The effects of set volume during isolated lumbar extension resistance training in recreationally trained males

Abstract

Background/Aim. Exercise designed to condition the lumbar extensor musculature is often included in resistance training (RT) programs. It is suggested that deconditioning of this musculature may be linked to low back pain. Thus effective means of conditioning these muscles are of interest to pursue. Evidence suggests that isolated lumbar extension (ILEX) RT might be most efficacious, however, the best means of manipulating resistance training variables in this regard is unknown. Set volume is an easily manipulated RT variable and one thought to also interact with training status. As such this study sought to examine the effect of set volume during ILEX RT in trained males.

Methods. Trained males previously engaged in exercises designed to condition the lumbar extensors underwent a 6 week intervention and were randomised to either a single set (1ST, n = 9), multiple set (3ST, n = 8) or control group (CON, n = 9). Pre- and post-testing of ILEX strength was conducted.

Results. Both 1ST and 3ST significantly increased ILEX strength (p < 0.05) with large effect sizes (d = 0.89 and 0.95 respectively) whereas the CON group produced significant losses (−8.9%) with a moderate effect size (d = − 0.53). There was no statistically significant difference in ILEX strength gains when 1ST and 3ST were directly compared (p = 0.336).

Conclusions. The results of this study suggest that significant ILEX strength changes occur in trained males as a result of 6 weeks of ILEX RT and that these changes are unaffected by set volume.

Introduction

Low back pain (LBP) remains a highly prevalent condition in both general (World Health Organisation, 1998; Office for National Statistics, 2000; Office for National Statistics, 2010; Waddell & Burton, 2000; Walker, 2000; National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2009) and athletic populations (Graned & Morelli, 1988; Sward, Hellstrom & Jacobsson, 1990; Kraft, 2002; Bono, 2004; Bahr et al., 2004; Quinney et al., 1997; Haykowksy, Warburton & Quinney , 1999). The use of resistance training (RT) to reduce injury risk has been suggested (Stone, 1990) and a systematic review has recently reported it to reduce sporting injury risk by one third (Lauersen, Bertelsen & Andersen, 2013). As evidence seems to suggest that deconditioning of the lumbar extensor musculature (lumbar erector spinae, multifidus, and quadratus lumborum) may be a factor associated with LBP and increased injury risk (Steele, Bruce-Low & Smith, 2014a), research has attempted to evaluate the best approaches for conditioning this musculature through RT.

Mayer, Mooney & Dagenais (2008) have suggested differing exercise approaches to condition the lumbar extensors which have recently been reviewed with evidence suggesting that, due to the restraint system preventing rotation of the pelvis, isolated lumbar extension (ILEX) exercise devices may be optimal (Steele, Bruce-Low & Smith, 2013). However, when considering an RT programme, variables such as load, effort, repetitions, repetition duration, volume, frequency, etc. should also be considered (American College of Sports Medicine, 2009; Fisher et al., 2011). The manipulation of such variables when employing ILEX has been reviewed when considering patients suffering with chronic LBP for outcomes such as pain and disability (Steele, Bruce-Low & Smith, 2014b), but does not exist for asymptomatic people who may be interested in injury prevention.

However, a number of studies have considered asymptomatic individuals, and the effect of RT variable manipulation upon ILEX strength as an outcome examining the volume, frequency, specificity and range of motion during training, considering both previously untrained participants (Graves et al., 1990a; Carpenter et al., 1991; Graves et al., 1992; Graves et al., 1991) as well as people with RT experience (Tucci et al., 1992). To date there appears only one study (Graves et al., 1991) which has considered training volume using ILEX but again this was on untrained participants. This research considered participants performing either one or two sets of dynamic and/or isometric ILEX training reporting no differences (Graves et al., 1991). Set volume in RT has historically been a contentious issue with recommendations supporting multiple set protocols (American College of Sports Medicine, 2009) being supported by meta-analyses (Rhea et al., 2003; Peterson, Rhea & Alvar, 2004; Wolfe, LeMura & Cole, 2004). Others have however critiqued these meta-analyses (Winett, 2004; Otto & Carpinelli, 2006). As the body of literature has progressed, further reviews and meta-analyses have offered support, for multiple (Krieger, 2009; Frohlich, Emrich & Schmidtbleicher, 2010), or single set protocols (Fisher et al., 2011; Carpinelli, 2012) for strength. More recently, further empirical research has examined set volume within RT with some support for multiple set approaches (Marshall, McEwen & Robbins, 2011; Radaelli et al., 2014b), and other studies finding no differences between single and multiple set routines (Radaelli et al., 2014c; Radaelli et al., 2013a; Radaelli et al., 2013b; Kadir et al., 2014; Adnan et al., 2014; Correa et al., 2014; Baker et al., 2013).

