Within the resistance training and muscle growth research space, the importance of resistance training volume is often touted as one of, if not, the single most important variable to consider when designing a resistance training intervention, especially as it pertains to resistance trained individuals. Objectives: To examine the literature used to suggest that volume is the primary driver of skeletal muscle growth. Design and Methods: Non-systematic review. Research articles were collected using search terms such as resistance training OR resistance training volume. These terms were combined with AND: quadriceps muscle thickness, OR biceps muscle thickness, and other muscle-site related terms. Results: Studies in resistance trained individuals that suggest a dose-response relationship between resistance training volume and muscle growth have observed a magnitude of muscle growth that is greater than what is typically observed. For example, it may be common to observe a 0.1-0.25 cm increase in quadriceps muscle thickness following an intervention. However, studies have observed changes as high as 0.6-0.72 cm in quadriceps muscle thickness. In addition, there are several investigations demonstrating similar growth between lower and higher volume training protocols in resistance trained individuals. Conclusions: While resistance training volume may very well be one of the more important factors influencing the hyper trophic response in resistance trained individuals, we would suggest that the current evidence is much more ambiguous. Replication of the current findings may be necessary before strong conclusions are drawn. While some threshold of training volume is likely necessary for muscle growth, the current recommendations may exaggerate its importance.

Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the influence of increases in toe-flexor strength (TFS) through specific training on sprint and jump performances. Design: This study conducted 8 weeks of training with a two-period cross-over design. Methods: Eleven male sprinters performed TFS training (4 weeks, four times per week) which consisted of 6 strength exercises, and 60-m sprint, squat (SJ), countermovement (CMJ) and rebound continuous jumps (RJ), and TFS normalized to body mass were measured before and after the training period. Spatiotemporal and ground reaction force (GRF) variables during the 60-m sprint were also obtained. Results: There were no significant correlations of the normalized TFS with 50-m sprint time (r = 0.363, p = 0.272), SJ (r = 0.119, p = 0.728) and CMJ heights (r = −0.041, p = 0.906), and RJ height (r = 0.368, p = 0.266), contact time (r = −0.215, p = 0.526) and index (r = 0.380, p = 0.249) at the first measurement. Through the TFS training, normalized TFS increased from 0.331 ± 0.071 kg/kg to 0.384 ± 0.086 kg/kg (16.0%) for the average of two feet. All the sprint and jump performances, as well as the spatiotemporal and GRF variables during sprinting, did not show statistically significant changes through TFS training. Conclusions: These results indicate that, whereas 4 weeks of TFS training could increase normalized TFS for well-trained sprinters, the increase in normalized TFS could not be effective for improving sprint and jump performances for well-trained sprinters.

Objective: This study aimed to examine whether the addition of lower-body aerobic exercise as a warm-up (LGW) improves upper-body resistance training (RT) performance more than a specific warm-up (SW) alone and to investigate whether maximal muscular strength modulates the performance-enhancing effect of LGW. Design: Randomized crossover design. Methods: Fourteen male participants performed 3 sets of 80%1RM bench press under two warm-up conditions. In one con dition, the participants performed only a SW for the bench press exercise. In the other condition (LGW + SW), the participants performed cycling for 20 minutes and the SW for the bench press exercise. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the total number of repetitions (REPTOTAL) and the mean propulsive velocity (MPV) of the barbell during the concentric phase between the SW and LGW + SW. Also, 1RM did not modu late the relationship between SW and LGW + SW for REPTOTAL and maximum MPV among all sets. Conclusion: This study suggests that the LGW in addition to the SW does not have large additional effects on performance during upper-body RT. In addition, maximal muscular strength does not modulate the performance-enhancing effect of the LGW on upper-body RT performed at 80%1RM.