Cintineo, HP, Freidenreich, DJ, Blaine, CM, Cardaci, TD, Pellegrino, JK, and Arent, SM. Acute physiological responses to an intensity-and time under-under-tension-equated single- vs. multiple-set resistance training bout in trained men. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2018-Regardless of the setting, proper manipulation of resistance training program design variables is pivotal in eliciting the desired physiological adaptations. Furthermore, how these variables, especially volume and intensity, work together to affect training outcomes is a major topic of investigation. The purpose of this study was to compare the acute biochemical, physiological, and hormonal responses of a single-set accentuated eccentric high-intensity training (HIT) protocol to a traditional 3-set protocol to better understand the acute effects of volume. Resistance-trained male college students (N = 19; age = 21.11 ± 2.5 years; height = 174.33 ± 6.83 cm; body mass = 76.72 ± 10.24 kg; %BF = 15.53 ± 6.35%) participated in this study and were randomly assigned to either the 1-set HIT protocol (HIT) or the 3-set traditional (3ST) protocol. Heart rate (HR), blood lactate, salivary testosterone, and salivary cortisol levels were measured before, during, and at multiple time points after the exercise bout. Results showed no differences in average HR or testosterone at any time point between the 2 groups. However, the 3ST group exhibited higher values of peak HR, blood lactate during exercise, and cortisol during and 30 minutes after exercise than the HIT group. This indicated that the 3ST protocol induced greater metabolic stress and disrupted the homeostatic balance to a greater magnitude than the HIT protocol despite similar time under tension. These results show that even when training to momentary muscular failure, volume seems to be a key driver of the training stimulus.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 July 2020.
All research outputs
#7,175,516
of 34,376,207 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research
#3,409
of 7,363 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,343
of 489,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research
#44
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,376,207 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,363 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 489,974 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