Differentiating between trained and previously untrained participants within the research appears to be an important consideration as it is suggested that the level of trainability affects the interaction of specific RT variable manipulation with outcomes, particularly with respect to set volume (Frohlich, Emrich & Schmidtbleicher, 2010). In addition, that trained people should perform a larger training volume than untrained people (American College of Sports Medicine, 2009). Though Graves et al. (1991) reported no difference between one and two sets of ILEX, the authors only considered untrained participants and did not consider the effects of greater set volumes typically suggested as being optimal for strength (≥3 sets; Krieger, 2009). Since RT is shown to be an effective intervention in trained and sporting populations for reducing injury risk, it is of interest to investigate the effects of set volume during ILEX exercise in a trained population looking specifically at the lumbar extensor muscles. As such, the aim of the present study was to consider the effects of single and multiple set ILEX exercise in trained males.

Materials & Methods Study design

A randomised controlled trial design was adopted with three experimental groups examining the effects of set volume upon ILEX strength in recreationally trained participants. The study design was approved in writing by the relevant ethics committee at the author’s institution.

Participants

Participants were required to be males between 18 and 30 years old, have been involved in a RT programme for a minimum of 6 months at a minimum frequency of 2x/week including participation in exercises designed to condition the lumbar extensors (Mayer, Mooney & Dagenais, 2008; Steele, Bruce-Low & Smith, 2013) at the beginning of the study. Furthermore, participants were to have no medical condition for which RT is contraindicated to participate. Specific exclusion criteria included: (1) history of LBP or lumbar spine pathologies or known deformities; (2) currently experiencing LBP; (3) knee or hip disorders contraindicating use of the ILEX device; (4) inability or unwillingness to cease participation in other lumbar conditioning exercises for the duration of the study; and (5) currently taking any illegal ergogenic aids or nutritional supplementation. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Power analysis of research using ILEX (Graves et al., 1990a) was conducted to determine participant numbers (n) using an effect size (ES), calculated using Cohen’s d (Cohen, 1992), of 1.26 for improvements in ILEX strength. Participant numbers were calculated using equations from Whitley & Ball (2002) revealing each group required 10 participants to meet required power of β = 0.8 at an alpha value of p ≤ 0.05.

Thirty participants were initially identified and recruited. Figure 1 shows a CONSORT diagram highlighting participant numbers for enrolment, allocation, follow-up and analysis stages. No initial dropouts were recorded after eligibility assessment so 30 participants were randomised using a random drawing of cards to one of three groups; a single set group (1ST; n = 10), a multiple set group (3ST; n = 10), and a non-training control group (CON; n = 10).

Figure 1: CONSORT diagram. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.878/fig-1

Equipment

Stature was measured using a stadiometer (Holtan ltd, Crymych, Dyfed, Wales), body mass measured using scales (SECA, Hamburg, Germany) and Body Mass Index (BMI) calculated. Isometric ILEX strength testing, range of motion and training were performed using an ILEX device (MedX, Ocala, Florida, USA). The device has been shown reliable in assessing isometric strength at repeated angles in asymptomatic (r = 0.81–0.97; Graves et al., 1990b) and symptomatic participants (r = 0.57–0.93; Robinson et al., 1992), and valid in measurement (Pollock et al., 1991; Inanami, 1991).

Figure 2: Mean change in ILEX strength with 95% CIs. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.878/fig-2

Participant testing

ILEX strength was tested twice, on separate days (at least 72 h apart to avoid residual fatigue or soreness) before with the first acting as a familiarisation, and once after the RT intervention. Each test using the ILEX device involved maximal voluntary isometric contractions at various angles through the participant’s full range of motion. Details of the full test protocol using the MedX and its restraint mechanisms have been documented elsewhere (Graves et al., 1990b). ILEX strength averaged across the participant’s full range of motion was considered.

