Clin Physiol Funct Imaging (2014)

doi: 10.1111/cpf.12192

Comparison between the multiple-set plus 2 weeks of

tri-set and traditional multiple-set method on strength and
body composition in trained women: a pilot study
Paula Garcia1, Dahan da C. Nascimento2, Ramires A. Tibana2, Maria M. Barboza1, Jeffrey M. Willardson3 and
Jonato Prestes2
1

Vale of Itajai University, Santa Catarina, 2Graduation Program on Physical Education, Catholic University of Brasilia (UCB), Brasilia, Brazil and 3Kinesiology
and Sports Studies Department, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, IL, USA

Summary
Correspondence
Jonato Prestes, Graduation Program on
Physical Education, Catholic University
of Brasilia - Q.S. 07, Lote 01, EPTC
Bloco G. Zip code: 71966-700 Federal
District, Brasilia, Brazil
E-mail: jonatop@gmail.com

Accepted for publication

Received 10 April 2014;
accepted 20 August 2014

Key words
muscle strength; neuromuscular adaptation;
resistance training; training variables

The manipulation of resistance training (RT) variables affects the neuromuscular

adaptations and may also alter body composition. Another important factor to be
considered is the presence of high, moderate and low responding subjects to
training. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of multiple-set
(MS) and tri-set (TS) RT approaches on muscle strength and body composition
following a 12 week programme in trained women (> 1 year of RT experience).
A secondary objective was to assess variations in individual responsiveness to the
RT by the identification of high (strength gains were > 20%), moderate (10 and
19%) and low responding (< 10%) subjects. Eleven healthy experientially resistance trained women were randomly divided into two groups: MS (n = 6; age
27
17  8
23 years; body mass 57
97  2
48 kg) and TS (n = 5; age
23
20  2
28 years; body mass 61
74  6
95 kg). High responders were found
in the training groups (MS n = 4 and TS n = 1), moderate (MS n = 1 and TS
n = 3) and low responders (MS n = 1 and TS n = 1). The MS group displayed an
increase in squat 1RM (P<0
01), stiff leg deadlift 1RM (P<0
002) and squat repetitions maximum at 50% of 1RM (P<0
04). The TS method significantly increased
all strength variables (P<0
05), with no differences between methods (P>0
05).
Differences were evident between subjects classified as high, medium and low
responding in the stiff leg deadlift 1RM (P = 0
007). Both RT protocols increased
strength, with no effect on body composition. The variability in individual
responsiveness emphasizes the importance of individualized RT prescription for
strength practitioners.

Introduction
Neuromuscular adaptations to resistance training (RT) can be
achieved by the manipulation of training variables; such as,
the rest interval between sets and exercises, load, volume,
exercise mode and order, workout session frequency, range of
motion and the type of muscle action and velocity (Ratamess
et al., 2009; Assumpcao et al., 2013). However, the initial
training status of an individual affects the magnitude of neuromuscular adaptations (Deschenes & Kraemer, 2002), so that
those with a higher training status exhibit a lower rate of gain
over time.
Anecdotally, different RT methods are used to maximize
neuromuscular adaptations, two of which are the traditional
multiple-sets (MS) approach and another, the tri-set (TS)

approach. The MS approach involves performance of three

consecutive sets of a given exercise in a sequence before moving to the next exercise and so on; whereas, the TS approach
involves performance of exercises in a circuit fashion, but
with the same number of total sets for each exercise in a
sequence. However, there is limited scientific data on the
longitudinal adaptations associated with such approaches in
trained subjects.
It has been proposed that variations in RT methods are
essential for progression to occur, because the human body
quickly adapts to a given RT stimulus (Ratamess et al., 2009).
For example, training at 80% of 1RM for 1, 4 and 8 sets of
squats, twice per week, resulted in greater gains in maximal
squat strength for the 8-sets group compared to the ucodep>/ucodep>set group, reinforcing the benefits of MS

