Muscle thickness was considered as the distance between the interfaces of the muscle tissue from the subcutaneous fat to the bone (Figures 1 and 2) (4,7).
The estimation of the MVs of the elbow flexors and extensors from muscle thickness was calculated using the equations described by Fukunaga et al. (4). Testing was conducted at the same time of day for all follow-up tests.
The exercise order for LG-SM was barbell bench press (BP), machine front lat pull-down (LPD), machine triceps extension (TE), and free weight standing biceps curl with a straight bar (BC). The exercise order for SM-LG was BC, TE, LPD, and BP. The CG did not take part in the resistance training program. In this study, a nonlinear periodized resistance training program was used. In one session, the subjects accomplished 4 sets with light intensity (12-15 repetitions) in each exercise with 1-minute rest between the sets; in the next session, the subjects accomplished 3 sets with moderate intensity (8-10 repetitions) in each exercise with 2-minute rest between the sets; and in the third and final session of the cycle, the subjects accomplished 2 sets with high intensity (3-5 repetitions) in each exercise with 3-minute rest between the sets. During the exercise sessions, participants were verbally encouraged to perform all sets to concentric failure and the same definitions of a complete range of motion used during the 1RM testing were used to define completion of a successful repetition. There was no attempt to control the velocity of the repetitions performed. Whenever an individual could perform more than the prescribed number of repetitions for all sets of a given exercise, the resistance for that particular exercise was increased. Frequency of the training program was 2 sessions per week with at least 72 hours of rest between sessions. A total of 24 sessions (8 cycles of 3 sessions) was performed in the 12-week training period with all sessions occurring between 7 and 8 am. Before each training session, the participants performed a specific warm-up, consisting of 20 repetitions with approximately 50% of the resistance used in the first exercise of the training session. Adherence to the program was 100% for all training groups, but only 91.7% of LG-SM, 83.3% of SM-LG, and 75% of CG subjects accomplished all time point measures. It should be noted that all training sessions were supervised by an experienced strength and conditioning professional.
Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to determine 1RM test-retest reliability. The ICC method was used based on a repeat measurement of maximal strength. Coefficient of variation (CV) was used to calculate within-participant variation (CV% = [SD ÷ mean] × 100). The statistical analysis was initially done by the Shapiro-Wilk normality test and by the homoscedasticity test (Bartlett's criterion). All variables presented normal distribution and homoscedasticity. After a 2 (pre-post) by 3- (groups) way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (time [baseline vs. 12 weeks training] × group [SM-LG vs. LG-SM vs. CG]) was used to analyze differences among the groups in the 1RM load and kilogram of body mass (1RM load/body mass). A 3 (pre-middle-post) by 3- (groups) way ANOVA (time [baseline vs. six vs. 12 weeks training] × group [SM-LG vs. LG-SM vs. CG]) was used to analyze differences among the groups in the MVs. The calculation of percentage increases by the effect size in strength and MV (the difference between pretest and posttest scores divided by the pretest standard deviation), and the scale proposed by Rhea (9) was used. A 1 by 3- (groups) way ANOVA (time [baseline to 12 weeks % difference] × group [SM-LG vs. LG-SM vs. CG]) was used to analyze differences among the groups in 1RM tests and MV effect sizes. When appropriate, follow-up analyses were performed using Fisher's post hoc tests. The t-tests were used to analyze differences between 1RM test and retest, pre and post training, and between the total work (session × sets × load) and total volume (sets × repetitions) in both training programs. An alpha level of p ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all comparisons. Statistica version 7.0 (Statsoft, Inc., Tulsa, OK) statistical software was used for all statistical analyses.
Total Volume and Total Work
There was no difference between total volumes; however, the total work performed by LG-SM (499,571.8 kg) was significantly higher than the total work performed by SM-LG (369,025.7 kg).
1 Repetition Movement Tests
The 1RM test-retest reliability showed high ICC at baseline (BP, r = 0.94; LPD, r = 0.96; TE, r = 0.94; BC, r = 0.95) and after 12 weeks of training (BP, r = 0.96; LPD, r = 0.93; TE, r = 0.95; BC, r = 0.96). There were no differences (p > 0.05) between groups in 1RM tests at baseline, and after 12 weeks, both trained groups showed a significant 1RM improvement for all exercises and differences in relation to CG (Table 2) but not between them. After the normalization per kilogram of body mass, the results were very similar.