Participant training

Training was conducted at a frequency of 1x/week for a period of 6 weeks. This frequency of training has been shown to significantly improve ILEX strength and was chosen over more frequent training (Bruce-Low et al., 2012) due to potential for overtraining when the lumbar extensor muscles are isolated (Graves et al., 1990a). Both groups performed one set of variable resistance ILEX exercise. Both performed a warm-up set lasting 60 s using 50% of their training load. Starting training load was 50% of max recorded tested functional torque (TFT) during maximal isometric testing for both groups and repetitions performed until momentary muscular failure (MMF) in order to control for effort (Steele, 2014). Repetitions were performed taking at least 2 s to complete the concentric phase, holding for 1 s in full extension and taking at least 4 s for the eccentric phase. The 3ST group rested for 3 min between each set during which time participants remained seated in the ILEX device with the restraints loosened. Resistance load was increased by 10% in the next session or set once the participant was able to perform more than 12 repetitions using their current load before achieving MMF. However, in order to maintain a similar repetition range for each set in the 3ST group, load was reduced by 5% in the next set if the participant was unable to complete at least 8 repetitions before achieving MMF (Medeiros Jr et al., 2013). All groups were asked to refrain from using any other lumbar conditioning exercises for the duration of the study.

Data analysis

Participants that missed 2 or more sessions were excluded from analysis. Twenty six participants’ (1ST n = 9; 3ST n = 8; CON n = 9) data were available for analysis. Assumptions of normality of distribution were examined using a Kolomogorov–Smirnov test. As not all data sets met assumptions of normality of distribution, non-parametric analyses were performed. Demographic characteristics, baseline ILEX strength and the effects of the group (independent variable) upon the absolute change in ILEX strength (dependent variable) was examined using a Kruskal–Wallis one way analysis of variance. Significant results from the Kruskal–Wallis test were further subjected to post hoc planned comparisons using Mann–Whitney U tests between 1ST and 3ST. Further, 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated in addition to ES using Cohen’s d (Cohen, 1992) for each outcome to examine significance and magnitude of effects within groups where significant changes were considered where 95% CIs did not cross zero and for magnitudes an ES of 0.20–0.49 was considered as small, 0.50–0.79 as moderate and ≥0.80 as large. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (IBM Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0; IBM, Portsmouth, Hampshire, UK) and p ≤ 0.05 set as the limit for statistical significance.

Results & Discussion Participant demographics

Participant demographics are shown in Table 1. There were no significant between group effects for any demographic characteristics.

Table 1: Participant demographic characteristics.

	1ST	3ST	CON
Participants (No.)	9	8	9
Age (years)	21 ± 2	21 ± 1	20 ± 1
Stature (cm)	174.7 ± 7.6	178.5 ± 8.7	178.4 ± 6.3
Body mass (kg)	74.3 ± 9.1	78.7 ± 10.3	77.7 ± 7.8
Training experience (years)	3 ± 1	5 ± 2	3 ± 1
Baseline ILEX strength (Nm)	277.66 ± 99.99	335.71 ± 80.04	339.84 ± 64.82
ILEX range of motion (°)	72	72	72

DOI: 10.7717/peerj.878/table-1

Strength

Figure 2 shows mean changes and 95% CIs for ILEX strength for each group. The Kruskal–Wallis one way analysis of variance revealed a significant between groups effect for ILEX strength (X²(2) = 11.645, p = 0.003; mean rank for 1ST = 16.22, 3ST = 18.25, CON = 6.56). Planned comparison between 1ST and 3ST using Mann–Whitney U revealed no significant difference for ILEX strength (21.00U = 26.000, p = 0.336; Median ± Interquartile Range, 28.48 ± 43.49 and 46.30 ± 40.58 respectively). The 95% CIs indicated that both 1ST and 3ST groups significantly increased strength (8.31% and 10.68% respectively) with ESs considered large (0.89 and 0.95 respectively) whereas there was a significant reduction in ILEX strength in the control group (−8.9%) with a moderate ES (−0.53).

Discussion

This study examined the effects of set volume in recreationally trained male participants performing an ILEX RT intervention. The results indicated that both 1ST and 3ST significantly improved their ILEX strength with similarly large ESs, whereas the CON group lost strength over the intervention period. No differences between 1ST and 3ST for ILEX strength change were found as a result of planned comparisons.

