Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/42345560
CITATIONS
DOWNLOADS
VIEWS
33
80
191
1 AUTHOR:
James Krieger
University of Florida
8 PUBLICATIONS 72 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
BRIEF REVIEW
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
1150
the
TM
the
TM
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
| www.nsca-jscr.org
1151
Type of measure
1944 M, F
1944
0.03
1
3
0.05 0.021
0.08 0.012
1
3
0.11 0.004
0.18 0.004
Leg LMk
1
3
1
3
20.01
0.23
0.00
20.01
0.040
0.033
0.040
0.040
Arm circumference
1
1
3
3
0.24
0.09
0.31
0.07
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.005
Tricep thickness
1
2
4
1
2
4
0.25
0.40
0.50
0.30
0.29
0.78
0.029
0.034
0.029
0.037
0.021
0.027
1
2
4
0.27 0.040
0.14 0.035
0.73 0.027
24
0.06
12
0.12
0.02
10
0.20
Rectus Femoris
Thickness
1944
12
0.44
Chest circumference
Leg circumference
1944
0.50
0.62
20.13
0.64
0.015
0.012
0.043
0.059
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
0.56
0.67
0.27
0.56
0.14
0.36
0.25
0.45
0.28
0.68
0.032
0.026
0.032
0.026
0.189
0.189
0.189
0.189
0.026
0.032
0.24
Quadriceps CSA
Lower body LM
Upper body LM
Trapezius CSA
1944 M, F
1
3
1
3
11
Hamstring CSA
n=5
n=5
n=5
n=5
n = 11
n = 10
Starkey et al. (40)
SV Study ES
ES
20
Arm LM
Munn et al. (30)
n = 23
n = 23
n = 23
n = 23
Ostrowski et al. (31)
n=9
n=9
n=9
Sets
14
0.07
Thigh thickness
20% Anterior
n = 18
n = 20
40% Anterior
60% Anterior
Medialis
Lateralis
20% Lateral
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
0.05
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.15
0.14
20.07
20.08
0.03
0.37
0.008
0.008
0.009
0.007
0.009
0.008
0.010
0.007
0.006
0.008
0.009
0.003
1152
the
TM
the
TM
40% Lateral
1
3
0.10 0.009
0.21 0.007
60% Lateral
1
3
1
3
1
3
0.25
0.22
0.30
0.43
0.29
0.34
40% Posterior
60% Posterior
| www.nsca-jscr.org
0.009
0.008
0.009
0.007
0.010
0.008
r s 21 s 22 s 2D =2s 1 s 2 ;
where s1 and s2 are the SDs for the pre and posttest means,
respectively, and sD is the SD of the difference scores. Where
s2 was not reported, s1 was used in its place. Where sD was not
reported, it was estimated using the following formula:
sD
q
s 21 =n s 22 =n:
Statistical Analyses
Coefficient 6 SE*
0
0.11 6 0.04
0.45 6 0.10
95% CI
(0.02, 0.19)
(0.26, 0.64)
p Value
0.016
,0.0001
0
20.31 6 0.08
0.00 6 0.01
(20.53, 20.09)
(20.02, 0.01)
0.017
0.70
0
20.06 6 0.09
(20.31, 0.19)
0.54
*Positive values for coefficients represent an increase in overall effect size (ES). Negative values represent a decrease in overall ES.
Coefficients of 0 represent the default categories in the model. Coefficients for other categories within the same variable represent the
difference from the default category.
Intercept of the model produced by hierarchical regression.
1153
Coefficient 6 SE*
95% CI
(0.02, 0.19)
(0.29, 0.49)
(20.40, 20.16)
p Value
Permutation p value
0.016
,0.0001
0.0
N/A
0.0012
0.0
*Positive values for coefficients represent an increase in overall effect size (ES). Negative values represent a decrease in overall ES.
Coefficients of 0 represent the default categories in the model. Coefficients for other categories within the same variable represent the
difference from the default category.
Intercept of the model produced by hierarchical regression.
