Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna

Archivio istituzionale della ricerca

A Comparison Between Total Body and Split Routine Resistance Training Programs in Trained Men

This is the final peer-reviewed author’s accepted manuscript (postprint) of the following publication:

Published Version:
Bartolomei, S., Nigro, F., Malagoli Lanzoni, I., Masina, F., Di Michele, R., Hoffman, J.R. (2021). A
Comparison Between Total Body and Split Routine Resistance Training Programs in Trained Men. JOURNAL
OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING RESEARCH, 35(6), 1520-1526 [10.1519/JSC.0000000000003573].

Availability:
This version is available at: [Link] since: 2025-02-17
Published:
DOI: [Link]

Terms of use:

Some rights reserved. The terms and conditions for the reuse of this version of the manuscript are
specified in the publishing policy. For all terms of use and more information see the publisher's website.

This item was downloaded from IRIS Università di Bologna ([Link]

(Article begins on next page)

27 April 2026
 1

A comparison between total body and split routine resistance training

Abstract

The purpose of the present investigation was to compare the effects of two resistance training

programs; either total body (TB) or split routine (SR) workouts on maximal strength and muscle

hypertrophy in trained men.

Twenty-one resistance trained men were randomly assigned to a total body (TB:

age=24.1±4.4y; body weight=78.7±11.3kg; body height=177.0±3.9cm) or split routine group

(SR: age=24.9±4.2y; body mass=79.2±9.5kg; body height=175.2±6.0cm). Both groups

performed a 10-week resistance training program. Isokinetic bench press at 75 and 25 cm/sec

(ISOK75 and ISOK25, respectively), isometric bench press (ISOBP), isometric squat (ISOSQ),

and one repetition maximum (1RM) BP and SQ assessments were performed pre and post

training. Muscle thickness of the pectoralis major (PECMT), trapezius (TRAPMT), and vastus

lateralis (VLMT) muscles were also evaluated at the same timepoints.

Significant (p<0.05) improvements were observed in both groups for all strength assessments

and muscle thicknesses. Only changes in ISOK25 were significantly (p=0.025) greater in TB

than in SR, while significantly greater (p=0.030) changes in VLMT were detected in SR

compared to TB.

Results indicate that a TB training paradigm may be more appropriate for maximal strength

improvement strength, while a SR training protocol may be more optimal to stimulate muscle

growth in experienced, resistance-trained men.

Keywords: strength, ultrasound, training load, force plates

1
 2

Introduction

Training frequency is generally defined as the number of workouts performed within

a week (Wernborn, Augustsson, & Thomeé, 2007). In resistance training however, training

frequency may be also referred to the number of times a specific muscle group is trained per

week (Schoenfeld, Ratamess, Peterson, Contreras, & Sonmez, 2015). This parameter is

influenced by the number of resistance workouts per week and by the number of muscle groups

stimulated during each training session. Total Body (TB) and Split Routine (SR) training

paradigms represent two of the most common approaches to organizing resistance training

workouts (Schoenfeld et al., 2015). TB sessions are characterized by all muscle groups being

trained during each workout. In contrast, SR training programs focus on specific muscle groups

(e.g., chest, shoulders and triceps), often use several resistance exercises for each specific

muscle group and exercise each muscle group either once or twice a week (Fleck, & Kraemer,

2014). Both training paradigms are followed by strength and power athletes and sport

enthusiasts; SR however, is more common than TB among advanced bodybuilders (Hackett,

Johnson, & Chow, 2013), while TB is more popular among weightlifters (Everett, 2009; Fry et

al., 2003). Previous research has also indicated that the use of a split routine training program

may be beneficial for strength development by allowing a greater number of assistance

exercises to be performed (Hoffman, Kraemer, & Fry, 1990). The increase in the number of

assistance exercises appears to be an important stimulus for increasing strength in the

experienced, trained strength/power athlete (Hoffman et al., 1990). However, some

weightlifting and powerlifting coaches consider the TB approach a more appropriate training

method for their athletes (Stone, Sands, &Stone, 2006; Colquhoun et al., 2018). The rationale

behind TB training is that performing a few exercises for each muscle group in the workout,

may allow athletes to maintain a greater training intensity. Many exercises focused on the same

muscle group may reduce total training volume due to excessive fatigue. The SR approach

2
 3

however, provides a considerable amount of time between the workouts focused on the same

muscle group and several days are dedicated to muscle recovery (Kerksick et al., 2009).