Table 3 shows the MV at baseline, at 6 and 12 weeks post training in the 3 groups. There were no differences (p > 0.05) between groups in MVs at baseline, and after 12 weeks, both trained groups showed a significant improvement in triceps and biceps volumes in relation to the CG but not between them.
Effect size data (Table 4) demonstrated that differences in strength and MV were exhibited based on exercise order. Although both training groups demonstrated greater strength improvements than the CG, which actually decreased in strength, only BP strength increased to a greater magnitude in the LG-SM group as compared with the SM-LG, 1.74 vs. 0.90, respectively. In all other strength measures (LP, TE, and BC), the SM-LG group showed significantly greater strength increases. Triceps MV increased greater in the SM-LG group (1.08 compared with 0.40); however, biceps MV did not differ significantly between the training groups.
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of exercise order on muscle strength and volume. Despite the significant gains among both training groups, the present results revealed no statistically significant differences of strength gains or muscle accretion between the different exercise order training groups. However, effect size calculations present an interesting alteration in strength improvement based on exercise order. The only exercise in which the LG-SM group demonstrated greater magnitudes of strength gains was the BP. All other exercises, including the lat pull-down, which is often considered an exercise targeting large muscle groups, showed greater magnitudes of strength improvements in the SM-LG exercise order. The absolute strength gains did not different statistically; however, it is important to examine treatment effects independent of statistical probability, especially in small group studies (9). With such large differences in treatment effects, yet no statistical difference between the absolute strength data, variability within each group and the lack of statistical power may hamper conclusions based solely on statistical probability. Therefore, the effect size data suggest that an exercise order beginning with small muscle groups and progressing to large groups would be more appropriate if greater gains were desired/sought in small muscle groups. However, this conclusion should be examined in subsequent research with larger sample sizes. Muscle volume in the triceps was shown to increase to a greater extent, based on effect size data, in the SM-LG group; however, this trend was not demonstrated in the biceps MV data. Little can be drawn from these conflicting data with regard to muscle hypertrophy, and additional investigation would be needed for further evaluation of this variable.
In previous research, Simão et al. (15) examined the influence of exercise order on strength and muscle thickness in untrained men after 12 weeks of linear periodized resistance training. The participants were randomly assigned into 3 groups differing in exercise order. One group began with large muscle group exercises and progressed toward small muscle group exercises (LG-SM), whereas another group started with small muscle group exercises and advanced to large muscle group exercises (SM-LG). The exercise order for LG-SM was BP, LPD, TE, and BC. The order for the SM-LG was BC, TE, LPD, and BP. The third group did not exercise and served as a CG. Training frequency was 2 sessions per week with at least 72 hours of rest between sessions. Muscle thickness was assessed at baseline and 12 weeks of training by US techniques. The 1RM strength for all exercises was assessed at baseline and after 12 weeks of training. The results showed no significant differences in 1RM between training groups for the selected exercises after 12 weeks of training. However, when compared with CG, all exercises for both training groups presented significant 1RM strength gains with the exception of BC in LG-SM. Furthermore, between baseline and post 12 weeks of training, all exercises for both training groups presented significant strength gains with the exception of BC in LG-SM and BP in SM-LG. The analysis of 1RM loads per kilogram of body mass normalization demonstrated significant 1RM strength gains between baseline and 12 weeks for all exercises. After 12 weeks, the normalized 1RM loads of BP for both training groups were significantly different from CG, whereas the normalized 1RM loads for TE and BC were significantly different only between SM-LG and CG. Triceps muscle thickness for both training groups was significantly higher when compared with the CG, but with no significant differences between then, whereas the biceps muscle thickness presented significant differences only between LG-SM and CG. Effect size data demonstrated that differences in strength and muscle thickness were exhibited based on exercise order. Although both training groups demonstrated greater strength improvements than the CG, which actually decreased in strength, only TE strength increased to a greater magnitude in the SM-LG group as compared with the LG-SM, 2.07 vs. 0.75, respectively. In BP, the same magnitude was observed for both training groups. For LPD, the LG-SM group showed little greater strength increases and the opposite occurred in BC, where little greater strength increases were observed in SM-LG. Triceps muscle thickness increased greater in the SM-LG group (0.51 compared with 0.20); however, biceps muscle thickness did not differ significantly between the training groups.
