Efficacy of a new strength training design: the 3/7 method

11Citations
Citations of this article
119Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Aim: This study investigated the efficacy of a new strength training method on strength gain, hypertrophy, and neuromuscular fatigability. Methods: The training exercise consisted of elbow flexion against a load of ~ 70% of one repetition maximal (1RM). A new method (3/7 method) consisting of five sets of an increasing number of repetitions (3 to 7) during successive sets and brief inter-set intervals (15 s) was repeated two times after 150 s of recovery and compared to a method consisting of eight sets of six repetitions with an inter-set interval of 150 s (8 × 6 method). Subjects trained two times per week during 12 weeks. Strength gain [1RM load and maximal isometric voluntary contraction (MVC)], EMG activity of biceps brachii and brachioradialis, as well as biceps’ brachii thickness were measured. Change in neuromuscular fatigability was assessed as the maximal number of repetitions performed at 70% of 1RM before and after training. Results: Both 3/7 and 8 × 6 methods increased 1RM load (22.2 ± 7.4 and 12.1 ± 6.6%, respectively; p < 0.05) and MVC force (15.7 ± 8.2 and 9.5 ± 9.5%; p < 0.05) with a greater 1RM gain (p < 0.05) for the 3/7 method. Normalized (%M max ) EMG activity of elbow flexors increased (p < 0.05) similarly (14.5 ± 23.2 vs. 8.1 ± 20.5%; p > 0.05) after both methods but biceps’ brachii thickness increased to a greater extent (9.6 ± 3.6 vs. 5.5 ± 3.7%; p < 0.05) for the 3/7 method. Despite subjects performing more repetitions with the same absolute load after training, neuromuscular fatigability increased (p < 0.05) after the two training methods. Conclusion: The 3/7 method provides a better stimulus for strength gain and muscle hypertrophy than the 8 × 6 method.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Stragier, S., Baudry, S., Carpentier, A., & Duchateau, J. (2019). Efficacy of a new strength training design: the 3/7 method. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 119(5), 1093–1104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-019-04099-5

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free