Several studies have compared TB and SR strategies in different populations (Calder,

Chilibeck, Webber, & Sale, 1994; Schoenfeld et al. 2014, 2015). Schoenfeld et al. (2014) did

not report any significant difference in muscle hypertrophy adaptations between a powerlifting-

style TB program and a bodybuilding-style SR program in resistance-trained men following 8-

weeks of training. The TB group however, experienced greater improvements in maximal

strength. Although both training programs were volume-equated, training schemes were

different in regards to training intensity and recovery time between sets. In addition, muscle

thickness of only the biceps brachii was measured to evaluate the individual hypertrophic

response (Schoenfeld et al., 2014). More recently the same investigative team (Schoenfeld et

al., 2015) reported superior gains in muscle hypertrophy following a TB scheme compared to

SR. On the other hand, this latter study reported no significant differences between the two

training paradigms for maximal strength adaptations. Both studies used trained men as

participants, with a strength training experience of 4.2 and 4.5 y, respectively. Both TB and SR

training programs however, included a total of 18 sets of 8-12 repetitions in each of the three

training sessions provided per week (Schoenfeld et al., 2015). However, bodybuilders and

strength athletes usually perform a considerably greater number of sets in each workout and

more training sessions per week (Amirthalingam et al., 2017) resulting in elevated training

volume. A study by Calder et al. (1994), reported similar results between a whole body and a

SR resistance training program during a 5-month training period in untrained women. Both

gender and training experience may influence the adaptations to the different resistance training

paradigms and training frequencies (Grgic et al., 2018).

Most scientific studies have been performed using untrained individuals as participants

with very low training frequencies per week (Ochi et al., 2018, Candow, & Burke, 2007). The

3
 4

limitations of these studies make it difficult to draw conclusions about the superiority of either

TB or SR approach in resistance-trained men. Thus, the aim of the present investigation was to

compare the effects of a 10-week TB resistance training program to a SR program of the same

length, on maximal strength and muscle hypertrophy in resistance-trained men. It was

hypothesized that TB may elicit greater gains on maximal strength while SR may result in

greater hypertrophic responses over the course of the training period.

Method

Participants

Twenty-one experienced resistance trained men were randomly assigned to either a

total body group (TB group: n = 10 ;age = 24.1 ± 4.4 y; body weight = 78.7 ± 11.3 kg; body

height = 177.0 ± 3.9 cm; body fat = 10.4 ± 1.8 %) or a split routine training group (SR group:

n = 11 ; age = 24.9 ± 4.2 y; body weight = 79.2 ± 9.5 kg; body height = 175.2 ± 6.0 cm; body

fat = 12.3 ± 3.5 %). Participants participated in resistance-training at least three times per week

for more than three years (mean ± SD = 6.6 ± 3.5 y of experience) and were familiar with both

powerlifting and weightlifting exercises. Participants were not permitted to use any dietary

supplementation and did not consume any androgens or other performance enhancing drugs.

Screening for performance enhancing drug use and additional supplementation was

accomplished via a health questionnaire completed at the recruitment stage. All participants

signed an informed consent document after being informed about the risks and benefits of the

study. Exclusion criteria included injuries occurred in the year prior to the study. Participants

were asked to abstain from alcohol, caffeine and resistance training for at least 24 h prior to all

assessments. The study was approved by the University’s Institutional Review Board. bioethics

committee.

4
 5

Experimental Design

Participants were randomly assigned to a TB or to a SR training group. Both groups

performed a 10-week training program using the same exercises and the same total number of

repetitions. The first group (TB) performed a 10-week training program including resistance

training sessions involving several muscle groups of both upper and lower body, while the

second group (SR) performed a training program involving a limited number of muscle groups

in each workout. Participants were assessed for upper- and lower-body maximal strength before

and after the training program. Measurements of muscle architecture and body composition

were also collected at the beginning and at the end of the training period.

