PHYSICAL PERFORMANCE AND CARDIOVASCULAR
RESPONSES TO AN ACUTE BOUT OF HEAVY
RESISTANCE CIRCUIT TRAINING VERSUS
TRADITIONAL STRENGTH TRAINING
PEDRO E. ALCARAZ,1 JORGE SANCHEZ-LORENTE,2
1
Kinesiology and Biomechanics Laboratory, Department of Physical Activity and Sport Sciences, Universidad Catolica San
Antonio de Murcia, Guadalupe, Murcia, Spain; 2Federacion Espanola de Aerobic y Fitness, Madrid, Spain; 3School of Exercise,
Biomedical, and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western Autstralia, Australia
ABSTRACT
Circuit training effectively reduces the time devoted to strength
training while allowing an adequate training volume to be
achieved. Nonetheless, circuit training has traditionally been
performed using relatively low loads for a relatively high number of
repetitions, which is not conducive to maximal muscle size and
strength gain. This investigation compared physical performance
parameters and cardiovascular load during heavy-resistance
circuit (HRC) training to the responses during a traditional,
passive rest strength training set (TS). Ten healthy subjects (age,
26 6 1.6 years; weight, 80.2 6 8.78 kg) with strength training
experience volunteered for the study. Testing was performed
once weekly for 3 weeks. On day 1, subjects were familiarized
with the test and training exercises. On the subsequent 2 test
days, subjects performed 1 of 2 strength training programs: HRC
(5 sets 3 (bench press + leg extensions + ankle extensions);
35-second interset rest; 6 repetition maximum [6RM] loads) or TS
(5 sets 3 bench press; 3-minute interset rest, 6RM loads). The
data confirm that the maximum and average bar velocity and
power and the number of repetitions performed of the bench
press in the 2 conditions was the same; however, the average
heart rate was significantly greater in the HRC compared to the
TS condition (HRC = 129 6 15.6 beats
min21, ;71% maximum
heart rate (HRmax), TS = 113 6 13.1 beats
min21, ;62%
HRmax; P , 0.05). Thus, HRC sets are quantitatively similar to
traditional strength training sets, but the cardiovascular load is
substantially greater. HRC may be an effective training strategy for
the promotion of both strength and cardiovascular adaptations.
KEY WORDS resistance training, circuit training, high load,
bench press, leg extension, ankle extension
Address correspondence to Pedro E. Alcaraz, palcaraz@pdi.ucam.edu.
22(3)/667671
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
2008 National Strength and Conditioning Association
AND ANTHONY J. BLAZEVICH3
INTRODUCTION
R
esistance training is an excellent method for
stimulating increases in muscular size, strength,
power, and local muscular endurance (3,17).
However, gains resulting from the training are
dependent on a requisite volume of training being performed
at a relatively high intensity; these parameters generally need
to increase as training progresses for gains to continue (3).
This requirement makes it difficult for many exercisers to
train for long enough in each session to achieve significant
strength gains because the increased time devoted to
resistance training would normally preclude their participa-
tion in endurance-type activities that improve cardiovascular
function, reduce body fat levels, and ultimately improve
general health. In order to reduce the time devoted to
strength training but allow a high enough volume of train-
ing to be performed, many exercisers use superset (i.e., the
alternating performance of 2 exercises with a short rest
between each) and circuit training (i.e., the performance of
a series of exercises with no rest between them) practices. Of
particular interest to many is the practice of circuit training
because it allows the development of local muscular endur-
ance and aerobic fitness (1,913,18) while also increasing
strength and power (5) in a time-efficient manner.
Nonetheless, circuit training has traditionally been per-
formed using relatively low loads for a relatively high number
of repetitions in each set in order to improve local muscular
and aerobic endurance. This is at odds with the requirement
for high loads (.85% of maximum) to be used for maximum
muscle size and strength gains (8). Since many studies exam-
ining the benefits of the circuit training have used higher
volumes with lighter loads (1,913,18), it is unclear whether
exercisers attempting to use high loads during a circuit pro-
gram would be able to develop and maintain a high cardio-
vascular output. Furthermore, the rest period allowed between
successive exercise sets significantly affects metabolic (16),
hormonal (14,15), and cardiovascular (7) responses, so it also
must be determined whether exercisers would be able to use
VOLUME 22 | NUMBER 3 | MAY 2008 | 667
Heavy Resistance Circuit Training

TABLE 1. General characteristics of participants (mean 6 SD) (N = 10).

