See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331298427

Influence of resistance training exercise order on muscle strength, hypertrophy,

and anabolic hormones in older women: a randomized controlled trial

Article  in  The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · February 2019

DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003147

CITATIONS READS

0 313

12 authors, including:

Crisieli Tomeleri Alex Silva Ribeiro

University of Campinas University of Northern Parana
43 PUBLICATIONS   222 CITATIONS    83 PUBLICATIONS   395 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

João Pedro Nunes Brad J Schoenfeld

Universidade Estadual de Londrina City University of New York City - Lehman College
21 PUBLICATIONS   31 CITATIONS    206 PUBLICATIONS   2,670 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Peridontitis, bacterial translocation and major depression View project

Role of immune and oxidative pathways in chronic kidney disease View project

All content following this page was uploaded by João Pedro Nunes on 06 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Original Research

Influence of Resistance Training Exercise Order on

Muscle Strength, Hypertrophy, and Anabolic
Hormones in Older Women: A Randomized
Controlled Trial
Crisieli M. Tomeleri,1,2 Alex S. Ribeiro,3 João Pedro Nunes,1 Brad J. Schoenfeld,4 Mariana F. Souza,5
Downloaded from https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3hucOGBbZM6O1RSig2BobC8uvLmRFhDik1ZgfQ5etOsawabtVHZyB3A== on 04/06/2019

Durcelina Schiavoni,1 Paulo S. Junior,1 Cláudia R. Cavaglieri,2 Paolo M. Cunha,1 Danielle Venturini,6
Décio S. Barbosa,6 and Edilson S. Cyrino1
1
Metabolism, Nutrition, and Exercise Laboratory, Physical Education and Sport Center, Londrina State University, Londrina, Brazil;
2
Faculty of Physical Education, University of Campinas—Unicamp, Campinas, Brazil; 3Center for Research in Health Sciences,
University of Northern Parana, Londrina, Brazil; 4Exercise Science Department, Cuny Lehman College, Bronx, New York; 5Department
of Physical Education, Federal University of Vale do São Francisco, Petrolina, Brazil; and 6Clinical Analyses Laboratory, Londrina State
University, Londrina, Brazil

Abstract
Tomeleri, CM, Ribeiro, AS, Nunes, JP, Schoenfeld, BJ, Souza, MF, Schiavoni, D, Junior, PS, Cavaglieri, CR, Cunha, PM, Venturini,
D, Barbosa, DS, and Cyrino, ES. Influence of resistance training exercise order on muscle strength, hypertrophy, and anabolic
hormones in older women: a randomized controlled trial. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000–000, 2019—The purpose of this study
was to analyze the effects of resistance training (RT) exercise order on muscle strength, hypertrophy, and anabolic hormones in older
women. Forty-four older women were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: a nonexercise control group (CON, n 5 15) and two RT
groups that performed a 12-week RT program in a multijoint to single-joint order (MJ-SJ, n 5 14), or in a single-joint to multijoint order
(SJ-MJ, n 5 15). The RT protocol (33/week) encompassed 8 exercises, with 3 sets of 10–15 repetitions performed per exercise.
One repetition maximum tests were used to evaluate muscle strength; dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry was used to estimate lean
soft tissue. Both training groups showed significant and similar increases in muscle strength (MJ-SJ 5 16.4%; SJ-MJ 5 12.7%) and
mass (MJ-SJ 5 7.5%; SJ-MJ 5 6.1%), whereas there were no significant changes in testosterone and insulin-like growth factor 1.
The results suggest that both approaches are similarly effective in eliciting morphofunctional improvements in older women.
Key Words: aging, elderly, strength training, pre-exhaustion, testosterone, insulin-like growth factor 1, muscle mass