Testing Procedures

Anthropometric evaluations were performed before the first assessment session. Body

measurements included body mass, height and body fat composition. Body mass was measured

to the nearest 0.1 kg using a scale (Seca 769, Seca Scale Corp., Munich, Germany). Body fat

percentage was estimated from skinfold caliper measures using the method of Evans et al.

(2005). The same investigator performed all skinfold analysis assessments. Prior to the strength

and power assessments, participants performed a standardized warm-up consisting of five min

on a cycle ergometer against a light resistance, 10 body weight squats, 10 body weight walking

lunges, 10 dynamic walking hamstring stretches, 10 dynamic walking quadriceps stretches and

5 push-ups.

Isokinetic bench press strength measurements were performed using a linear isokinetic

dynamometer (Lido Loredan Linea, Shirley, NY). Participants were positioned with their

elbows at 90° of flexion on a bench and their grip width was measured and recorded. Isokinetic

concentric measurements were performed at a velocity of 75 cm/s (ISOK75) and 25 cm/s

5
 6

(ISOK25). Intraclass coefficients were 0.90 (SEM=37.8 N) and 0.92 (SEM=39.5 N) for

ISOK75 and ISOK25, respectively.

An isometric bench press (ISOBP) assessment was performed using a power rack that

permitted fixation of the bar. The bench was positioned over a force plate (Kistler 9260, 500

Hz, Winterthur, Switzerland). Participants were required to position themselves on the bench

with a 90° elbows flexion and they were not permitted to position the feet on the ground. Elbow

angle, and grip width were measured to reproduce the same position for all testing sessions.

Participants were asked to press against the bar as hard as possible for 6 s. The force expressed

against the bar was transmitted by the bench to the force plate and the peak force was calculated.

The same adjustable rack and force plate were used for the isometric half squat (ISOSQ). The

isometric half squat was performed at a knee flexion angle of 90° between the femur and the

tibia. Participants were required to perform two maximal 6-s isometric contractions in both

ISOBP and ISOSQ and a 3-min recovery time between each attempt was observed. For both

IBP and ISQ, peak force was measured. Intraclass coefficients were 0.85 (SEM = 267.1 N) and

0.83 (SEM = 219.6 N) for ISOBP and ISOSQ, respectively. Participants reported back to the

laboratory the next day and performed one-repetition maximum (1RM) test in the parallel squat

(SQ) and bench press (BP) exercises using the method previously described by Hoffman (2014).

The same warm-up previously described was performed by the participants before the 1RM

test. During the 1RMSQ participants were asked to reach a position where the greater trochanter

of the femur was at the same level of the knee. In the 1RMBP, participants were required to

lower the bar to their chest before initiating the concentric movement. A 3-minute recovery

time was observed between 1RM attempts. During all strength measurements, participants were

verbally encouraged by the study investigators.

Ultrasonography measurements

6
 7

Non-invasive skeletal muscle ultrasound images were collected from the participant’s

right side of the body. Prior to image collection, all anatomical locations of interest were

identified using standardized landmarks for the vastus lateralis (VL), pectoralis major (PEC)

and trapezius (TRAP). The landmark for the VL was identified along its longitudinal distance

at 50% from the proximal insertion of the muscle. The length of the VL encompassed the

distance from the lateral condyle of the tibia to the most prominent point of the greater

trochanter of the femur (Bartolomei et al., 2017). VL muscle thickness (VLMT) and pennation

angle (VLPA) required the participant to lay on their side on the examination table with a 10°

bend angle in the knees for a minimum of 15 minutes before images were collected. PEC muscle

thickness (PECMT) was measured at the site between third and fourth costa under the clavicle

midpoint (Yasuda, Fujita, Ogasawara, Sato, & Abe, 2010). TRAP muscle thickness (TRAPMT)

was measured at the midpoint of the muscle belly at T1 level, where the muscle borders were

parallel (O'Sullivan, Meaney, Boyle, Gormley, & Stokes, 2017). The same investigator

performed all landmark measurements for each participant.