Reviews and meta-analyses offer divergent conclusions regarding the effects of set volume (Fisher et al., 2011; Otto & Carpinelli, 2006; Rhea et al., 2003; Peterson, Rhea & Alvar, 2004; Wolfe, LeMura & Cole, 2004; Winett, 2004; Krieger, 2009; Frohlich, Emrich & Schmidtbleicher, 2010; Carpinelli, 2012). Within this study, and in contrast to earlier research by Graves et al. (1991) examining set volume and ILEX RT, we used trained participants, as it is believed that training status might interact with the effects of set volume (Frohlich, Emrich & Schmidtbleicher, 2010). In particular, it is recommended that greater set volumes be utilised by trained people (American College of Sports Medicine, 2009). The results of this study seem to suggest that, at least for ILEX training, set volume does not impact upon strength changes in trained people. This finding is in agreement with the majority of more recent empirical research regarding set volume indicating multiple sets appear to offer similar efficacy upon strength gains to single set approaches both in untrained (Radaelli et al., 2014b; Radaelli et al., 2014c; Radaelli et al., 2013a; Radaelli et al., 2013b; Kadir et al., 2014) and recreationally trained participants (Adnan et al., 2014; Baker et al., 2013). However, research by Marshall, McEwen & Robbins (2011) in trained males does contrast this. Though they reported no difference between one and four sets, they noted significantly greater strength changes with eight sets. Though this may have been due to this group containing a high proportion of medium/high responders (Carpinelli, 2012), it remains a possibility that a higher set volume than that used in the present study (≥3 sets) may induce greater ILEX strength gains. Indeed, another recent study by Radaelli et al. (2014a) suggests a dose response relationship between 1, 3 and 5 sets in untrained yet active males. However, it should be noted that the lumbar extensors have been suggested to be particularly prone to overtraining (Graves et al., 1990a). All participants within the 3ST group reported feeling nauseous and entirely exhausted (not limited to the lumbar extensors) during training, whereas only one of the 1ST group displayed these symptoms. Hass et al. (2000) reported that dropout rate was higher for a multiple set RT program compared with one employing single set. Twenty-five percent dropped out from the multiple set group (5 for lack of adherence and 2 for injuries) compared with none in the single set group. Though no injuries were reported from our participants due to the training, the potential of increased injury risk and impact of higher volume high effort training upon adherence, in addition to the increased time required, should be weighed against any potential for greater gains with much higher set volumes.

It is worth discussing that ILEX may be unique even when considering trained people. As noted, the participants in this study were previously participating in RT involving exercises suggested by Mayer, Mooney & Dagenais (2008) to condition the lumbar extensors (including deadlifts, good mornings, trunk extension machines etc.). However, though two participants had previously used the ILEX device used in this study (though the specific duration or implementation of this was not known), not all participants had been previously involved in ILEX training specifically. Pollock et al. (1989) also reported considerable improvements in average ILEX strength (∼37%) in trained individuals (at least 1 year training experience) engaged in similar exercises prior to ILEX RT interventions (including use of a commercially available trunk extension resistance machine). Pollock et al. (1989) speculated that, although these participants had been engaged in exercises intended to condition the lumbar extensors, their lumbar extensors may have in fact been untrained relative to their other musculature. The large ESs in our trained participants further suggests this may be the case. Steele, Bruce-Low & Smith (2013) concluded in their review of the specificity of exercises designed to condition the lumbar extensors that many exercises suggested by Mayer, Mooney & Dagenais (2008) may be inferior to ILEX. Indeed, it may be that the lumbar extensor musculature may become deconditioned relative to other musculature due to the lack of conditioning effect from many typical trunk extension based exercises or movements (Steele, Bruce-Low & Smith, 2014a). Our CON group in fact lost ILEX strength over the intervention period highlighting this possibility (though it is unclear as to why a decrease of comparable magnitude to both the 1ST and 3ST groups’ increases was found). Thus, it remains possible that set volume may impact upon strength gains in those previously engaged in ILEX RT who thus have trained lumbar extensors. This is an area that requires further investigation.