Introduction based on data from acute investigations (34,35,41). Conversely,

a review of longitudinal studies on the topic by Simão et al. (37)
Aging leads to a marked decrease in both muscle strength and
concluded that the priority principle should be used for EO, re-
mass (dynapenia and sarcopenia, respectively), phenomena that
gardless of whether they involve large or small muscle groups, or
are associated with reduced fitness functionality, as well as life
multijoint or single-joint exercises. That is, the muscles or exer-
quality and expectancy (8,12). To counteract these neuromus-
cises that must be trained first should be those most important to
cular impairments among different exercise types, resistance
the main goal of the training program (37). However, a critical
training (RT) has been highly recommended for older adults (1).
examination of this review (7) suggested that the chronic studies
However, the adaptations induced by RT are dependent on the
used to support the hypothesis (13,38,40) are, in fact, divergent
manipulation of variables that comprise training prescription (1),
and equivocal, especially in regard to muscle hypertrophy.
which include factors such as intensity (e.g., external load)
Recent findings on this topic make it even more difficult to
(18,43), volume (e.g., number of sets) (10,26,33), and structure of
draw evidence-based conclusions as to a potential EO effect. Al-
the program, such as exercises order (EO) (28,29,37,38).
though one study suggested following the MJ-to-SJ order (5),
Regarding EO, current guidelines recommend initiating
another reinforced the concept of the priority principle (3), and 2
a training session with the exercises that involve larger muscle
others reported no influence of EO on improvements in muscle
groups before those that involve smaller muscle groups, multiple-
strength and lean mass (14,24). Nevertheless, these studies were
joint (MJ) before single-joint (SJ) exercises, and higher-intensity
all conducted in young adults and mainly with exercises targeting
before lower-intensity exercises (1). It is purported that this ap-
only the upper body, which limits the extrapolation of the results
proach leads to superior adaptations because of allowing the use
to other populations, especially the elderly considering their ac-
of higher training loads and volume loads (VLs) compared with
celerated age-related loss of lower limb muscle mass and
the opposite orders (1). Such recommendations, however, are
strength (8).
Address correspondence to João Pedro Nunes, joaonunes.jpn@hotmail.com. Investigating other outcomes may help to elucidate the po-
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 00(00)/1–7 tential influence of EO manipulation on RT-induced muscular
ª 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association adaptations, such as the training volume and load (25,27,32,42),

Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 RT Order in Older Women (2019) 00:00

and the anabolic hormonal response to RT (2,19,20,30). In Subjects

regard to EO and its influence on these variables, the performance
Fifty-four subjects were randomly divided into 1 of 3 groups:
of MJ-to-SJ in comparison with the opposite order may confer
a control group that did not perform any type of physical ex-
higher total training volume (28,38,40) and acute anabolic hor-
ercise (CON, n 5 18) and 2 training groups that performed the
monal concentrations (36,44). However, these results are not
RT program in a multijoint to single-joint order (MJ-SJ, n 5 18),
universal, and some studies indicate that EO does not influence
or in a single-joint to multijoint order (SJ-MJ, n 5 18). A total of
these outcomes (13,24,45). Therefore, further studies are needed,
44 subjects completed the experiment (MJ-SJ 5 15, SJ-MJ 5 14,
especially longitudinal ones, to determine whether EO influences
and CON 5 15). Withdrawals were attributed to personal
muscular adaptations. The underlying effects on training volume
reasons (MJ-SJ 5 2; SJ-MJ 5 2, CON 5 2), and surgery (MJ-SJ
potentially have important relevance as evidence shows a dose–
5 1; SJ-MJ 5 2, CON 5 1). All subjects completed health his-
response relationship between this variable and muscle hyper-
tory and physical activity questionnaires and met the following
trophy (33). Moreover, some researchers claim the acute systemic
inclusion criteria: female, 60 years old or more, physically in-
hormonal response is an important driver of muscular adapta-
dependent, free from cardiac or orthopedic dysfunction, not
tions; however, it remains controversial as to whether greater
receiving hormonal replacement therapy, and not performing
concentrations these serum hormones actually influence mor-
any regular physical exercise more than once a week over the 6
phofunctional responses, and the compelling body of literature
months preceding the beginning of the investigation. Subjects
would seem to indicate any effect is minimal (2,19–22,30,31).
passed a diagnostic graded exercise stress test with 12-lead
That said, it is not clear how chronic RT-induced alterations in
electrocardiogram reviewed by a cardiologist and were released
anabolic hormones may impact muscular gains.
with no restrictions for participation in this investigation. Ad-
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the effect
herence to the RT program was satisfactory, with all subjects
of 2 variations of EO (MJ-to-SJ, and SJ-to-MJ) on muscular
participating in .85% of the total sessions. Figure 1 presents
strength, muscle mass, and anabolic hormones (testosterone and
a schematic representation of subject recruitment and allocation
insulin-like growth factor 1 [IGF-1]) in older women. Based on
in this study. Written informed consent was obtained from all
potential positive alterations in RT volume, we hypothesized that
subjects after receiving a detailed description of study proce-
the MJ-SJ order would elicit greater improvements in strength,
dures. This investigation was conducted according to the Dec-
mass, and serum anabolic hormonal concentrations.
laration of Helsinki and was approved by the Londrina State
University Ethics Committee.