A 12 MHz linear probe scanning head (Echo Wave 2, Telemed Ultrasound Medical

System, Milan, Italy) was coated with water soluble transmission gel to optimize spatial

resolution and used to collect all ultrasound images. The probe was positioned on the surface

of the skin without depressing the dermal layer and the view mode (gain = 50dB; image depth

= 5 cm) was used to take pictures of the muscle. All images were taken and analyzed by the

same technician. Muscle thickness and VLPA were quantified in still images using the

measuring features of the ultrasound device. MT was determined as the distance between

subcutaneous adipose tissue-muscle interface and intermuscular interface, and VLPA was

determined as the angles between the echoes of the deep aponeurosis of the muscle and the

echoes from interspaces among the fascicles. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) were

0.96 (SEM = 0.63 mm); 0.93 (SEM = 1.1°) for VLMT and VLPA, respectively. Intraclass

7
 8

coefficients were 0.96 (SEM = 0.93 mm) and 0.95 (SEM = 1.05 mm) for TRAPMT and

PECMT, respectively.

Training Protocols

The 10-week resistance training program for TB and SR groups can be seen in Table

1 and Table 2, respectively. All participants exercised 4-days per week, and the exercises

performed were the same for each group. The groups differed only in the distribution of the

exercises within the training days. In TB each training session involved all muscle groups while

in SR each training session was focused on a single muscle group. Subjects were asked to

perform 5 sets of 6 repetitions for each exercise, with a 2-min rest time between sets. Intensity

was selected as the load allowing the subject to perform 6 repetitions without reaching volitional

failure, with one repetition in reserve (1-RIR; Zourdos et al., 2016).

Participants were encouraged to increase the resistance used per workout if they were

able to perform the required number of repetitions. Participants recorded all workouts in a

logbook, which was collected by one of the investigators after each workout. The total training

volume (TTV) was calculated for each participant based on the total load lifted in each workout

and each week. To avoid the potential ergogenic effect of music (Bartolomei, Di Michele, &

Merni, 2015), participants were not allowed to listen to music during either the resistance

training or testing sessions.

(Place Table 1 and Table 2 here)

Statistics

A Shapiro-Wilk test was used to test the normal distribution of the data. Performance,

morphological data and training volume in the first and in the tenth week of the training

program, were analyzed by a two-way (group [TB vs. SR] x time [PRE vs. POST]) mixed-

factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA). In addition, TTV performed by each group during the

8
 9

10-week programs was compared using a dependent t test. An alpha level of p < 0.05 was used

to determine statistical significance. In a separate analysis, mean percentage change values

([POST mean x PRE mean]/[PRE mean] x 100) was evaluated with 95% confidence intervals.

All data are reported as mean ± SD. For effect size (ES), the partial eta squared statistic was

reported, and according to Green, Salkind and Jones (1996), 0.01, 0.06, and 0.14 represent

small, medium, and large ESs, respectively.

Results

Performance assessments

TTV for both TB and SR groups are depicted in Figure 1. Although no significant group

x time interactions were detected for the total load lifted between the first and tenth week of the

training program (F = 0.540; p = 0.473; η2 = 0.031), a significant effect for time was observed

in the total load lifted between the first and the tenth week of training (F = 75.133; p < 0.001;

η2 = 0.815). No significant differences were noted between TB and SR on TTV (F = 0.009; p

= 0.767; average = 143480 ± 33713 kg and 147762 ± 28194 kg, respectively).

Results of the performance assessments and percent change in strength performance

for both TB and SR are reported in Table 3 and Figure 2, respectively. A significant group x

time interaction (F = 6.042; p = 0.025; η2 = 0.262) and a significant main effect for time (F =

13.095; p = 0.002; η2 = 0.435) were found for ISOK25. An 11.5% increase was observed in

ISOK25 for TB from pre to post, while an increase of 2.3% was noted for SR. No significant

interaction nor main effect for time was noted between TB and SR for ISOK75 (F = 2.218; p =

0.751; η2 = 0.006), ISOBP (F = 0.308; p = 0.586; η2 = 0.018) and ISOSQ (F = 0.460; p = 0.507;

η2 = 0.026). In addition, no significant interactions were observed for either 1RMSQ and

1RMBP (F = 1.185; p = 0.295; η2 = 0.078 and F = 0.067; p = 0.799; η2 = 0.005, respectively).