The practical implications of these findings are of importance. The typical recommendations for a single set approach for ILEX has been noted as time efficient for addressing pain and disability in people with chronic LBP (Steele, Bruce-Low & Smith, 2014b). However, as noted, prior reviews have not offered recommendation as to what set volume might be best for ILEX RT for the purposes of conditioning the lumbar extensors (Steele, Bruce-Low & Smith, 2013), something of particular important for those wishing to reduce risk of low back injury (Stone, 1990; Lauersen, Bertelsen & Andersen, 2013; Steele, Bruce-Low & Smith, 2014a; Steele, Bruce-Low & Smith, 2014b). This study suggests that a single set approach may be a time efficient method to effectively condition the lumbar extensors. Including the warm-up set, the single set group performed between 1.56 and 2.24 min of exercise, whereas the multiple set group, including between set rest periods, trained for between 9.48 and 11.12 min from beginning exercise to end. Though this may appear a practically small difference, in the context of a training program including a selection of other exercises that are performed using either single or multiple sets this could add up to considerably more training time.

Limitations of the present study should be considered. Though our sample size was similar to other research examining single and multiple set RT, due to drop outs, we fell slightly below the sample size indicated by our power analysis (10 participants). However, calculations of observed power for group effects upon ILEX strength changes were β = 0.966, and thus this study can be considered as adequately powered to detect between group differences. Despite the study being adequately powered, the limitations to practical conclusions should be noted. The study was only 6 weeks in duration and thus, although other studies of longer duration have suggested no difference, it remains the possibility that differences between single and multiple set ILEX in trained participants might manifest over longer training durations. Further, recent studies considering the effects of set volume have included greater than 3 sets and suggested that both 5 (Radaelli et al., 2014a) and 8 sets (Marshall, McEwen & Robbins, 2011) may produce greater strength adaptations. Whether higher set volumes may produce greater increases for ILEX RT remains to be investigated.

Conclusion

To conclude, the results of this study suggest that strength changes resulting from an ILEX RT intervention in recreationally trained males are unaffected by differing set volumes. We compared one and three set training finding no difference in the magnitude of strength changes that occurred. Both approaches appeared to significantly improve ILEX strength. Thus, we can recommend that a single set approach to ILEX RT is a time efficient and sufficient approach for the purposes of conditioning the lumbar extensors. Indeed, considering evidence that RT can be used for reducing injury risk, this might also represent a time efficient approach for primary prevention of low back injury and pain, and future research should look to investigate this potential.

Additional Information and Declarations

Competing Interests

The authors declare there are no competing interests.

Author Contributions

James Steele analyzed the data, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Adam Fitzpatrick and Stewart Bruce-Low conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, reviewed drafts of the paper.

James Fisher reviewed drafts of the paper.

Human Ethics

The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):

Southampton Solent University Health, Exercise and Sport Science Ethics Committee provided written approval.

Funding

The authors declare there was no funding for this work

References

Adnan MA, Kadir ZA, Yusof SM, Mazaulan M, Mohamed MAAR. 2014. Single versus two sets of resistance training on muscular endurance, strength and fat percentages among recreationally trained men. In: Adnan R, Ismail SI, Sulaiman N, eds. Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Sports Science, Exercise, Engineering and Technology 2014 (ICoSSEET 2014). London: Springer. 249-258

American College of Sports Medicine. 2009. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 41(3):687-708

Bahr R, Andersen SO, Loken S, Fossan B, Hansen T, Holme I. 2004. Low back pain among endurance athletes with and without specific back loading—a cross sectional survey of cross country skiers, rowers, orienteerers, and nonathletic controls. Spine 29(4):449-454

Baker JS, Davies D, Cooper SM, Wong DP, Buchan DS, Kilgore L. 2013. Strength and body composition changes in recreationally strength-trained individuals: comparison of one versus three sets resistance-training programmes. BioMed Research International 2013:615901

Bono CM. 2004. Low back pain in athletes. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 86(2):382-396

Bruce-Low S, Smith D, Burnet S, Fisher J, Bissell G, Webster L. 2012. One lumbar extension training session per week is sufficient for gains and reductions in pain in patients with chronic low back pain ergonomics. Ergonomics 55(4):500-507

Carpenter DM, Graves JE, Pollock ML, Leggett SH, Foster D, Holmes B, Fulton MN. 1991. Effect of 12 and 20 weeks of resistance training on lumbar extension torque production. Physical Therapy 71(8):580-588

Carpinelli RN. 2012. Critical review of a meta-analysis for the effect of single and multiple sets of resistance training on strength gains. Medicina Sportiva 16(3):122-130