Age (years) Body mass (kg) Height (cm) Fat mass (%) RT experience (year) WF training (days) 1RM (kg)

26 6 1.6 80.2 6 8.78 179.7 6 7.76 12.3 6 2.24 3.1 6 2.1 2.7 6 0.7 78 6 12
RT = resistance training; WF = weekly frequency; 1RM = 1 repetition maximum.

loads similar to those that they would have had they had
a significant period of passive rest between sets.
Given that little is known about the physical responses to
high-load circuits, we compared physical performance
parameters (number of repetitions completed, speed of the
concentric phase of the movement, and power developed
during the concentric phase of the movement) and
cardiovascular load (heart rate) during a heavy-resistance
circuit (HRC) to the responses when a standard passive rest
was allowed between sets. The study is important to
determine whether HRC training could be a viable alternative
to more traditional low-resistance circuits.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
A randomized, counterbalanced, crossover design with famil-
iarization was used. The independent variable was interven-
tion, being either passive rest between resistance training sets
or active exercise between sets (i.e., a circuit). Dependent
variables included set volume, total volume, average and peak
concentric movement speed, average and peak concentric
power, average set heart rate, average rest heart rate, and total
average heart rate.
same time of day. On day 1, subjects were familiarized with
the test and training exercises, and their 6 repetition
maximum (6RM) loads were determined for bench press,
leg extension, and ankle extension exercises according to
standard procedures (12). On the subsequent 2 test days,
subjects performed 1 of 2 strength training programs; the
order was chosen randomly, although the order was
counterbalanced (Figure 1).
Traditional Strength Set Training Session. To warm up, the
subjects performed three sets of the bench press exercise using
the following sequence: 10 repetitions at 50% of 6RM,
1-minute rest, 8 repetitions at 75% of 6RM, 2-minute rest, and
1 set of bench presses to volitional fatigue at 100% of 6RM;
subjects performed active stretching between rests. The 6RM
load was adjusted for the subsequent test by ;2% if a subject
performed 61 repetition and was adjusted by ;5% if a subject
performed 6 2 repetitions (6). The main phase of testing
commenced after a 5-minute rest. Before the testing, a heart
rate monitor (Polar S625X, Finland; 0.2 pulses
s21) was
strapped to the subjects chest; heart rate was continuously
recorded for the duration of the test. The bench press test

Subjects
Ten men (Table 1) who had
performed dynamic, free-weight
strength training for at least
1 year (intermediate status)
volunteered for the research.
The subjects did not take
ergogenic aids or medications
that might influence perfor-
mance. Written informed con-
sent was obtained from each
subject; approval for the study
was given by the Human Sub-
jects Ethics Committee of the
Catholic University San Anto-
nio of Murcia.

Experimental Design
Testing was performed once
weekly for 3 weeks, with all Figure 1. Experimental design.
testing being conducted at the
the TM

668 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

was performed on a modified Smith machine that consisted
of a bar that moved freely on rollers in the vertical plane. A
rotary encoder attached to the barbell and interfaced with
a computer allowed the recording of bar position with an
accuracy of 0.002 second; the system was calibrated prior to
each testing session and bar velocity and power (using the
measured load) were subsequently calculated. The validity
and reliability of the device have been reported elsewhere (6).
For testing, the subjects were asked to perform 5 sets of
bench presses to volitional fatigue (determined as the point
at which full elbow extension could not be gained without
assistance) with 3-minute passive rest between sets. The
subjects were spotted by an experienced lifter to ensure that
volitional fatigue was achieved safely and with the confidence
of the subject. Loud verbal encouragement was given
throughout. The eccentric phase of the lift was performed
for 3 seconds and was timed by a digital metronome, whereas
the concentric phase was performed for maximum velocity;
the session lasted ;13.2 minutes. Because of the load lifted,
the subjects were able to push maximally throughout the
movement range without the bar escaping the subjects grip at
the top of the movement. Bar velocity and power during the
concentric phase of the movement were measured for each
repetition.
Heavy Resistance Circuit Session. After warm-up on all exercises
(performed as in the traditional strength training (TS) con-
dition), the subjects again performed 5 sets of the bench press
exercise to volitional fatigue. However, in the HRC condition,
the subjects also performed 1 set each of 6RM leg extension
and ankle extension exercises between bench press sets; ;35
seconds separated each exercise. Heart rate and bar
movement measures were taken as in the TS condition.
Statistical Analyses
Standard statistical methods were used for the calculation of
means, SDs, and Pearsons correlation coefficients (r, R2).
Differences between active and passive conditions were
examined using repeated-measures analysis of variance, with
intervention (rest) as factor. Intraclass reliability was assessed
in the first set of bench presses in each of the 2 conditions.
The a level for all tests was set at 0.05.
RESULTS
Bar velocity, bar power, and heart rate data are shown in
Table 2. There was no difference in the number of repetitions
performed in the 2 conditions (TS = 21.7 6 3.6 repetitions;
HRC = 20.8 6 3.3 repetitions). The intraclass correlation