9
 10

However, significant main effects for time were noted for ISOK75 (F = 5.743; p = 0.028; η2 =

0.253), ISOBP (F = 10.289; p = 0.005; η2 = 0.377), ISOSQ (F = 17.121; p = 0.001; η2 = 0.502),

1RMSQ (F = 89.003; p < 0.001; η2 = 0.864) and 1RMBP (F = 49.718; p < 0.001; η2 = 0.780).

(Place Figure 1, Figure 2 and Table 3 here)

Muscle morphology assessments

Results of the muscle morphology assessments and percent changes in muscle

architecture are reported in Table 4 and Figure 3, respectively. A significant group x time

interaction was noted for VLMT (F = 5.572; p = 0.030; η2 = 0.247). Increases in muscle size

for VLMT was significant greater for SR compared to TB. Significant effects over time were

noted for both PECMT (F = 36.881; p < 0.001; η2 = 0.685) and TRAPMT (F = 24.243; p <

0.001; η2 = 0.589). However, no significant interactions were noted for PECMT (F = 0.005; p

= 0.947; η2 = 0.005) or TRAPMT (F = 1.713; p = 0.208; η2 = 0.092). No significant group

interactions (F = 1.318; p = 0.267; η2 = 0.072) and no main effects of time (F = 0.300; p = 0.591;

η2 = 0.017) were detected for VLPA.

(Place Table 4 and Figure 3 here)

Conclusion

The present study investigated the effects of two strength training programs using the

same exercises and characterized by the same total number of repetitions, on maximal strength

and muscle size in experienced, resistance-trained men. Training volume was similar between

the two groups during the 10-week study in both groups, indicating that the two training

programs were equated for training volume. This likely contributed to the similar performance

gains seen in both SR and TB.

10
 11

Increases in maximal strength were observed in ISB, ISQ, ISOK75 bench press,

1RMBP and 1RMSQ for both groups, with no group differences noted. The only between-

group difference was observed in isokinetic strength expressed at 25 cm·s-1, in which

significantly greater increases were noted for TB compared to SR for (ISOK25; +12.9 % and

+2.3 % in TB and SR, respectively). Superior increases in this parameter in TB may be related

to a more frequent stimulation of pectoral and triceps muscles compared to SR.

In the present study, the SR program appeared to provide a greater stimulus for muscle

hypertrophy of the VL than TB. Although no other significant differences were seen, trends

toward greater gains, were noted for TRAPMT in SR (+14.6%) compared to TB (+8.3%). The

results of this study do not support the recent study by Schoenfeld and colleagues (2015) who

reported greater muscle hypertrophy from total body training programs. Several investigators

have suggested that high training frequencies may lead to greater strength gains, but only when

higher training frequencies were associated with greater training volumes (Grgic et al., 2018;

Schoenfeld, Ogborn, & Krieger, 2016). Training volume, and not training frequency, has been

reported to be the most important factor contributing to increases in muscular strength, (Ralston,

Kilgore, Wyatt, & Baker, 2017). However, the present investigation showed a significant

impact in training frequency of muscle groups on stimulating maximal strength and

hypertrophy adaptations in resistance trained men, even when training volume was not

significantly different between the groups. This is supportive of previous work of Hoffman and

colleagues (1990) that demonstrated that greater training volume (e.g, more exercise per muscle

group) was important for stimulating strength gains in experienced, strength-trained athletes.