Cohen J. 1992. A power primer. Psychological Bulletin 112:155-159

Correa CS, Teixeira BC, Bittencourt A, Lemos L, Marques NR, Radaelli R, Kruger RL, Reischak-Oliveira A, Pinto RS. 2014. Effects of high and low volume of strength training on muscle strength, muscle volume and lipid profile in postmenopausal women. Journal of Exercise Science and Fitness 12(2):62-67

Fisher J, Steele J, Bruce-Low S, Smith D. 2011. Evidence based resistance training recommendations. Medicina Sportiva 15(3):147-162

Frohlich M, Emrich E, Schmidtbleicher D. 2010. Outcome effects of single-set versus multiple-set training—an advanced replication study. Research in Sports Medicine 18:157-175

Graned H, Morelli B. 1988. Low back pain among retired wrestlers and heavyweight lifters. American Journal of Sports Medicine 16(5):530-533

Graves JE, Holmes BL, Leggett SH, Carpenter DM, Pollock ML. 1991. Single versus multiple set dynamic and isometric lumbar extension training. Proceedings of the XIth International Congress of the World Confederation for Physical Therapy 1340-1342

Graves JE, Pollock ML, Carpenter DM, Leggett SH, Jones A, MacMillan M, Fulton M. 1990b. Quantitative assessment of full range of motion isometric lumbar extension strength. Spine 15(4):289-294

Graves JE, Pollock ML, Foster D, Leggett SH, Carpenter DM, Vuoso R, Jones A. 1990a. Effect of training frequency and specificity on isometric lumbar extension strength. Spine 15(6):504-509

Graves JE, Pollock ML, Leggett SH, Carpenter DM, Fix CK, Fulton MN. 1992. Limited range-of-motion lumbar extension strength training. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 24(1):128-133

Hass CJ, Garzarella L, De Hoyos D, Pollock ML. 2000. Single versus multiple sets in long term recreational weightlifters. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 32(1):235-242

Haykowksy MJ, Warburton DER, Quinney HA. 1999. Pain and injury associated with powerlifting training in visually impaired athletes. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 93:236-241

Inanami H. 1991. Iwai Orthopedic Hospital rehabilitation program. In: Paper presented at international spinal rehabilitation update 1991 symposium, Daytona.

Kadir ZA, Nadzalan AM, Yusof SM, Aiman S, Shapie MNM. 2014. Single- versus three-set resistance training on strength and power among untrained men. In: Adnan R, Ismail SI, Sulaiman N, eds. Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Sports Science, Exercise, Engineering and Technology 2014 (ICoSSEET 2014). London: Springer. 177-187

Kraft DE. 2002. Low back pain in the adolescent athlete. Paediatric Clinics of North America 49(3):643-653

Krieger JW. 2009. Single versus multiple sets of resistance exercise: a meta-regression. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 23(6):1890-1901

Lauersen JB, Bertelsen DM, Andersen LB. 2013. The effectiveness of exercise interventions to prevent sports injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. British Journal of Sports Medicine Online

Marshall PWM, McEwen M, Robbins DW. 2011. Strength and neuromuscular adaptation following on, four, and eight sets of high intensity resistance exercise in trained males. European Journal of Applied Physiology 111:3007-3016

Mayer J, Mooney V, Dagenais S. 2008. Evidence informed management of chronic low back pain with lumbar extensor strengthening exercises. The Spine Journal 8:96-113

Medeiros HS, Mello RS, Amorim MZ, Koch AJ, Machado M. 2013. Planned intensity reduction to maintain repetitions within recommended hypertrophy range. International Journal Sports Physiology and Performance 8(4):384-390

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. 2009. Low back pain: early management of persistent non-specific low back pain. London: Royal College of General Practitioners.

Office for National Statistics. 2000. Social trends 30. London: The Stationary Office.