TABLE 2. Average volume per set, average and peak repetition velocity and power, and average heart rate during bench
press exercise in HRC and TS conditions (mean 6 SD) (N = 10).

Set 1 Set 2 Set 3

Variable HRC TS HRC TS HRC TS

Max rep 6.0 6 0.0 6.0 6 0.0 4.7 6 1.1 4.9 6 1.2 4.0 6 1.1 4.1 6 1.2
Vavg (m
s21) 0.46 6 0.08 0.48 6 0.08 0.42 6 0.12 0.43 6 0.08 0.40 6 0.08 0.40 6 0.09
Vmax (m
s21) 0.66 6 0.12 0.69 6 0.09 0.62 6 0.17 0.60 6 0.11 0.58 6 0.10 0.58 6 0.14
Pavg (W) 309 6 68.3 339 6 92.2 277 6 86.3 293 6 76.3 267 6 62.3 275 6 79.4
Pmax (W) 467 6 77.6 511 6 110 436 6 129 433 6 107 407 6 92.6 419 6 135
HRavg ex (beats
min21) 134 6 9.35 129 6 11.6 135 6 9.49 131 6 14.8 136 6 12.4 129 6 8.54
HRavg rest (beats
min21) 124 6 13.9 109 6 11.2* 127 6 16.5 110 6 13.1* 129 6 19.8 113 6 18.4

Set 4 Set 5

Variable HRC TS HRC TS

Max rep 3.3 6 0.9 3.6 6 1.0 2.8 6 1.0 3.1 6 0.8
Vavg (m
s21) 0.40 6 0.07 0.39 6 0.06 0.38 6 0.09 0.36 6 0.09
Vmax (m
s21) 0.56 6 0.08 0.55 6 0.10 0.53 6 0.11 0.51 6 0.10
Pavg (W) 264 6 58.8 265 6 58.3 245 6 74.1 248 6 83.2
Pmax (W) 402 6 90.4 389 6 77.0 362 6 82.0 367 6 110
HRavg ex (beats
min21) 139 6 11.5 130 6 6.73 139 6 10.6 130 6 8.42
HRavg rest (beats
min21) 131 6 20.0 111 6 16.3*
HRC = active rest (heavy-resistance circuit); TS = passive rest (traditional strength training); Max rep = maximum repetitions
performed; Vavg = average velocity during bench press exercise; Vmax = maximum velocity during bench press exercise; Pavg = average
power during bench press exercise; Pmax = maximum power during bench press exercise; HRavg ex = average heart rate during bench
press exercise; HRavg rest = average heart rate during rest (HRC or TS).
*Significant differences from HRC condition (P # 0.05).

VOLUME 22 | NUMBER 3 | MAY 2008 | 669

Heavy Resistance Circuit Training

achieved during the bench

press exercise, although differ-
ences (HRC . TS) tended to
be greater as the exercise
session progressed.