Our methodology was very similar from Simão et al. (15), but with some crucial differences. In our study, we analyzed MV measurements for the same muscles, whereas Simão et al. (15) analyzed only the muscle thickness. Furthermore, this study involved a nonlinear periodized resistance training program; whereas in the study of Simão et al. (15) was utilized a linear training program. In 1-session 4 sets with light intensity (12-15 repetitions) were performed followed by a session of 3 sets with moderate intensity (8-10 repetitions). A third and final session of the cycle involved 2 sets with high intensity (3-5 repetitions). Differences between linear and nonlinear strength improvements have previously been identified (8,10,11). Despite the results of strength gains or muscle accretion having very little differences between studies, the effect size data presented by both studies determined the same major conclusions.
Dias et al. (3) examined the influence of exercise order on strength in untrained young men after 8 weeks of training. One group began with large and progressed toward small muscle group exercises (G1), whereas another started with small group exercises and advanced to large muscle group exercises (G2). The exercise order for the G1 was BP, LPD, seated machine shoulder press (SP), BC, and TE. The order for the G2 was TE, BC, SP, LPD, and BP. The third group did not exercise and served as a CG. Training procedures were 3 sets of 8 to 12RM for each exercise, and frequency of 3 sessions per week with at least 48 hours of rest between sessions for a total of 24 sessions in the 8-week period. In agreement with the present results, both G1 and G2 resulted in significant increases in 1RM compared with the CG. The BC and TE revealed significant differences between trained groups, but the BP and LPD did not show the same results, demonstrating that the exercise order to small muscle group exercises may be particularly important during the initial stages of resistance training in untrained young men. Effect size calculations from the Dias et al. (3) study showed that moderate/large treatment effects for BP, lat pull-down, and shoulder press measures (1.89, 2.47, and 3.67, respectively) when exercise order progresses from large to small muscle groups. In the same group, effect sizes in measures of strength in smaller muscle groups were shown to be much lower (BC: 1.45; TE: 1.59). Effect sizes for the group progression from small to large muscle groups during training showed an opposite effect favoring strength development in smaller muscles (BP: 1.26; lat pull-down: 1.30; shoulder press: 2.92; BC: 2.94; TE: 3.82). This study (3) used a constant training program, different training frequency, and young men and did not use the effect size to analyze the results, whereas the present study used nonlinear periodized resistance training and involved predominantly 30-year-old men.
Previous studies from our group (13,14) agree with the present results and suggest that when an exercise is performed last in an exercise sequence or training session, performance of that particular exercise may be negatively affected. This is true whether the exercise involves large or small muscle groups. Both studies by Simão et al. (13,14) indicated that an exercise should be performed early in a resistance training session if the exercise is important to meet the training goals of a resistance training program. Simão et al. (13) investigated the influence of different exercise sequences on the number of repetitions performed in a group composed of both men and women with at least 2 years of recreational resistance training experience. The results demonstrated performing either large or small group exercises for the upper body at the end of an exercise sequence that resulted in significantly fewer repetitions compared with when the same exercises were performed early in an exercise sequence. A more recent study from Simão et al. (14) suggested a similar phenomenon of a decrease in the total number of repetitions performed when both upper- and lower-body exercises were performed in the same exercise sequence by 23 women with a minimum of 2 years of resistance training experience. In agreement with previous results (13), this study (14) demonstrates that an exercise performed last in a training session is negatively affected, whether the exercise involves large or small muscle groups in an acute way.
In conclusion, the present study suggests that different exercise orders during resistance training involving upper-body, single-, and multi-joint exercises have a significant influence in strength and MV during 12 weeks of nonlinear periodized resistance training in untrained men when effect size calculations are examined. Although continued investigation on this topic is warranted, particularly with larger sample sizes, the differences in the magnitude of strength improvements based on exercise order exist and should be considered when designing a resistance training program.