Methods
Experimental Approach to the Problem
This investigation was performed over a period of 16 weeks, with
12 weeks dedicated to the RT program and 4 weeks allocated for
measurements. Anthropometric, muscular strength, body com-
position evaluations, and blood work for biochemical analysis
were performed in weeks 1–2, and 15–16 for baseline and post-
intervention scores. A supervised progressive RT program was
performed between weeks 3–14 by the training groups. The
control group did not perform any type of physical exercise
during this period.
Procedures
Body Composition. Whole-body dual-energy X-ray absorpti-
ometry (DXA) (Lunar Prodigy, model NRL 41990; GE Lunar,
Madison, WI, USA) was used to assess upper limb lean soft tissue
(LST), lower limb LST, and trunk LST. Scans were performed
with the subjects lying supine along the table’s longitudinal cen-
terline axis. Feet were taped together at the toes to immobilize the
legs while the hands were maintained in a pronated position
within the scanning region. Subjects remained motionless during
the entire scanning procedure. Both calibration and analysis were

Figure 1. Flowchart of the study. MJ-SJ: Group that performed resistance training (RT) in
a multijoint to single-joint order. SJ-MJ: Group that performed RT in a single-joint to multijoint
order.

Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 RT Order in Older Women (2019) 00:00
performed by a skilled laboratory technician. Equipment cali-
bration followed the manufacturer’s recommendations. The
software generated standard lines that set apart the limbs from the
trunk and head. These lines were adjusted by the same technician
using specific anatomical points determined by the manufacturer.
Analyses were performed by the same technician who was blinded
to group identity throughout the investigation. To minimize
possible estimation errors, subjects were instructed to urinate
about 30 minutes before the measurements, to abstain from eat-
ing or drinking in the previous 4 hours, to avoid vigorous physical
exercise for at least 24 hours, and to abstain from alcoholic and
caffeinated beverages for at least 48 hours.
Muscular Strength. Maximal dynamic strength was evaluated
using the 1 repetition maximum (RM) test assessed on chest press,
knee extension, and preacher curl exercises performed in this
exact order. The subjects were instructed to try to accomplish 2
repetitions with the imposed load in 3 attempts in both exercises.
The rest period was 3–5 minutes between each attempt, and 5
minutes between exercises. The 1RM was recorded as the last
resistance lifted in which the subject was able to complete only
one single maximal repetition. Three 1RM sessions were sepa-
rated by 48 hours (ICC $ 0.96). The highest load achieved among
the 3 sessions was used for analysis in each exercise (23).
Biochemical Analysis. Serum levels of testosterone and IFG-1
were drawn from the antecubital vein 8 days after the last training
session. Subjects reported to the laboratory after a 12-hour fast
were instructed not to perform vigorous exercise for the preceding
24 hours and to abstain from alcohol and caffeinated beverages
72 hours before the blood collections. Measurements were per-
formed by standard methods in a University Hospital laboratory.
Samples were collected in vacutainers with a gel separator with-
out anticoagulant and were centrifuged for 10 minutes at 3,000
rpm for serum separation. Inter-assay and intra-assay CVs were
,10% as determined in human serum. Serum testosterone and
IGF-1 concentrations were determined by a chemiluminescence
method using a Liaison XL Immunoassay Analyzer (DiaSorin
S.p.A, Saluggia, Italy).
Resistance Training Program. Subjects performed a super-
visioned RT program for 12 weeks. Subjects from both training
groups (MJ-SJ and SJ-MJ) performed the same whole-body pro-
gram consisting of 8 exercises. Both groups performed 3 sets of
10–15RM for each exercise, with training performed 3 times per
week on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Subjects in MJ-SJ
used the following EO: chest press, seated row, triceps pushdown,
preacher curl, horizontal leg press, knee extension, leg curl, and
seated calf raise; those in SJ-MJ performed the following EO:
preacher curl, triceps pushdown, seated row, chest press, seated
calf raise, leg curl, knee extension, and horizontal leg press.
Subjects were instructed to inhale during the eccentric phase and
exhale during the concentric phase while maintaining a constant
velocity of movement at a ratio of approximately 1:2 seconds
(concentric and eccentric phases, respectively). Subjects were
afforded 1–2 minutes of rest between sets and 2–3 minutes be-