DISCUSSION
Circuit training has been com-
monly used as a tool to simul-
taneously stimulate muscle
size/strength increases along-
side improvements in local
muscle endurance and aerobic
capacity. However, the loads
Figure 2. Maximum power and repetitions performed during heavy-resistance circuit (HRC) and traditional strength used during circuits have tradi-
training (TS) conditions (5 sets). PHRC, power during HRC set; PTS, power during TS set; RHRC, repetitions tionally been low in order to
completed during HRC set; RTS, repetitions completed during TS set.
allow a greater amount of work
to be performed, whereas the
loads that stimulate maximum
coefficient (ICC) was high (0.97) for the 6RM bench press strength adaptations and muscle mass gains are necessarily
exercise. high (8). In order to better understand the physical
There were also no differences in the maximum or average performance and cardiovascular effects of using heavy
bar velocities achieved during the concentric movement loading in a circuit session, we examined bar velocity and
phase of the bench press exercise between the 2 conditions power, total workload, and heart rate responses during
(ICC for average velocity = 0.79). Subsequently, there were a bench press training session in which alternative exercises
also no differences with respect to the mean and peak power (leg extensions and ankle extensions) were/were not
(ICC for mean power = 0.74), as shown in Figure 2. performed during the 3-minute rest period. We found that
Despite there being no detectable performance differences the performance of alternating exercises during rest did not
for the bench press exercise, the average heart rate was significantly affect the ability for the subjects to perform the
significantly higher in the HRC condition compared to TS concentric phase of the bench press lift (as indicated by a lack
21
condition (HRC = 129 6 15.6 beats
min , ;71% maximum of difference in both bar velocity and, logically, power), nor
21
heart rate [HRmax]; TS = 113 6 13.1 beats
min ;62% was the total volume for the bench press exercise different
HRmax). As shown in Figure 3, this difference is attributable between the 2 groups. Thus, the total loading imposed on the
to a significantly lower resting heart rate in the TS condition subjects was the same regardless of whether the rest period
(set 5: TS = 111 6 16.3 beats
min21; HRC = 131 6 20.0 was active or passive. Although it remains to be tested, we
beats
min21); there were no differences in the heart rates predict that the stimulus for hypertrophy would have been
similar in the 2 conditions;
future research examining both
endocrine and myocellular
responses to the training is
warranted.
Importantly, we also found
that the heart rate responses
differed markedly during the
rest period between the 2 con-
ditions (e.g., set 5: HRC = 131
6 20.0 beats
min21; TS condi-
tion = 111 6 16.3 beats
min21),
which resulted in the average
heart rate throughout the 13.2-
minute exercise program also
being higher in the HRC
Figure 3. Heart rate progression during the 5 sets and 4 rests in both heavy-resistance circuit (HRC) and traditional condition. Interestingly, heart
strength (TS) training conditions. BP, bench press set. rates measured during the
bench press exercise were not
the TM

