetition maximum (1-RM) strength in the elderly. de Vos et al., using pneumatic machines, demonstrated that moderate reps (80% 1-RM) resulted in a greater increase in 1-RM strength compared to high reps (20% 1-RM) (54). Fatouros et al. demonstrated that a multi-exercise, whole-body routine with moderate reps (6-8 reps) resulted in a greater increase in 1-RM strength compared to high reps (14-16 reps) (55). Similarly, Willoughby et al. demonstrated that a whole-body routine of moderate reps (8-10 reps) resulted in a greater increase of 1-RM strength when compared to high reps (15-20 reps) (56). Studies by Kalapotharakos et al. demonstrated that moderate reps (8-10 reps) resulted in a greater increase in lower body 1-RM strength compared to high reps (15-20 reps); however, improvements in function were similar for both groups (57). Last, as mentioned above, Van Roie et al. compared high reps (10-15 reps) to very high reps (80-100 reps) of leg extensions, demonstrating that very high rep ranges did not increase 1-RM strength in elderly men (37). This research suggests that 1-RM strength improves more for elderly individuals with moderate reps when compared to high reps; however, the function may improve similarly with moderate and high reps, and very high rep ranges may not result in any benefit.

Early Post-menopausal Woman and 1-RM Strength

Two studies investigated the effect of rep range on 1-RM strength for early postmenopausal women. Note, the studies used machine-based exercise programs. Kerr et al. demonstrated that moderate reps (8-reps) and high reps (20-reps) resulted in similar increases in leg press, bicep curl, and tricep extension 1-RM strength following a 1-year long program (58). Similarly, Bemben et al. demonstrated that moderate reps (8-reps) and high reps (16-reps) resulted in similar increases in leg press, knee flexion, lat pulldown, seated row, bicep curl, and tricep extension 1-RM strength following a 6-month program (42). Interestingly, the study by Bemben et al. demonstrated that the moderate reps (8-reps) group exhibited larger increases for shoulder press and knee extensions (42). In summary, moderate reps and high reps are likely to result in similar increases in 1-RM strength for early postmenopausal women; however, moderate reps may result in a small additional amount of 1-RM strength. Further, research is needed.

A box jump exercise, used for improving lower body power

Repetition Ranges and Their Effect on Endurance

Several studies suggest that higher rep ranges result in larger increases in muscle endurance in young, novice exercisers. Schoenfeld et al. demonstrated that high reps (25-35 reps) resulted in a greater increase in bench press endurance (number of reps to failure with 50% 1-RM) when compared to moderate reps (8-12 reps) (27). Anderson et al. demonstrated that very high reps (100-150 reps) and high reps (30-40 reps) resulted in a greater increase in bench press endurance (as many reps as possible with 40% 1-RM) when compared to low reps (6-8 reps) (51). Mitchell et al. demonstrated that high reps (30% 1-RM) of leg extensions resulted in a larger increase in knee extension endurance (number of reps to failure with 30% 1-RM) when compared to moderate reps (80% 1-RM) (14). And, Rana et al. demonstrated that high reps (20-30 reps) resulted in a greater increase in Smith machine squats, leg press, and knee extension endurance (as many reps as possible with 60% 1-RM) when compared to moderate reps (6-10 reps) (53). These studies unanimously demonstrate that higher rep ranges result in larger increases in muscle endurance than moderate or low rep ranges in young, novice lifters. Further research is needed to investigate the effect of higher rep ranges on the strength endurance of experienced exercisers.

Two studies investigated the effect of rep ranges on strength endurance in the elderly, demonstrating a similar trend as noted in younger exercisers. Van Roie et al. demonstrated that high reps (80-100 reps) resulted in a larger increase in knee extension endurance (number of reps to failure with 60% 1-RM) when compared to moderate reps (10-15 reps) in 

 (37). And, Vincent et al. demonstrated that high reps (13-reps) and moderate reps (8-reps) resulted in similar increases in chest press and leg press endurance (as many reps as possible with 60% 1-RM) in 

 (61). Note, the study by Vincent et al. which demonstrated no significant difference compared a smaller difference between rep ranges. This may imply that larger differences in rep range are necessary to optimize improvements in strength endurance (61). Again, studies unanimously demonstrate that high reps improve strength endurance more than moderate reps; however, studies also suggest that increasing reps per set by 5 or less will not have a significant impact on results. Similar to studies on novice exercises, further research is needed to investigate the effect of higher rep ranges on the strength endurance of experienced, elderly lifters.