2014 Scandinavian Society of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

2 Resistance training methods, P. Garcia et al.

training in excess of 1-sets in RT males, no differences were

observed between 8 and 4 sets and 1 and 4 sets at any time
point (Marshall et al., 2011). Nevertheless, the TS approach, in
which the same number of total sets is ultimately performed
as the MS approach, could optimize the volume 9 intensity
relationship by allowing greater rest between sets of the same
exercise in a circuit (Brunelli et al., 2014). Another interesting
issue would be the reduction in total training duration as
compared with traditional MS training. Additionally, with the
limited rest between sets for different exercises in a circuit,
the TS approach may provide a superior stimulus for gains in
localized muscular endurance (Uchida et al., 2006).
Interestingly, a prior research (Uchida et al., 2006) compared the longitudinal effects of the MS and TS approaches on
muscle strength (1RM), body composition and hormonal
responses in trained men. Increases in muscle strength were
reported for both approaches, but without differences
between them. No differences were reported for body composition. For hormonal responses, no differences were reported
for testosterone; but for cortisol, the TS approach presented
significantly higher levels attributed to the higher metabolic
demand.
Thus, considering the paucity of studies comparing the
effects of MS and TS approaches on neuromuscular variables
and body composition, it is difficult to predict which method
would induce better results for trained subjects. Despite the
rigid control of diet, training background, muscle strength
levels and age, some individual variations are expected; such
as the presence of high, moderate and low responding subjects to training, as already shown in previous studies (Davidsen et al., 2011; Tajra et al., 2013).
Therefore, the objective of this study was to compare the
effects of MS and TS RT approaches on muscle strength and
body composition following a 12-week programme in trained
women (> 1 year of RT experience). A secondary objective
was to assess possible variations in individual responsiveness
to the RT programmes by the identification of high, moderate
and low responding subjects. We hypothesized that both
training approaches would induce significant improvements in
muscle strength with no differences between them and that
individual responsiveness would be evident following each
training programme.

Methods
Subjects
Eleven women with more than 12 months of RT experience
participated in this study. Subjects were randomly divided into
two groups: the multiple-sets training approach (MS = 6) or
the tri-sets training approach (TS = 5). Subjects were excluded
if they reported the use of supplements or hormone treatment, and any type of cardiovascular or neuromuscular problem that would compromise their performance during testing
and training.

Subjects were informed concerning the procedures, risks

and benefits of the study and gave their written informed consent to participate. Additionally, all subjects had their diet
monitored during the 12 weeks to ensure consistency in caloric intake. This study was approved by the Catholic University
of Brasilia Institutional Ethics Research Committee.
Subgroups of subjects
Following the procedures for identification of individuals variation in the responsiveness to training (Marshall et al., 2011),
subjects were classified as high, moderate or low responding
based on their relative strength gains (% strength increase for
the stiff leg deadlift exercise). Subjects were classified as high
responders if strength gains were > 20%, moderate responders
if between 10 and 19% and low responders if < 10%. High
Responders were found in training groups (MS n = 4 and TS
n = 1), with fewer Moderate Responders (MS n = 1 and TS
n = 3) and Low Responders (MS n = 1 and TS n = 1).
Experimental design and training
Subjects completed 12 weeks of a lower limb RT programme
that included the squat, stiff leg deadlift, 45 leg press, leg
curl, gluteus in the smith machine and stand calf raise
exercises (Cybex International, Medway, MA, USA). The RT
sessions were performed three times per week. Both training
approaches consisted of a linear periodized programme
(Prestes et al., 2009), in which intensity was increased every
microcycle (2 weeks) whilst volume was decreased (see
Tables 1 and 2).
The MS group trained as follows: 1st2nd weeks, three sets
of 1214 RM; 3th4th weeks three sets of 1012 RM; 5th
6th weeks three sets of 68 RM always leading to repetition
failure. This training pattern was then repeated until the completion of 12 weeks (see Table 1). The rest interval between
sets and exercises was 90 s. In the TS method, subjects

Table 1 Periodization for the multiple-sets (MS) and tri-set (TS)

methods.
MS (3 week)
Microc.1 (12 weeks)
MS
Microc.2 (34 weeks)
MS
Microc.3 (56 weeks)
MS
Microc.4 (78 weeks)
MS
Microc.5(910 weeks)
MS
Microc.6 (1112 weeks)
MS

TS (3 week)
Microc.1
MS
Microc.2
MS
Microc.3
MS
Microc.4
MS
Microc.5
MS
Microc.6
TS

Loads

(12 weeks)

3 9 1214 RM

(34 weeks)

3 9 1012 RM

(56 weeks)

3 9 68 RM

(78 weeks)

3 9 1214 RM

(910 weeks)

3 9 1012 RM

(1112 weeks)

3 9 68 RM

Microc., microcycle.

