Routine in academies spread on all continents, there is a desire to always increase the overhead used for the implementation of training routines. This fact is associated by practitioners as an essential maneuver for increasing muscle mass and strength gain.

        In view of this information, researchers seek to identify if this is really true. BURD et al. (2010) analyzed a single training session with low load (30% of 1 RM) and a high load (90% of 1RM), both methods until concentric failure. Evaluated the amount of recruited muscle fibers and protein synthesis in each situation, obtaining similar results starting the suggestion that the overhead may not be that important.

        However, as regards the number of series? One, two, three, plus? Interesting results were found in another study BURD et al. (2010), which compared a single series each year and three series with load of 70% of 1RM, were found higher and more prolonged protein synthesis and myofribrilla fatigue.

       After identifying the acute results, Mitchell et al. (2012) sought to analyze what would be the effects of training with different volumes and intensities after a period.

        Using young adults in a period of 10 weeks of training with 3 sessions per week, 3 protocols were used: 1 set to fatigue with high load (80% of 1RM), 3 sets to failure with high load (80% of 1RM) and 3 sets with low load (30% of 1RM) and volunteers had similar post workout meal to avoid any post workout supplementation effect.

      The study reports that the three methods led to increased quadriceps, and in methods with multiple sets had better results, however, no significant difference between them.

      With regard to strength increases were all methods, but the methods have high load higher increases than with low intensity. Apparently the overhead employed in the execution of resistance training has no direct influence on hypertrophy but its execution until concentric failure. Now if the goal is to increase muscle strength, protocols with high overloads are more appropriate.

Image reference: Globalfitness