Effect on Treadmill and Bike Ergo Endurance Testing

Studies investigating the effect of strength endurance training on aerobic endurance activity suggest rep range may not be a significant factor. Jackson et al. demonstrated that high reps (20-reps) and low reps (4-reps) resulted in no change in VO2 peak during a cycle ergometer test in 

young participants experienced in the sport of cycling

 (62). Vincent et al. demonstrated that high reps (13-reps) and moderate reps (8-reps) resulted in similar increases in VO2 peak and time to exhaustion during a graded treadmill test in 

 (63). Conversely, Netreba et al. demonstrated that high reps (20-25% 1-RM) resulted in a greater increase in VO2 Max during a cycle ergometer test when compared to moderate reps (60-70% 1-RM) or low reps (85-90% 1-RM) in 

 (49). Studies suggest that rep range likely has little effect on the benefits attained from strength training for improving aerobic performance. Although the study by Netreba et al. suggests that high reps may be more beneficial, the load was so low (25% of 1-RM) and the rep range was so high (performed until failure), the exercise might be classified as resisted aerobic or anaerobic threshold training.

Bikers in a group during the The Peloton of the Tour de France

The Peloton of the Tour de France, 9th of July 2005 at the begin of the ascend to Cote de Bad Herrenalb. Jan Ullrich (Deutsche Telekom) at about the 10th position (before the CSC rider, Basso?). Levi Leipheimer is behind the CSC rider. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_sport#/media/File:TourDeFrance_2005_07_09.jpg

Functional Outcomes in Elderly Individuals

Trainer working with an older client

Repetition Ranges and an Upper Limit

Several studies imply there is an upper limit to the number of repetitions per set that is beneficial. Vanhelder et al. demonstrated that very high reps (28% of a 7-RM) did not change GH levels when using compound exercises in young participants (8) (Note, other studies reviewed in this course demonstrated lower rep ranges with compound exercises have a significant effect on GH). Van Roie et al. compared high reps (10-15 reps) to very high reps (80-100 reps) of leg extensions to failure and demonstrated similar increases in thigh CSA in elderly men (37). Schuenke et al. compared low, moderate, and very high rep ranges, demonstrating that only the very high rep range group (20-30 reps) exhibited no increase in quadriceps CSA, in a group of novice, female exercisers (39). Holm et al. demonstrated that very high reps (60-reps or 15.5% 1-repetition maximum) did not change knee extension isometric strength (35). And, Anderson et al. demonstrated that very high reps (100-150 reps) and high reps (30-40 reps) resulted in similar increases in bench press endurance (51), suggesting that very high reps resulted in no additional benefit. These studies imply that very high rep ranges (more than 20+ reps, less than 60% of 1-RM to failure) result in little, if any improvement in hormone levels, CSA, max strength, or endurance.

Hakkinen, K. and Pakarinen, A. (1993) Acute hormone responses in two different fatiguing heavy-resistance protocols in male athletes. 

Journal of Applied Physiology, 882-887 doi: 10.1152/jappl.1993.74.2.883

Kraemer, W. J., Gordon, S. E., Fleck, S. J., Marchitelli, L. J., Mello, R., Dziados, J. E., Friedl, K., Harman, E., Maresh, C. and Fry A. C. (1991) Endogenous anabolic hormonal and growth factor responses to heavy resistance exercise in males and females. 

International Journal of Sports Medicine, 12, 228-235

Morton, R. W., Oikawa, S. Y., Wavell, C. G., Mazara, N., McGlory, C., Quadrilatero, J., Baechler, B. L., Baker, S. K. and Phillips, S. M. (2016) Neither load nor systemic hormones determine resistance training-mediated hypertrophy or strength gains in resistance-trained young men. 

Journal of Applied Physiology, 121, 129-138, doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00154.2016

Popov, D. V., Swirkun, D. V., Netreba, A. I., Tarasova, O. S., Prostova, A. B., Larina, I. M., Borovik, A. S. and Vinogradova, O. L. (2006) Hormonal adaptation determines the increase in muscle mass and strength during low-intensity strength training without relaxation. 

Vinogradova, O. L., Popov, D. V., Netreba, A. I., Tsvirkun, D. V., Kurochkina, N. S., Bachinin, A. V., Bravyi, Ya. R., Lyubaeva, E. V., Lysenko, E. A., Miller, T. F., Borovik, A. S., Tarasova, O. S. and Orlov, O. I. (2013) Optimization of training: new developments in safe strength training. 

Growth Hormone (including sources 1, 2, 4 and 5)

Kraemer, W. J., Fleck, S. J., Dziados, J. E., Harman, E. A., Marchitelli, L. J., Gordon, S. E., Mello, R., Frykman, P. N., Koziris, L. P. and Triplett, N. T. (1993) Changes in hormonal concentrations after different heavy-resistance exercise protocols in women. 