2014 Scandinavian Society of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Resistance training methods, P. Garcia et al. 3

Table 2

Resistance exercises used.

MS
During 12 weeks
Squat
Stiff leg deadlift
45 Leg press
Leg Curl
Gluteus in the smith
machine
Standing calf raise

TS
During 10 weeks
Squat
Stiff leg deadlift
45 Leg press
Leg Curl
Gluteus in the smith machine
Standing calf raise
11 and 12 weeks
Squat + stiff leg deadlift + 45 leg press
Leg curl + gluteus + calf raise

MS, multiple-sets; TS, tri-set.

completed three exercises for the lower limb without rest

between them; a rest interval was allowed after these three
exercises and the same circuit was repeated three times (see
Table 2). The training periodization was the same for both
groups; the only difference was that in weeks 11 and 12, the
TS method was included. The total training volume was equated between groups. All training sessions were supervised by
an experienced strength and conditioning professional.
Body composition
Body composition was assessed before and after the 12 weeks
of training using skinfold thickness measurements taken with
a Lange skinfold caliper (Jackson et al., 1980). The sum of the
triceps, suprailiac and thigh skinfolds were used for this equation. After this procedure, fat mass (kg) and fat-free mass
(kg) were estimated. Participants were advised to maintain
their habitual activities and diet (this was guaranteed by a
dietary recall follow-up).
Strength assessments
For the determination of the squat and stiff leg deadlift 1RM
load, two tests (test-retest) were conducted on two non-consecutive days (minimum of 72 h between tests). The intraclass
correlation coefficient was r = 0
98 and 0
97 for the squat
and stiff leg deadlift, respectively, thus confirming the test
retest reliability. Standardized range of motion and performance was conducted and controlled (Brown & Weir, 2011).
After 5 min of light treadmill running, subjects performed a
specific warm-up of eight repetitions with 50% of an estimated 1RM (according to the previous loads used by subjects
in their training routines), followed by three repetitions with
70% of an estimated 1RM. Consecutive trials were performed
for one repetition with progressively heavier loads until the
1RM was determined within three attempts, using 35 min
rest intervals between attempts.
The repetition maximum test was performed 72 h after the
1RM tests for the same exercises. All of the procedures for the

RM determination followed previous recommendations (Rhea

et al., 2003). One and a half min after a specific warm-up consisting of one set of 10 repetitions at 40% of 1RM, subjects
executed the highest number of repetitions possible with 50%
of 1RM to the point of concentric failure. This procedure was
repeated twice more, with 2 days between evaluation sessions
(r = 0
97 and 0
98 for the squat and stiff leg deadlift, respectively). Similar to the 1RM testing, the order of exercises was
randomized within each testing session.
The following strategies were adopted to minimize testing
errors: (i) all subjects participated in a familiarization period
prior to testing, (ii) standardized instructions were provided
to all subjects before testing, (iii) subjects were carefully
instructed about maintaining proper exercise technique and
body position, and (iv) consistent verbal encouragement was
provided during the testing procedures (Tibana et al., 2012). All
testing sessions were scheduled between 07:00 and 09:00 p.m.
Statistical analysis
Data normality was evaluated by the ShapiroWilk test. Considering that all data presented normal distribution, the effects of
the RT methods on body composition and neuromuscular variables were tested by the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
between subjects allocated at the MS and TS methods and the
moments pre- and post-training. In the case of significant differences, a post hoc test was used (Dancey & Reidy, 2011). All
data are presented as means and standard deviation (SD). For
comparisons between high, medium and low responders, an
ANOVA one way with post hoc of GT2 Hochberg was applied.
The effect size (ES) was calculated according to the following equation (Rhea, 2004). (post-test mean pretest mean)/
SD of the pretest.
The values for resistance trained subjects were considered
(Rhea, 2004): very small (< 0
35), small (0
350
80), moderate (0
801
50) and large (> 1
5).
The sample power was calculated by the post hoc power
analyses for the main variable squat to verify if the statistical
test used was sufficient to correctly reject the null hypothesis
(Faul et al., 2007). The effect size between moments was
d = 1
58, and the power was 75% for a minimum of five subjects considering an alpha of 0
05.
For all analysis, the software Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (SPSS, Inc., v. 18.0; IBM Corporation, Somers, NY,
USA.) was used. The sample power was calculated by the software G*Power 3.1.6 (Faul et al., 2007).