N/A = Not available; permutation p values were only calculated for covariates.
by the inverse of the sampling variance (29). An interceptmaximum likelihood (ML), as LRTs cannot be used to
only model was created, estimating the weighted mean ES
compare nested models with REML estimates. Denominator
across all studies and treatment groups. A full statistical
df for statistical tests and confidence intervals (CIs) were
model was then generated. Because of the small number of
calculated according to Berkey et al. (5) The multiple-sets
studies identified for this analysis (Table 1), the number of
predictor was not removed during the model reduction
predictors that could be included in the full statistical model
process. Because metaregression can result in inflated falsewas small. A binary variable (multiple or single sets) was
positive rates when heterogeneity is present and/or when
included as a predictor in the model. Other predictors chosen
there are few studies (13), a permutation test described by
for the full model were based on predictors observed to show
Higgins and Thompson (13) was used to verify the
weak relationships (p , 0.30) to strength in a previous
significance of the predictors in the final model; 1,000
metaregression that used an identical statistical model (23).
permutations were generated. To examine the relationship
The predictors selected were sex, training duration, and
between set volume and treatment effect, a doseresponse
training experience. Although age showed a weak effect (p =
model was created by replacing the multiple-sets predictor
0.24) in the previous metaregression (23), it was not chosen
with a categorical predictor representing the number of sets
for this model as 6 of the 8
studies in this analysis involved
subjects ,44 years of age. The
full model was then reduced by
removing one predictor at
a time, starting with the most
insignificant predictor (7). The
final model represented the
reduced model with the lowest
Bayesian information criterion
(BIC) (37) and that was not
significantly different (p . 0.05)
from the full model when
compared with a likelihood ratio test (LRT). Model parameters were estimated by the
method of restricted maximum
likelihood (REML) (43); an
exception was during the
model reduction process, in
Figure 1. Mean hypertrophy effect size for single vs. multiple sets per exercise. Data are presented as means 6 SE.
which parameters were esti*Significant difference from 1 set per exercise (p , 0.05).
mated by the method of
1154
the
TM
the
TM
| www.nsca-jscr.org
RESULTS
Study Characteristics
Results for the full model with all predictors are shown in
Table 2. There was a significant effect of sets per exercise
while controlling for all other covariates, with multiple
Coefficient*
95% CI
p Value
Permutation p value
None
Galvao and Taaffe (11)
Marzolini et al. (26)
McBride et al. (27)
Munn et al. (30)
Ostrowski et al. (31)
Rhea et al. (32)
Rnnestad et al. (35)
Starkey et al. (40)
0.10 6 0.04
0.11 6 0.04
0.11 6 0.04
0.10 6 0.04
0.12 6 0.05
0.10 6 0.04
0.09 6 0.04
0.09 6 0.04
0.12 6 0.06
(0.02, 0.19)
(0.02, 0.19)
(0.02, 0.20)
(0.02, 0.19)
(0.02, 0.22)
(0.01, 0.18)
(0.01, 0.18)
(20.01, 0.19)
(0.00, 0.25)
0.016
0.014
0.019
0.020
0.016
0.028
0.033
0.062
0.043
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.001
0.001
0.0
0.001
0.001
0.001
*Coefficient 6 SE. Value represents difference in effect size (ES) between single and multiple sets per exercise.
1155
Figure 3. Mean strength effect size for single vs. multiple sets per exercise from Krieger (23). Note similarity to
hypertrophy response in Figure 1. Data are presented as means 6 SE. *Significant difference from 1 set per
exercise (p , 0.05).
Figure 4. Doseresponse effect of set volume on strength from Krieger (23). Note similarity to doseresponse
effect for hypertrophy in Figure 2. Data are presented as means 6 SE. ES = effect size. *Significantly different from
1 set per exercise (p , 0.001).
DoseResponse Model
1156
the
TM
DISCUSSION
the
TM
| www.nsca-jscr.org
1157
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
10. Durall, CJ, Hermsen, D, and Demuth, C. Systematic review of singleset versus multiple-set resistance-training randomized controlled
trials: implications for rehabilitation. Crit Rev Phys Rehab Med
18: 107116, 2006.