670 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research


different between the groups. Regardless, the heart rate
data indicate that a greater cardiovascular load was imposed
in the HRC condition. This would likely be important for
stimulating adaptations that improve cardiovascular function
and, ultimately, exercise endurance; interset recovery during
resistance training has been previously shown to have an
impact on cardiovascular responses (7). Indeed, when using
age-predicted HRmax as a surrogate for the measured
maximum (2), we found that the HRmax achieved in the
HRC were approximately 71% of maximum. This is well
within the 6090% range that is suggested by the American
College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) (4) for the development
of cardiorespiratory fitness and promotion of body compo-
sition changes. By contrast, heart rates during the TS
condition were only ;62% of maximum, which falls at the
lower end of this range. Extension of the current circuit
program to the use of other exercises could also easily
increase the exercise time above the minimum limit (20
minutes) set by the ACSM. Our results strongly suggest that
longer term studies be conducted in order to more
completely assess the impact of higher resistance circuit
programs compared to more traditional circuits on both
muscle strength and cardiovascular function.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Circuit training is an excellent strategy for reducing the time
devoted to strength training, while allowing a sufficient
volume of training to be performed. Nonetheless, circuit
training has traditionally been performed using relatively low
loads for a relatively high number of repetitions in order to
improve both local muscular and aerobic endurance. The
present data indicate that heavy-resistance (6RM; 3-minute
active rest between sets) circuit training allows the same
loading to be imposed as achieved with traditional strength
training (3-minute passive rest between sets). We therefore
predict that the stimulus for hypertrophy would have been
similar in the 2 conditions. We also found that heavy
resistance circuit training imposed a greater cardiovascular
load (;71% of HRmax) than traditional strength training
(;62% of HRmax). Consequently, this training form would
likely be important for stimulating adaptations that improve
cardiovascular function and exercise endurance. Given these
results, longitudinal studies investigating both the endocrine-
myocellular adaptations and muscle strengthcardiovascular
adaptations are warranted.
AKNOWLEDGMENTS
The researchers express their gratitude to the subjects in
this investigation who made it possible. In addition, authors
acknowledge the personal trainer Jesus V. Gomez (Corpore
Sport Gym, Torres de Cotillas, Murcia, Spain), Dr. Luis
Carrasco (Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain), and
Professor Carlos Perez (Ergotech, Zarandona, Murcia, Spain)
for their assistance throughout this project. The results from
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
this study do not constitute endorsement of the products by
the authors or by the National Strength and Conditioning
Association.
REFERENCES
1. Allen, TE, Byrd, RJ, and Smith, DP. Hemodynamic consequences of
circuit weight training. Res Q 47: 229306, 1976.
2. Altman, DG. Practical Statistics for Medical Research Cornwall, UK:
T.J. Press; 1991.
3. 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.
4. American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand. Progression
models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc
34: 364380, 2002.
5. Bompa, TO. Theory and Methodology of Training: The Key to
Athletic Performance (3rd ed.) Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt; 1994.
6. Cronin, JB, Hing, RD, and McNair, PJ. Reliability and validity of
a linear position transducer for measuring jump performance.
J Strength Cond Res 18: 590593, 2004.
7. Fleck, SJ. Cardiovascular adaptations to resistance training. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 20: S146S151, 1988.
8. Fry, AC. The role of resistance exercise intensity on muscle fiber
adaptations. Review article. Sports Med 34: 663679, 2005.
9. Gettman, LR, Ayres, JJ, Pollock, ML, and Jackson, A. The effect
of circuit weight training on strength, cardiorespiratory function,
and body composition of adult men. Med Sci Sports 10: 171176,
1978.
10. Gettman, LR, Culter, LA, and Strathman, TA. Physiologic changes
after 20 weeks of isotonic vs isokinetic circuit training. J Sports Med
Phys Fitness 20: 265274, 1980.
11. Gettman, LR, Ward, P, and Hagan, RD. A comparison of combined
running and weight training with circuit weight training. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 14: 229234, 1982.
12. Haltom, RW, Kraemer, RR, Sloan, RA, Hebert, EP, Frank, K, and
Tryniecki, JL. Circuit weight training and its effects on excess
postexercise oxygen consumption. Med Sci Sports Exerc 31:
16131618, 1999.
13. Harber, MP, Fry, AC, Rubin, MR, Smith, JC, and Weiss, LW.
Skeletal muscle and hormonal adaptations to circuit weight
training in untrained men. Scand J Med Sci Sports 14: 176185,
2004.
14. Kraemer, WJ, Fleck, SJ, Dziados, JE, Harman, EA, Marchitelli, LJ,
Gordon, SE, Mello, R, Frykman, PN, Koziris, LP, and Triplett, NT.
Changes in hormonal concentrations after different heavy-
resistance exercise protocols in women. J Appl Physiol 75: 594604,
1993.
15. Kraemer, WJ, Gordon, SE, Fleck, SJ, Marchitelli, LJ, Mello, R,
Dziados, JE, Friedl, K, Harman, E, Maresh, C, and Fry, AC.
Endogenous anabolic hormonal and growth factor responses to
heavy resistance exercise in males and females. Int J Sports Med 12:
228235, 1991.
16. Kraemer, WJ, Noble, BJ, Clark, MJ, and Culver, BW. Physiologic
responses to heavy-resistance exercise with very short rest periods.
Int J Sports Med 8: 247252, 1987.
17. Kraemer, WJ and Ratamess, NA. Fundamentals of resistance training:
progression and exercise prescription. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36:
674688, 2004.
18. Messier, SP and Dill, ME. Alterations in strength and maximal
oxygen uptake consequent to Nautilus circuit weight training. Res Q
Exerc Sport 56: 345351, 1985.
VOLUME 22 | NUMBER 3 | MAY 2008 | 671