In the present investigation, maximal strength gains were optimized with higher training

frequencies and TB workouts, while muscle hypertrophy was optimally stimulated with lower

training frequencies and a SR approach. TB routines are characterized by high training

frequencies of different muscle groups and lower metabolic stress for each workout compared

11
 12

to SR. Greater gains in maximal strength, in absence of significant differences in muscle

hypertrophy, suggest that greater improvements in neural components occurred in TB

compared to SR. According to McLester, Bishop and Guilliams (2000), limited training volume

per muscle group for each workout and high training frequencies, may promote explosive intent

in each repetition and encourage neural activation. Moreover, several low-volume exercises for

the same muscle groups performed in subsequent days, may paradoxically speed the recovery

process, reducing muscle inflammation and swelling (Bartolomei et al., 2019). Reductions in

muscle inflammation and accelerations in the recovery rate may be appropriate to maximize

neural adaptations and to influence training intensity. Higher training frequencies appear to be

particularly appropriate to stimulate neural adaptations, when multi-joint exercises are

performed (Rhea, Alvar, Burkett, & Ball, 2003). High training frequencies may also be

beneficial in optimizing exercise technique and motor coordination (Ochi et al., 2018) through

an optimal distribution of the training volume per muscle group. In contrast, SR workouts are

characterized by concentrated training volumes per muscle group, producing high levels of

intramuscular metabolic stress and muscle inflammation lasting for several days following the

training session (Gonzalez et al., 2015). Metabolic stress may stimulate hypertrophic effects

on trained muscles by stimulating changes in hormone concentrations (Goto, Ishii, Kizuka, &

Takamatsu, 2005; Gotshalk et al., 1997; Mangine et al., 2017). SR training programs however,

ensure complete recovery between the training sessions focused on the same muscle groups

(Kerksick et al., 2009). This workload distribution may be optimal to stimulate hypertrophic

adaptations (Schoenfeld et al., 2015) but less effective for strength improvements. The present

investigation also suggests that muscle hypertrophy and strength responses may not be aligned.

This is consistent with Damas et al. (2019) who reported a relative independence between

neural adaptations and hypertrophic responses in young untrained men following an 8-week

resistance training program. A possible limitation of the present study is that resistance training

12
 13

programs for competitive athletes usually last for several months, while in the present

investigation the training period lasts for 10 weeks only. In addition, there are many types of

split routine training programs (e.g., four-day split in which the workouts for days 1 and 3 are

similar and the workouts for days 2 and 4 are similar) and whether the results of this study

would be consistent with a different program design is not known.

What does this article add?

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to compare TB and SR programs

characterized by the same number of training session per week but different training frequencies

of each muscle group and using typical training approaches followed by strength and power

athletes. The present study has shown that both TB and SR 10-week training programs can

result in significant maximal strength and muscle mass gains in resistance trained men.

However, a TB approach may be optimal to stimulate maximal strength adaptations in highly

trained men. However, the use of a SR training program may be more conducive in stimulating

muscle growth by concentrating the training volume for each muscle group on a single workout.

13
 14

References

1. Amirthalingam, T., Mavros, Y., Wilson G.C., Clarke, J.L., Mitchell, L., & Hackett, D.A.
(2017). Effects of a modified German volume training program on muscular hypertrophy and
strength. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 31(11),3109-19.

2. Bartolomei, S., Di Michele, R.D., & Merni, F. (2015). Effects of self-selected music on
maximal bench press strength and strength endurance. Perceptual and motor skills,
120(3):714-21.

3. Bartolomei, S., Totti, V., Griggio, F., Malerba, C., Ciacci, S., Semprini G., & Di Michele
R. (2019) Upper-Body resistance exercise reduces time to recover after a high-volume bench
press protocol in resistance-trained men. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.
Published ahead of print. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002960.

4. Bartolomei, S., Sadres, E., Church, D.D., Arroyo, E., Gordon III, J.A., Varanoske, A.N.,
Wang, R., Beyer, K.S., Oliveira, L.P., Stout, J.R., & Hoffman, J.R. (2017). Comparison of the
recovery response from high-intensity and high-volume resistance exercise in trained men.
European Journal Applied Physiology, 117(7):1287-98.

5. Calder, A.W., Chilibeck, P.D., Webber, C.E., & Sale, D.G. Comparison of whole and split
weight training routines in young women. (1994). Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology,
19(2):185-99.