Office for National Statistics. 2010. Social trends 40. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Otto RM, Carpinelli RN. 2006. A critical analysis of the single versus multiple set debate. Journal of Exercise Physiology 9(1):32-57

Peterson MD, Rhea MR, Alvar BA. 2004. Maximizing strength development in athletes: a meta-analysis to determine the dose–response relationship. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 18(2):377-382

Pollock ML, Graves JE, Leggett SH, Young WG, Gazzarella Z, Carpenter DM. 1991. Accuracy of counter weighting to account for upper body mass in testing lumbar extension strength. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 23:66

Pollock ML, Leggett SH, Graves JE, Jones A, Fulton M, Cirulli J. 1989. Effect of resistance training on lumbar extension strength. American Journal of Sports Medicine 17(5):624-629

Quinney HA, Warburton DER, Webster A, Calvert R, Haykowsky MJ. 1997. Powerlifting injuries associated with elite powerlifting training. Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology 20(5 Suppl 1):49

Radaelli R, Botton CE, Wilhelm EN, Bottaro M, Brown LE, Lacerda F, Gaya A, Moraes K, Peruzzolo A, Pinto RS. 2014b. Time course of low- and high-volume strength training on neuromuscular adaptations and muscle quality in older women. Age 36:881-892

Radaelli R, Botton CE, Wilhelm EN, Bottaro M, Lacerda F, Gaya A, Moraes K, Peruzzolo A, Brown LE, Pinto RS. 2013b. Low- and high-volume strength training induces similar neuromuscular improvements in muscle quality in elderly women. Experimental Gerontology 48(8):710-716

Radaelli R, Fleck SJ, Leite T, Leite RD, Pinto RS, Fernandes L, Simao R. 2014a. Dose respsonse of 1, 3 and 5 sets of resistance exercise on strength, Local muscular endurance and hypertrophy. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Epub ahead of print

Radaelli R, Wilhelm EN, Botton CE, Bottaro M, Cadore EL, Brown LE, Pinto RS. 2013a. Effect of two difference strength training volumes on muscle hypertrophy and quality in elderly women. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 53(Suppl 1–3):1-6

Radaelli R, Wilhelm EN, Botton CE, Rech A, Bottaro M, Brown LE, Pinto RS. 2014c. Effects of single vs. multiple-set short-term strength training in elderly women. Age 36(6):9720-9726

Rhea MR, Alvar BA, Burkett LN, Ball SD. 2003. A meta-analysis to determine the dose response for strength development. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 35(3):456-464

Robinson ME, Greene AF, O’Connor P, Graves JE, MacMillan M. 1992. Reliability of lumbar isometric torque in patients with chronic low back pain. Physical Therapy 72(3):186-190

Steele J. 2014. Intensity; in-ten-si-ty; noun. 1. Often used ambiguously within resistance training. 2. Is it time to drop the term altogether? British Journal of Sports Medicine 48:1859-1888

Steele J, Bruce-Low S, Smith D. 2013. A review of the specificity of exercises designed for conditioning the lumbar extensors. British Journal of Sports Medicine Online

Steele J, Bruce-Low S, Smith D. 2014a. A reappraisal of the deconditioning hypothesis in low back pain: review of evidence from a triumvirate of research methods on specific lumbar extensor deconditioning. Current Medical Research and Opinion 30(5):865-911

Steele J, Bruce-Low S, Smith D. 2014b. A review of the clinical value of isolated lumbar extension resistance training for chronic low back pain. PM&R 7(2):169-187

Stone MH. 1990. Muscle conditioning and muscle injuries. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 22(4):457-462

Sward L, Hellstrom M, Jacobsson B, Peterson L. 1990. Back pain and radiologic changes in the thoraco-lumbar spine of athletes. Spine 15(2):124-129

Tucci JT, Carpenter DM, Pollock ML, Graves JE, Leggett SH. 1992. Effect of reduced frequency of training and detraining on lumbar extension strength. Spine 17(2):1497-1501

Waddell G, Burton AK. 2000. Occupational health guidelines for the management of low back pain at work: evidence review. Occupational Medicine 51(2):126-135

Walker BF. 2000. The prevalence of low back pain: a systematic review of the literature from 1966 to 1998. Journal of Spinal Disorders 13(3):205-217

Whitley E, Ball J. 2002. Statistics review 4: sample size calculations. Critical Care 6:335-341

Winett RA. 2004. Meta-analyses do not support performance of multiple sets or high volume resistance training. Journal of Exercise Physiology 7(5):10-20

Wolfe BL, LeMura LM, Cole PJ. 2004. Quantitative analysis of single- vs. multiple-set programs in resistance training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 18(1):35-47

World Health Organisation. 1998. The World Health Report 1998: Life in the 21st century: a vision for all. Geneva: Office of Publications, World Health Organisation.