Results
Body composition
There was no statistically significant difference for the body
composition variables between training conditions (P>0
05)
and moments (P>0
05) (Table 3). All ES values were considered small (data not shown).

2014 Scandinavian Society of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

4 Resistance training methods, P. Garcia et al.

Muscle strength
There was no effect of training condition on muscle strength
variables (P = 0
13). However, there were time effects
between the moments pre and post, observed by the increase
in the squat 1RM [F (1
18) = 7
07, P = 0
016], and stiff leg
deadlift repetitions maximum 1RM [F (1
18) = 4
37,
P = 0
05], and squat [F (1
18) = 10
97, P = 0
004], and stiff
leg deadlift (F (1
18) = 6
80, P = 0
01).
The analysis revealed differences between moments for the
condition MS in the squat 1RM, stiff leg deadlift 1RM and
squat repetitions maximum (P = 0
01, P = 0
002, P = 0
04,
respectively). For stiff leg deadlift repetitions maximum, no
differences were analysed (P = 0
24). Additionally, ES was
1
19 (moderate) for the squat 1RM and 1
83 (large) for the
squat repetitions maximum, 0
96 (moderate) for the stiff leg
deadlift 1RM and 0
69 (small) for the stiff leg deadlift repetitions maximum (Table 4).
There were time effects for the TS method for the squat
and stiff leg deadlift 1RM, and for the squat and stiff leg
deadlift repetitions maximum (P = 0
03, P = 0
01, P = 0
05
and P = 0
02, respectively). Effect size values were 1
00
Table 3

Body composition variables presented as means and SD.

Training methods
Multiple-sets (n = 6)
Age (years)
Body mass (kg)
Fat mass (kg)
Fat-free mass (kg)
Tri-set (n = 5)
Age (years)
Body mass (kg)
Fat mass (kg)
Fat-free mass (kg)

Table 4

Pretraining

Post-training

27
17
57
97
12
15
24
50






8
23
2
48
2
62
1
47

58
40  2
35
11
63  2
25
25
36  1
51

23
20
61
74
15
10
23
89






2
28
6
95
3
90
1
99

62
90  6
39
15
00  3
96
24
18  1
94

Muscle strength variables presented as means and SD.

Training methods
Multiple-sets
Squat 1RM (kg)
Squat RM (repetitions)
Stiff leg deadlift
1RM (kg)
Stiff leg deadlift RM
(repetitions)
Tri-set
Squat 1RM (kg)
Squat RM (repetitions)
Stiff leg deadlift
1RM (kg)
Stiff leg deadlift RM
(repetitions)

Pretraining

Post-training

ES

61
00  9
27
22
83  7
57
56
00  13
56

72
00  8
10*
36
67  13
72*
69
00  11
98*

1
19
1
83
0
96

26
83  8
26

32
50  8
87

1
69

63
20  16
77
20
40  4
16
65
20  15
97

80
00  14
14*
33
00  8
15*
76
00  11
40*

1
00
3
03
0
68

23
00  4
24

32
80  3
77*

2
31

ES, effect size; RM, repetitions maximum.

*Intragroup statistically significant difference (P0
05).

(moderate) for the squat 1RM and 0
68 (small) for the stiff
leg deadlift 1RM, 3
03 (large) for the squat repetitions maximum and 2
31 (large) for the stiff leg deadlift repetitions
maximum (Table 4).
High, medium and low responders
Prior to training, there were no differences between groups in
terms of age (P = 0
96), body weight (P = 0
28), fat mass
(P = 0
42), fat-free mass (P = 0
09), squat 1RM (P = 0
93),
squat repetitions maximum (P = 0
25) and stiff leg deadlift
repetitions maximum (P = 0
20). The high responder group
increased stiff leg deadlift 1RM by a higher amount
(P = 0
007). The percent of increase for high, medium and
low responders were 25%, 12% and 6%, respectively
(Table 5).