1158
the
TM
REFERENCES
1. American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand. The
recommended quantity and quality of exercise for developing and
maintaining cardiorespiratory and muscular fitness, and flexibility in
healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 30: 975991, 1998.
2. Bagenhammar, S and Hansson, EE. Repeated sets or single set of
resistance training: A systematic review. Adv Physiother 9: 154160,
2007.
3. Becker, BJ. Synthesizing standardized mean-change measures. Br J
Math Stat Psychol 41: 257278, 1988.
4. Begg, CB and Berlin, JA. Publication bias and dissemination of
clinical research. J Natl Cancer Inst 81: 107115, 1989.
5. Berkey, CS, Hoaglin, DC, Mosteller, F, and Colditz, GA. A randomeffects regression model for meta-analysis. Stat Med 14: 395411,
1995.
6. Borst, SE, De Hoyos, DV, Garzarella, L, Vincent, K, Pollock, BH,
Lowenthal, DT, and Pollock, ML. Effects of resistance training on
insulin-like growth factor-I and IGF binding proteins. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 33: 648653, 2001.
7. Burnham, KP and Anderson, DR. Model Selection and Inference:
A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. New York, NY:
Springer-Verlag, 2002.
8. Carpinelli, RN and Otto, RM. Strength training: single versus
multiple sets. Sports Med 26: 7384, 1998.
9. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988.
the
TM
| www.nsca-jscr.org
32. Rhea, MR, Alvar, BA, Ball, SD, and Burkett, LN. Three sets of
weight training superior to 1 set with equal intensity for eliciting
strength. J Strength Cond Res 16: 525529, 2002.
33. Rhea, MR, Alvar, BA, and Burkett, LN. Single versus multiple sets
for strength: A meta-analysis to address the controversy. Res Q Exerc
Sport 73: 485488, 2002.
34. Rhea, MR, Alvar, BA, Burkett, LN, and Ball, SD. A meta-analysis to
determine the dose response for strength development. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 35: 456464, 2003.
35. Rnnestad, BR, Egeland, W, Kvamme, NH, Refsnes, PE, Kadi, F,
and Raastad, T. Dissimilar effects of one- and three-set strength
training on strength and muscle mass gains in upper and lower
body in untrained subjects. J Strength Cond Res 21: 157163, 2007.
36. Schlumberger, A, Stec, J, and Schmidtbleicher, D. Single- vs.
multiple-set strength training in women. J Strength Cond Res 15: 284
289, 2001.
37. Schwarz, G. Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann Stat 6: 461
464, 1978.
38. Seynnes, OR, de Boer, M, and Narici, MV. Early skeletal muscle
hypertrophy and architectural changes in response to high-intensity
resistance training. J Appl Physiol 102: 368373, 2007.
26. Marzolini, S, Oh, PI, Thomas, SG, and Goodman, JM. Aerobic and
resistance training in coronary disease: single versus multiple sets.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 40: 15571564, 2008.
40. Starkey, DB, Pollock, ML, Ishida, Y, Welsch, MA, Brechue, WF,
Graves, JE, and Feigenbaum, MS. Effect of resistance training
volume on strength and muscle thickness. Med Sci Sports Exerc
28: 13111320, 1996.
41. Stone, MH. Implications for connective tissue and bone alterations
resulting from resistance exercise training. Med Sci Sports Exerc
20: S162S168, 1988.
42. Thompson, SG and Higgins, JT. How should meta-regression
analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Stat Med 21: 15591573,
2002.
43. Thompson, SG and Sharp, SJ. Explaining heterogeneity in
meta-analysis: A comparison of methods. Stat Med 18: 26932708,
1999.
44. Wolfe, BL, Lemura, LM, and Cole, PJ. Quantitative analysis of
single- vs. multiple set programs in resistance training. J Strength
Cond Res 18: 3547, 2004.
45. Zwahlen, M, Renehan, A, and Egger, M. Meta-analysis in medical
research: Potentials and limitations. Urol Oncol 26: 320329, 2008.
1159