6. Candow, D.G., & Burke, D.G. (2007). Effect of short-term equal-volume resistance
training with different workout frequency on muscle mass and strength in untrained men and
women. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 21(1),204.

7. Colquhoun, R.J., Gai, C.M., Aguilar, D., Bove, D., Dolan, J., Vargas, A., Couvillion, K.,
Jenkins, N.D., & Campbell, B.I. (2018). Training volume, not frequency, indicative of
maximal strength adaptations to resistance training. The Journal of Strength Conditioning
Research, 32(5):1207-13.

8. Damas, F., Barcelos, C., Nóbrega, S.R., Ugrinowitsch, C., Lixandrão, M.E., Dos Santos,
L.M., Conceição, M.S., Vechin, F.C., & Libardi, C.A. (2019). Individual muscle hypertrophy
and strength responses to high vs. low resistance training frequencies. The Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research, 33(4),897-901.

14
 15

9. Evans, E.M., Rowe, D.A., Misic, M.M., Prior, B.M., & Arngrímsson, S.A. (2006). Skinfold
prediction equation for athletes developed using a four-component model. Medicine and
Science in Sports and Exercise, 37(11).

10. Everett, G. (2009). Olympic weightlifting: A complete guide for athletes & coaches.
Sunnyvale: Catalyst Athletics; 2009.

11. Fleck, S.J., Kraemer, W. (2014). Designing resistance training programs, 4E. Champaign
(IL), Human Kinetics.

12. Fry, A.C, Schilling, B.K., Staron, R.S., Hagerman, F.C., Hikida, R.S., & Thrush, J.T.
(2003). Muscle fiber characteristics and performance correlates of male Olympic-style
weightlifters. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 17(4),746-54.

13. Gonzalez, A.M., Hoffman, J.R., Townsend, J.R., Jajtner, A.R., Boone, C.H., Beyer, K.S,
Baker, K.M., Wells, A.J., Mangine, G.T., Robinson, E.H., & Church, D.D. (2015).
Intramuscular anabolic signaling and endocrine response following high volume and high
intensity resistance exercise protocols in trained men. Physiological Reports, 2015;3(7).

14. Goto, K.A., Ishii, N.A., Kizuka, T.O., & Takamatsu, K.A. (2005). The impact of
metabolic stress on hormonal responses and muscular adaptations. Medicine and Science in
Sports and Exercise, 37(6),955-63.

15. Gotshalk, L.A., Loebel, C.C., Nindl, B.C., Putukian, M., Sebastianelli, W.J., Newton,
R.U., Häkkinen, K., & Kraemer, W.J. (1997). Hormonal responses of multiset versus single-
set heavy-resistance exercise protocols. Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology, 22(3),244-
55.

16. Green, S.B., Salkind, N.J., & Jones, T.M. (1996). Using SPSS for Windows; analyzing
and understanding data. Prentice Hall PTR.

17. Grgic, J., Schoenfeld, B.J., Davies, T.B., Lazinica, B., Krieger, J.W., & Pedisic, Z. (2018).
Effect of resistance training frequency on gains in muscular strength: a systematic review and
meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 48(5),1207-20.

18. Hackett, D.A., Johnson, N.A., & Chow, C.M. (2013). Training practices and ergogenic
aids used by male bodybuilders. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Reserach,
27(6),1609-17.

19. Hoffman, J. (2014). Physiological aspects of sport training and performance. Champaign,
IL. Human Kinetics.

15
 16

20. Hoffman, J.R., Kraemer, W.J., Fry, A.C., Deschenes, M., & Kemp M. (1990). The effects
of self-selection for frequency of training in a winter conditioning program for football. The
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 4(3),76-82.

21. Mangine, G.T., Hoffman, J.R., Gonzalez, A.M., Townsend, J.R., Wells, A.J., Jajtner,
A.R., Beyer, K.S., Boone, C.H., Wang, R., Miramonti, A.A., & LaMonica, M.B. (2017).
Exercise-induced hormone elevations are related to muscle growth. The Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research, 31(1),45-53.