Discussion
The main findings of the present study were that squat 1RM,
squat RM and stiff leg deadlift 1RM significantly increased in
the MS group, and all muscle strength variables for the TS
method significantly increased. No differences were found
between RT methods for muscle strength and body composition variables. Individual variation in responses to training
was present, in which the subjects classified as high responders increased stiff leg deadlift 1RM by a higher amount as
compared with medium and low responders, confirming the
initial hypothesis. Interestingly, higher magnitudes of ES were
found for repetitions maximum following the TS as compared
with the MS method.
Our results corroborate with a previously study (Uchida
et al., 2006). They compared the chronic effects of MS and TS
on muscle strength in trained men (> 1 year of RT experience). The results revealed an increase in muscle strength for
both groups and an increase in repetitions maximum, but
without differences between training methods. No changes
were observed for the body composition variables and considering the lower adaptation reserve found in their study and
our study. The increase of more than 10 kg can be valuable
for trained subjects.
The ES between studies for the squat exercise was similar
for both training methods. The previously study (Uchida et al.,
2006) had an ES of 1
61 and 1
46 and we had an ES of
1
19 and 1
00. Effect sizes moderate to large in this study
Table 5 Values between responders for stiff leg deadlift 1RM (kg)
presented as means and SD.
Groups
H (n = 5)
M (n = 4)
L (n = 2)

Pretraining

Post-training

D%

48
00  8
36
66
50  10
75
78
00  2
82

64
00  9
93
76
00  10
75
83
00  4
24

25
00
12
50
6
02

H, high responders; M, medium responders; L, low responders.

2014 Scandinavian Society of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Resistance training methods, P. Garcia et al. 5

demonstrate the degree to which the improvement in strength

was present in the population analysed.
Furthermore, our results revealed higher values of effect
size for the TS method in the repetitions maximum tests for
the squat and stiff leg deadlift. This can be attributed to a
higher metabolic demand involved in this type of higher
intensity training, translating to a greater response for endurance performance (Jacobs et al., 2013).
Considering the individual response, this is the first study
demonstrating the heterogeneity for strength gains in experienced resistance trained women. The high responders
increased their strength in stiff leg deadlift 1RM by 25% when
compared with 12% and 6% for medium and low responders,
respectively. In another study (Marshall et al., 2011), researchers compared the effects of tree different sets volume (1, 4
and 8 sets) of high intensity resistance exercise in trained
males and expected some variation in the individual strength
responses to training between groups. They found differences
between high, medium and low responders on muscle
strength. The high responders increased their strength by 29%
when compared with 14% and 0
9% for medium and low
responders, respectively.
Although accepted that RT induces gain in muscle mass and
muscle strength. Confounding variables known to affect the
response to RT as gender, diet and trainability (Folland &
Williams, 2007) will always be present. Moreover, future
studies must consider the identification of responders and
non-responders subjects as a new confounding variable
recently verified for muscle strength (Sampson et al., 2013),
creatine kinase (CK) (Machado et al., 2012) and other variables, such as interleukin-6 (IL-6) (Tajra et al., 2013), that has
been recently associated with the hypertrophic response in

trained men (Mitchell et al., 2013). This will allow for a better
understanding of the relationship between individual response
and RT adaptation.
Limitations in this study are worth to note. The allocation
of the groups of the present study has bias because more high
responders were unintended located in the MS method when
compared with TS method. So this may confound the data
interpretation. Future studies must include a familiarization
period, which might enable a better control for the identification of responders and non-responders to RT, as already suggested (Sampson et al., 2013). Moreover, a longer period of
TS method may reveal different results, as we used only
2 weeks of this method. To note, we used only 2 weeks due
to the symptoms of fatigue and tiredness reported by the
subjects.

Conclusion
Health professionals must be aware of the evidence that different methods of RT as MS and TS do not differ for strength
gains and body composition changes in trained women. In
addition, the individual response poses as complex reflection
for strength practitioners and researchers when prescribing
and selecting methods with the aim of increasing muscle
strength and improving body composition. Finally, the
higher ES for repetitions maximum found for the TS method
may interest those individuals aiming to increase muscle
endurance.

Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
Assumpcao CO, Tibana RA, Viana LC, Willardson JM, Prestes J. Influence of exercise
order on upper body maximum and submaximal strength gains in trained men. Clin
Physiol Funct Imaging (2013); 33: 359363.
Brown LE, Weir JP. ASEP procedures recommentation I: accurate assessment of muscular strength and power. J Exerc Physiol Online
(2011); 4: 121.
Brunelli DT, Caram K, Nogueira FR, Libardi
CA, Prestes J, Cavaglieri CR. Immune
responses to an upper body tri-set resistance
training session. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging
(2014); 34: 6471.
Dancey CP, Reidy J. Analysis of differences
between three or more conditions. In: Statistics Without Maths for Psychology (ed. Harlow,
E) (2011), vol 5. part 10, pp. 297383.
Prentice Hall/Pearson, New York.
Davidsen PK, Gallagher IJ, Hartman JW, Tarnopolsky MA, Dela F, Helge JW, TImmons

JA, Phillips SM. High responders to resistance exercise training demonstrate differential regulation of skeletal muscle
microRNA expression. J Appl Physiol (2011);
110: 309317.
Deschenes MR, Kraemer WJ. Performance and
physiologic adaptations to resistance training. Am J Phys Med Rehabil (2002); 81: S3S16.
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A.
G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power
analysis program for the social, behavioral,
and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods
(2007); 39: 175191.
Folland JP, Williams AG. The adaptations to
strength training: morphological and neurological contributions to increased strength.
Sports Med (2007); 37: 145168.
Jackson AS, Pollock ML, Ward A. Generalized
equations for predicting body density of
women. Med Sci Sports Exerc (1980); 12:
175181.

Jacobs RA, Fluck D, Bonne TC, Burgi S, Christensen PM, Toigo M, Lundby C. Improvements in exercise performance with highintensity interval training coincide with an
increase in skeletal muscle mitochondrial
content and function. J Appl Physiol (2013);
115: 785793.
Machado M, Pereira R, Willardson JM. Short
intervals between sets and individuality of
muscle damage response. J Strength Cond Res
(2012); 26: 29462952.
Marshall PW, McEwen M, Robbins DW.
Strength and neuromuscular adaptation following one, four, and eight sets of high
intensity resistance exercise in trained males.
Eur J Appl Physiol (2011); 111: 30073016.
Mitchell CJ, Churchward-Venne TA, Bellamy
L, Parise G, Baker SK, Phillips SM. Muscular
and systemic correlates of resistance training-induced muscle hypertrophy. PLoS ONE
(2013); 8: e78636.

2014 Scandinavian Society of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

6 Resistance training methods, P. Garcia et al.

Prestes J, Frollini AB, de Lima C, Donatto FF,

Foschini D, de Cassia Marqueti R, Figueira
A, Fleck SJ. Comparison between linear and
daily undulating periodized resistance training to increase strength. J Strength Cond Res
(2009); 23: 24372442.
Ratamess NA, Alvar BA, Evetoch TK, Housh
TJ, Kibler WB, Kraemer WJ, Triplett NT.
American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression models in resistance
training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc
(2009); 41: 687708.
Rhea MR. Determining the magnitude of
treatment effects in strength training
research through the use of the effect size. J
Strength Cond Res (2004); 18: 918920.

Rhea MR, Phillips WT, Burkett LN, Stone WJ,

Ball SD, Alvar BA, Thomas AB. A comparison of linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume and
intensity for local muscular endurance. J
Strength Cond Res (2003); 17: 8287.
Sampson JA, McAndrew D, Donohoe A, Jenkins A, Groeller H. The effect of a familiarisation period on subsequent strength gain. J
Sports Sci (2013); 31: 204211.
Tajra V, Tibana RA, Vieira DC, de Farias DL,
Teixeira TG, Funghetto SS, Silva AO, de
Sousa NMF, Willardson J, Karnikowiski
MGO, Prestes J. Identification of high
responders for interleukin-6 and creatine
kinase following acute eccentric resistance

exercise in elderly obese women. J Sci Med

Sport (2013); 18: S1440S2440.
Tibana RA, Prestes J, Nascimento DdaC, Martins OV, De Santana FS, Balsamo S. Higher
muscle performance in adolescents compared with adults after a resistance training
session with different rest intervals. J Strength
Cond Res (2012); 26: 10271032.
Uchida MC, Aoki MS, Navarro F, Tessutti VD,
Bacurau RFP. Effects of different resistance
training protocols over the morphofunctional, hormonal and immunological
parameters. Revista Brasileira de Medicina do
Esporte (2006); 12: 1822.

2014 Scandinavian Society of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd