High intensity and volume training approaches.

Once upon a not-so-distant past, many coaches believed that cardiovascular conditioning should be the focus of exercise regimens and that strength training could cause hypertension, orthopedic injuries, and decreased flexibility.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

It wasn't until 1991 that the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) established guidelines for improving health and fitness through strength training (1).

Many of the myths and misconceptions have been dispelled through scientific research and most coaches have become fully aware of the positive effects of strength training upon their athletes. These effects include improvements in the following areas (2):

* Fat-free mass and resting metabolic rate 

* Bone mass

* Glucose tolerance

* Musculotendinous integrity

* Performance enhancement

Two schools of thought have emerged on the nature of the appropriate strength training--high intensity training (HIT) and volume training (VT). When I asked several ACSM certified professionals for their thoughts on the debate between HIT and VT, they informed me that they were unaware of any debate or conflict between the two philosophies.

When I started getting the same responses from every level--from junior high up through the colleges, I began worrying. How could our coaches and physical educators intelligently administer such programs for their athletes, young and old, when they didn't even know what these programs were all about?

What they definitely have to learn is the differences and similarities between these two schools of thought, not as a fuel for debate but to help them understand more about each.

HIGH INTENSITY TRAINING

The high-intensity training methods began with Arthur Jones, the founder of the Nautilus line of strength training equipment. Jones advocated training each major muscle group with one set per exercise taken to complete muscular failure. He believed that the individual should train this way three times per week.

The Jones' supporters agreed that the most important factor in developing strength was intensity, and that by taking each set (after the initial orientation period) to failure, the athlete could ensure the overload and get the musculoskeletal system to respond positively.

Jones also believed that exercising at a rapid speed was not conducive to the development of strength because the momentum thus introduced decreased the work production of the muscle and increased the potential for soft tissue injury (3). That view is still supported by many HIT proponents (4, 5).

Since Jones introduced his theory of training, a good number of other approaches have been developed under the umbrella of high-intensity training. The common elements of HIT are hard, brief, infrequent, and require slow-movement training sessions. Each HIT set must be taken to complete failure unless it involves a danger factor, as in the squat.

Only 1-3 sets of each exercise are performed anywhere from 1-3 times per week. Some HIT advocates recommend 2-3 sessions per week (2, 6), while others recommend 1 session every 5-7 days, depending on the situation (7).

HIT supporters relate their theory of musculoskeletal adaptation to the General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS) first described by Hans Selye (8). The stressor in strength training has three stages: alarm-reaction, resistance, and exhaustion. The stressor provides an overload that causes an alarm reaction.

Given the proper nutrition, the body will enter the resistance stage of the GAS by adapting to the stressor and becoming stronger. This phase is sometimes called supercompensation (9).

HIT proponents believe that every strength session is a stressor and for adaptation to occur in the resistance stage, recovery time must be added after each training session. A full recovery after each session will prevent the individual from reaching the exhaustion phase of the GAS (overtraining).

This kind of training is advocated for both the healthy individual and the athlete striving to improve performance. Note: The only way to improve performance is by practicing the specific skill. In short, performance enhancement is attained by combining the strength achieved through a safe strength-training program and with the efficiency achieved through the practice of the specific skill.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

VOLUME TRAINING

Volume Training (VT) advocates believe that single-set, and other lower volume approaches, are only appropriate for untrained individuals, and that higher volumes are necessary to stimulate strength gains for intermediate and advanced strength athletes.

The VT advocates thus prescribe anywhere from three to six weeks per exercise from three to seven days per week. They generally believe that explosive movements are effective in developing the kind of power that can be transferred to the field of play.

The lifts that typify this approach include power cleans, jerks, power snatches, and other modified forms of these lifts, such as hang cleans and high pulls.

The VT supporters also believe in a periodized approach to training. This usually involves the planned variation of total volume, number of sets, and repetitions during the year. The year is broken up into macrocycles, mesocycles, and microcycles. Macrocycles last approximately one year, each mesocycle lasts a few months and each microcycle lasts for about a week.

Each segment within macrocycle uses volumes and intensities to achieve muscular hypertrophy/endurance, basic strength, and finally strength/power. Once peak strength/power is achieved, volume and intensity are modified again to maintain this peak during competition phases (9).

HIT and VT proponents interpret the GAS differently.

HIT advocates believe that the alarm reaction and the resistance and musculoskeletal adaptation occur from one strength-training session to the next. That is, if a muscle is worked to failure in one session and enough recovery time is given before the second session, the muscle will be stronger (able to perform more reps and/or weight) during the second session, all else being equal.

On the other hand, most VT advocates believe the adaptation occurs during the length of a macrocycle, but that the specific time involved in the process depends on the athlete and the sport (9).

High Intensity Training:

* Low Volume (1-3 days/weekly).

* Intense workouts (every set taken to failure).

* Slow/controlled movement speed.

Volume Training:

* Moderate to High Volume (usually 3-5 days/week).

* Periodized approach (more and less intense at different times during the year).

* Slow and fast movement speeds.

There are similarities between these groups. For example, most VT advocates support the HIT method of training for general health and fitness purposes, but not for performance enhancement of high level athletes.

High Intensity advocates believe that the HIT methods are effective for everyone, including elite athletes.

Volume Training and HIT advocates alike agree that overload and progression are vital aspects of any strength and conditioning program. But they disagree on exactly how to safely reach a point of overload that will allow for effective recovery and subsequent improvements in strength fitness.

THE RESEARCH

Both schools of thought present research that appears to support their respective positions. The HIT advocates cite numerous studies that show statistically significant results from high-intensity low-volume training approaches (5), whereas the VT advocates cite numerous studies that show statistically significant results from their training methods (10).

CONCLUSION

It is common knowledge that the once popular myths and misconceptions about strength training have been dispelled.

Strength training can be extremely beneficial, but coaches and physical educators must be aware of the different methodologies involved in strength training for health and fitness, and strength training for performance enhancement.

For a more in-depth look at both sides of the issue, they may seek out the works listed in the reference list, and make sure to keep an open mind in weighing the points made by experts from each side and carefully determine what to accept and reject.

FOOTNOTES & REFERENCES

(1.) American College of Sports Medicine (1991): Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription, Malvern, PA: Lea & Febinger.

(2.) American College of Sports Medicine (2000): ACSM's Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription. Sixth Edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

(3.) Jones, A. (1982): "Avoiding and Preventing Injuries," in Total Fitness: The Nautilus Way. Peterson, J., Editor. West Point, NY: Leisure Press.

(4.) Brzycki, Matt (1995): A Practical Approach to Strength Training. Indianapolis, IN: Masters Press.

(5.) Mannie, Ken (2000): High-Volume Intensity or High-Intensity. Coach & Athletic Director, November.

(6.) Spector, R. (2001): HIT FAQ, Internet available: http://www.cyberpump.com/hitfaq/

(7.) Mentzer, M. (2000): Muscles in Motion. Marlborough, MA: Performance Pub.

(8.) Selye, H. (1956): The Stress of Life. New York: McGraw Hill.

(9.) Bechle, T., Earle, R. (2000): Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

(10.) Fleck, S., Kraemer, W. (1997): Designing Resistance Training Programs. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

BY JOHN AMTMANN, ED. D.

Professor/Department Head, Applied Health Science

Montana Tech of U. Montana, Butte, MT