Based on the effect size data in the present study, and reviewing other studies examining this issue, it appears that exercises that are particularly important to the client should be placed at the beginning of an exercise session. Additionally, if an exercise is important for the training goals of a program, then it should be placed at the beginning of the training session, regardless of it being a large or small muscle group exercise. In this approach, the immediate need of the client receives greater emphasis in program design than the traditional large to small muscle exercise sequence. Because weaknesses in smaller supportive muscles can limit the performance of more complex exercises, increased focus on those smaller muscles (if they are found to be a limiting factor) early in an exercise session would be expected to have a positive impact on the performance of complex exercises over time.
Dr R.S. would like to thank the Brazilian National Board for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) and Research and Development Foundation of Rio de Janeiro State (FAPERJ).
1. American College of Sports Medicine. Position stand: Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc
41: 687-708, 2009.
2. Bellezza, PA, Hall, EE, Miller, PC, and Bixby, WR. The influence of exercise order on blood lactate, perceptual, and affective responses. J Strength Cond Res
23: 203-208, 2009.
3. Dias, I, Salles, BF, Novaes, J, Costa, P, and Simão, R. Influence of exercise order on maximum strength in untrained young men. J Sci Med Sport
13: 65-69, 2010.
4. Fukunaga, T, Miyatani, M, Tachi, M, Kouzaki, M, Kawakami, Y, and Kanehisa, H. Muscle volume is a major determinant of joint torque in humans. Acta Physiol Scand
172: 249-255, 2001.
5. Gentil, P, Oliveira, E, Rocha Júnior, VA, Carmo, J, and Bottaro, M. Effects of exercise order on upper-body muscle activation and exercise performance. J Strength Cond Res
21: 1082-1086, 2007.
6. Kraemer, WJ and Fleck, SJ. Optimizing Strength Training
. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2007.
7. Miyatani, M, Kanehisa, M, Ito, M, Kawakami, Y, and Fukunaga, T. The accuracy of volume estimates using ultrasound muscle thickness measurements in different muscle groups. Eur J Appl Physiol
91: 264-272, 2004.
8. Peterson, MD, Dodd, DJ, Alvar, BA, Rhea, MR, and Favre, M. Undulation training for development of hierarchical fitness and improved firefighter job performance. J Strength Cond Res
22: 1683-1695, 2008.
9. Rhea, MR. Determining the magnitude of treatment effects in strength training research through the use of the effect size. J Strength Cond Res
18: 918-920, 2004.
10. Rhea, MR, Phillips, WT, Burkett, LN, Stone, WJ, Ball, SD, Alvar, BA, and Thomas, AB. A comparison of linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume and intensity for local muscular endurance. J Strength Cond Res
17: 82-87, 2003.
11. Rhea, MR, Ball, SD, Phillips, WT, and Burkett, LN. A comparison of linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume and intensity for strength. J Strength Cond Res
16: 250-255, 2002.
12. Sforzo, GA and Touey, PR. Manipulating exercise order affects muscular performance during a resistance exercise training session. J Strength Cond Res
10: 20-24, 1996.
13. Simão, R, Farinatti, PTV, Polito, MD, Maior, AS, and Fleck, SJ. Influence of exercise order on the number of repetitions performed and perceived exertion during resistance exercises. J Strength Cond Res
19: 152-156, 2005.
14. Simão, R, Farinatti, PTV, Polito, MD, Viveiros, L, and Fleck, SJ. Influence of exercise order on the number of repetitions performed and perceived exertion during resistance exercise in women. J Strength Cond Res
21: 23-28, 2007.
15. Simão, R, Spineti, J, Salles, BF, Oliveira, L, Ribeiro, FM, and Costa, PB. Influence of exercise order on maximum strength and muscle volume in untrained men. J Sci Sport Med
9: 1-7, 2010.
16. Spreuwenberg, LPB, Kraemer, WJ, Spiering, BA, Volek, JS, Hatfield, DL, Silvestre, R, Vingren, JL, Fragala, MS, Hakkinen, K, Newton, RU, Maresh, CM, and Fleck, SJ. Influence of exercise order in a resistance-training exercise session. J Strength Cond Res
20: 141-144, 2006.
Keywords:© 2010 National Strength and Conditioning Association
muscle adaptation; weight lifting; physical fitness; periodization; muscular hypertrophy