Kraemer, W. J., Marchitelli, L., Gordon, S. E., Harman, E., Dziados, J. E., Mello, R., Frykman, P., McCurry, D. and Fleck, S. J. (1990) Hormonal and growth factor responses to heavy resistance exercise protocols. 

Vanhelder, W. P., Radomski, M. W. and Goode, R. C. (1984) Growth hormone responses during intermittent weight lifting exercise in men. 

European Journal of Applied Physiology, 53, 31-34

Fink, J., Kikuchi, N. and Nakazato, K. (2016) Effects of rest intervals and training loads on metabolic stress and muscle hypertrophy. 

Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging, 38

Testosterone, Growth Hormone, and Insulin-like Growth Factor (IGF-1): IGF-1 (including sources 2-7)

Lamon, S., Wallace, M. A., Leger, B. and Russell, A. P. (2009) Regulation of STARS and its downstream targets suggest a novel pathway involved in human skeletal muscle hypertrophy and atrophy. 

Burd, N. A., West, D. W. D., Staples, A. W., Atherton, P. J., Baker, J. M., Moore, D. R., Holwerda, A. M., Parise, G., Rennie, M. J., Baker, S. K. and Phillips, S. M. (2010) Low-load high volume resistance exercise stimulates muscle protein synthesis more than high-load low volume resistance exercise in young men. 

, 1-10, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0012033

Kumar, V., Selby, A., Rankin, D., Patel, R., Atherton, P., Hildebrandt, W., Williams, J., Smith, K., Seynnes, O., Hiscock, N. and Rennie, M. J. (2009) Age-related differences in the dose-response relationship of muscle protein synthesis to resistance exercise in young and old men. 

Leger, B., Cartoni, R., Praz, M., Lamon, S., Deriaz, O., Crettenand, A., Gobelet, C., Rohmer, P., Konzelmann, M., Luthi, F. and Russell, A. P. (2006) Akt signalling through GSK-3β, mTOR and Foxo1 is involved in human skeletal muscle hypertrophy and atrophy. 

, 923-933, doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2006.116715

Mitchell, C. J., Churchward-Venne, T. A., West, D. W. D., Burd, N. A., Breen, L., Baker, S. K. and Phillips, S. M. (2012) Resistance exercise load does not determine training-mediated hypertrophic gains in young men. 

Journal of Applied Physiology, 113, 71-77

Protein Synthesis (including sources 11, 12 and 14)

Burd, N. A., West, D. W. D., Moore, D. R., Atherton, P. J., Staples, A. W., Prior, T., Tang, J. E., Rennie, M. J., Baker, S. K. and Phillips, S. M. (2011) Enhanced amino acid sensitivity of myofibrillar protein synthesis persists for up to 24 h after resistance exercise in young men. 

Akima, H. and Saito, A. (2013) Activation of quadriceps femoris including vastus intermedius during fatiguing dynamic knee extensions. 

European Journal of Applied Physiology, 113, 2829-2840, doi: 10.1007/s00421-013-2721-9

Jenkins, N. D. M., Housh, T. J., Bergstrom, H. C., Cochrane, K. C., Hill, E. C., Smith, C. M., Johnson, G. O., Schmidt, R. J. and Cramer, J. T. (2015) Muscle activation during three sets to failure at 80 vs. 30 % 1RM resistance exercise. 

European Journal of Applied Physiology, 115

Cook, S. B., Murphy, B. G. and Labarbera, K. E. (2013) Neuromuscular function after a bout of low-load blood flow-restricted exercise. 

Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 45

Schoenfeld, B. J., Contreras, B., Willardson J. M., Fontana, F. and Tiryaki-Sonmez, G. (2014) Muscle activation during low- versus high-load resistance training in well-trained men. 

European Journal of Applied Physiology, 114

Looney, D. P., Kraemer, W. J., Joseph, M. F., comstock, B. A., Denegar, C. R., Flanagan, S. D., Newton, R. U., Szivak, T. K., DuPont, W. H., Hooper, D. R., Hakkinen, K. and Maresh, C. M. (2016) Electromyographical and perceptual responses to different resistance intensities in a squat protocol: does performing sets to failure with light loads produce the same activity? 

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 30

Sakamoto, A. and Sinclair, P. J. (2012) Muscle activations under varying lifting speeds and intensities during bench press. 

European Journal of Applied Physiology, 112, 1015-1025

Schoenfeld, B. J., Contreras, B., Vigotsky, A. D., Obgorn, D., Fontana, F. and Tiryaki-Sonmez, G. (2016) Upper body muscle activation during low-versus high-load resistance exercise in the bench press. 

Isokinetics and Exercise Science, 24, 217-224

Jenkins, N. D. M., Housh, T. J., Buckner, S. L., Bergstrom, H. C., Cochrane, K. C., Smith, C. M., Hill, E. C., Schmidt, R. J. and Cramer, J. T. (2015) Individual responses for muscle activation, repetitions, and volume during three sets to failure of high- (80% 1RM) versus low-load (30% 1RM) forearm flexion resistance exercise. 

Sports, 3, 269-280, doi: 10.3390/sports3040269

Sundstrup, E., Jakobsen, M. D., Andersen, C. H., Zebis, M. K., Mortensen, O. S. and Andersen, L. L. (2012) Muscle activation strategies during strength training with heavy loading vs. repetitions to failure. 

Fink, J., Kikuchi, N., Yoshida, S., Terada, K. and Nakazato, K. (2016) Impact of high versus low fixed loads and non-linear training loads on muscle hypertrophy, strength and force development. 

Ogasawara, R., Loenneke, J. P., Thiebaud, R. S. and Abe, T. (2013) Low-load bench press training to fatigue results in muscle hypertrophy similar to high-load bench press training. 

International Journal of Clinical Medicine, 4, 114-121

Schoenfeld, B. J., Peterson, M. D., Ogborn, D., Contreras, B. and Sonmez, G. T. (2015) Effects of low- vs. high-load resistance training on muscle strength and hypertrophy in well-trained men. 

The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 29

Chestnut, J. L. and Docherty, D. (1999) The effects of 4 and 10 repetition maximum weight-training protocols on neuromuscular adaptations in untrained men. 

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 13

Schoenfeld, B. J., Ratamess, N. A., Peterson, M. D., Contreras, B., Sonmez, G. T. and Alvar, B. A. (2014) Effects of different volume-equated resistance training loading strategies on muscular adaptations in well-trained men. 

Kraemer, W. J., Nindl, B. C., Ratamess, N. A., Gotshalk, L. A., Volek, J. S., Fleck, S. J., Newton, R. U. and Hakkinen, K. (2004) Changes in muscle hypertrophy in women with periodized resistance training. 

Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 36

Cross-Sectional Area: Lower Body Men (including sources 3, 4, 10, 15, 16 and 29)

Jenkins, N. D. M., Miramonti, A. A., Hill, E. C., Smith, C. M., Cochrane-Snyman, K. C., Housh, T. J. and Cramer, J. T. (2017) Greater neural adaptations following high- vs. low-load resistance training. 

Tanimoto, M., Sanada, K., Yamamoto, K., Kawano, H., Gando, Y., Tabata, I., Ishii, N. and Miyachi, M. (2008) Effects of whole-body low-intensity resistance training with slow movement and tonic force generation on muscular size and strength in young men. 

The Journal of Strength and Conditioning, 22

Weiss, L. W., Coney, H. D. and Clark, F. C. (2000) Gross measures of exercise-induced muscular hypertrophy. 

Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy. 30

Tanimoto, M. and Ishii, N. (2006) Effect of low-intensity resistance exercise with slow movement and tonic force generation on muscular function in young men. 

Journal of Applied Physiology, 100, 1150-1157, doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00741.2005

Holm, L., Reitelseder, S., Pedersen, T. G., Doessing, S., Petersen, S. G., Flyvbjerg, A., Andersen, J. L., Aagaard, P. and Kjaer, M. (2008) Changes in muscle size and MHC composition in response to resistance exercise with heavy and light loading intensity. 

Journal of Applied Physiology, 105, 1454-1461

Acute Variables: Repetition Range

Related Courses:

Course Description: Acute Variables - Repetition Range

Study Guide: Acute Variables - Repetition Range

Summary

Hormones and Rep Ranges

Electromyography (EMG) Activity and Rep Ranges

Muscle Cross-Sectional Area (CSA) and Rep Ranges

Max Strength and Reps

Repetition Ranges and Their Effect on Endurance
1 Sub Section

Repetition Ranges and an Upper Limit

Bibliography

Related Courses:

Comments

Guest

Acute Variables: Repetition Range

Related Courses:

Course Description: Acute Variables - Repetition Range

Study Guide: Acute Variables - Repetition Range

Summary

Hormones and Rep Ranges

Electromyography (EMG) Activity and Rep Ranges

Muscle Cross-Sectional Area (CSA) and Rep Ranges

Max Strength and Reps

Repetition Ranges and Their Effect on Endurance1 Sub Section

Repetition Ranges and an Upper Limit

Bibliography

Related Courses:

Comments

Guest

Repetition Ranges and Their Effect on Endurance
1 Sub Section