22. McLester, J.R., Bishop, E., & Guilliams ME. (2000). Comparison of 1 day and 3 days per
week of equal-volume resistance training in experienced subjects. The Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research, 14(3),273-81.

23. Ochi, E., Maruo, M., Tsuchiya, Y., Ishii, N., Miura, K., & Sasaki K. (2018). Higher
training frequency is important for gaining muscular strength under volume-matched training.
Frontiers in Physiology,9.

24. O'Sullivan, C., Meaney, J., Boyle, G., Gormley, J., & Stokes M. (2009). The validity of
rehabilitative ultrasound imaging for measurement of trapezius muscle thickness. Manual
Therapy, 14(5),572-8.

25. Ralston, G.W., Kilgore, L., Wyatt, F.B., & Baker JS. (2017). The effect of weekly set
volume on strength gain: a meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 47(12),2585-601.

26. Rhea, M.R., Alvar, B.A., Burkett, L.N., & Ball, S.D. (2003). A meta-analysis to determine
the dose response for strength development. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise,
35(3),456-464

27. Schoenfeld, B.J., Ogborn, D., & Krieger, J.W. (2016). Effects of resistance training
frequency on measures of muscle hypertrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports
Medicine, 46(11),1689-97.

28. Schoenfeld, B.J., Ratamess, N.A., Peterson, M.D., Contreras, B., Sonmez, G.T., & Alvar,
B.A. (2014). Effects of different volume-equated resistance training loading strategies on
muscular adaptations in well-trained men. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 28(10),2909-18.

29. Schoenfeld, B.J., Ratamess, N.A., Peterson, M.D., Contreras, B., & Sonmez G.T. (2015).
Influence of resistance training frequency on muscular adaptations in well-trained men. The
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 29(7),1821-9.

16
 17

30. Stone, M.H., Sands, W.A., & Stone ME. (2006). Weightlifting: program design. Strength
and Conditioning Journal, 28(2),10-17.

31. Kerksick, C.M., Wilborn, C.D., Campbell, B.I., Roberts, M.D., Rasmussen, C.J.,
Greenwood, M., & Kreider, R.B. (2009). Early-phase adaptations to a split-body, linear
periodization resistance training program in college-aged and middle-aged men. The Journal
of Strength and Conditioning Research, 23(3),962-71.

32. Wernbom, M., Augustsson, J., & Thomeé R. (2007). The influence of frequency,
intensity, volume and mode of strength training on whole muscle cross-sectional area in
humans. Sports Medicine. 37(3),225-64.

33. Zourdos, M.C., Klemp, A., Dolan, C., Quiles, J.M., Schau, K.A, Jo, E, Helms, E., Esgro,
B., Duncan, S., Merino, S.G., & Blanco R. (2016). Novel resistance training–specific rating of
perceived exertion scale measuring repetitions in reserve. The Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 2016,30(1):267-75.

34. Yasuda, T., Fujita, S., Ogasawara, R., Sato, Y., & Abe, T. (2010). Effects of low‐intensity
bench press training with restricted arm muscle blood flow on chest muscle hypertrophy: a
pilot study. Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging, 30(5),338-43.

Figure Captions

Figure 1. Training volume for both TB and SR groups during the training period.

17
 18

Figure 2. Percentage changes in strength assessments from pre to post the 10-week training

program in both TB and SR groups. 1RMBP = bench press 1RM; 1RMSQ = squat 1RM;

ISOK75 = isokinetic force at 75 cm/s; ISOK25 = isokinetic force at 25 cm/s; ISOBP =

isometric bench press; ISOSQ = isometric squat. # indicates a significant main effect of time.

* indicates a significant interaction between TB and SR groups.

Figure 3. Percentage changes in muscle morphology from pre to post the 10-week training

program in both TB and SR groups. TRAPMT = trapezius muscle thickness; PECMT =

pectoralis major muscle thickness; VLMT = vastus lateralis muscle thickness. # indicates a

significant main effect of time. * indicates a significant interaction between TB and SR

groups.

18