tween each exercise. Initial training load was set at ;60% of
1RM for tested exercises (1). Adjustments in initial training load
on these exercises and selection of initial load for the other non-
tested exercises were performed based on the research pro-
fessionals’ experience. The load was adjusted weekly using the
procedures described elsewhere (27). During the RT intervention,
the training load (kg) used and the number of sets and repetitions
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
| www.nsca.com
performed in all exercises was individually recorded in training
logs. The VL of each exercise during each session was obtained by
the formula: {exercise-VL 5 (load [kg] 3 sets [no.] 3 repetitions
[no.])} (11). The VL of each exercise during all the study was
calculated by summing the exercise-VL obtained in all sessions.
Session-VL was calculated by summing all the exercise-VL of the
session, whereas week-VL was calculated summing all the
session-VLs obtained during the week. The VLs of all sessions of
the RT program were summed, and this represented the total
training volume load (TTVL).
Statistical Analyses
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare
general characteristics, percentage changes, exercises VL, and
TTVL. An unpaired t-test was used to compare training atten-
dance between groups. The chi-square test was used to compare
clinical conditions (categorical variables). A mixed-model
repeated-measures ANOVA was applied for within- and
between-group comparisons. When the F-ratio was significant,
a Fisher’s post hoc test was used to identify the mean differences.
Effect size (ES) was calculated as post-training mean minus pre-
training mean divided by the pooled pre-training SD from the
respective training groups (9). To present the magnitude of the
differences between groups, the ES of the difference was calcu-
lated, which is the ES of the MJ-SJ group minus the ES of the SJ-
MJ group. An ES of 0.00–0.19 was considered trivial, 0.20–0.49
was considered as small, 0.50–0.79 as moderate, and $0.80 as
large (9). Significance was accepted at p # 0.05. Statistical anal-
yses were performed using the software package SPSS 22.0 (IBM,
Chicago, IL).
Results
At baseline, there was no significant difference between groups
for any variable analyzed as shown in Table 1. Training atten-
dance was not statistically different between training groups (p 5
0.170); of 36 total training sessions, MJ-SJ completed 35.6 6 1.2
sessions, whereas SJ-MJ completed 34.7 6 1.6.
The VL of all exercises and total VL (TTVL) are presented in
Table 2. Total VL of the weeks 1 and 12 and the increase in VL
throughout the weeks (i.e., D[Week 12 2 Week 1]) were similar (p .
0.05) between training groups, whereas the MJ-SJ performed
a greater TTVL (sum of total VL of the 12 weeks) than SJ-MJ (p ,
0.05). Analyses of the VL of the exercises separately indicate that
the MJ-SJ performed a greater VL in all exercises, reaching sta-
tistical significance (p , 0.05) in the chest press, leg press, and
knee extension.
The data for muscular strength, LST, and anabolic hormones
are presented in Table 3; percentage changes from pre-training to
post-training are presented in Figure 2. A significant (p , 0.05)
interaction was observed for muscular strength and LST, in which
both training groups presented higher changes compared with
baseline and the control group (p , 0.05) for chest press (MJ-SJ 5
112.8%, SJ-MJ 5 19.4%, CON 5 28.1%), knee extension
(MJ-SJ 5 120.7%, SJ-MJ 5 114.8%, CON 5 28.6%),
preacher curl (MJ-SJ 5 114.9%, SJ-MJ 5 110.9%, CON 5
23.1%), upper limb LST (MJ-SJ 5 18.3%, SJ-MJ 5 18.1%,
CON 5 22.5%), lower limb LST (MJ-SJ 5 16.4%, SJ-MJ 5
14.1%, CON 5 20.9%), and trunk LST (MJ-SJ 5 15.6%, SJ-MJ
5 14.3%, CON 5 22.1%), without differences between training
groups. No significant (p . 0.05) changes were observed before to
after intervention in any group for testosterone and IGF-1.
 RT Order in Older Women (2019) 00:00

Table 1
General characteristics of the sample at baseline.*†
MJ-SJ (n 5 15) SJ-MJ (n 5 14) Control (n 5 15) p
Age (y) 71.4 6 6.0 69.7 6 5.7 68.6 6 5.1 0.39
Body mass (kg) 66.1 6 11.0 64.9 6 11.2 66.2 6 11.2 0.93
Height (cm) 155.2 6 6.0 155.9 6 5.5 156.8 6 6.1 0.75
Body mass index (kg·m22) 27.4 6 4.0 26.7 6 4.5 26.8 6 3.7 0.88
Medical history‡
Hypertension (%) 46 54 63 0.39
Dyslipidemia (%) 27 27 38 0.56
Fibromyalgia (%) 0 9 6 0.53
Osteoarthritis (%) 9 10 13 0.78
Medical treatment‡
Statins (%) 27 27 38 0.57
Calcium blockers (%) 0 18 13 0.67
ACE—inhibitors/angiotensin II-antagonists (%) 27 36 44 0.67
Beta-blockers (%) 9 0 0 0.67
Duloxetine hydrochloride (%) 0 9 6 0.53
*ACE 5 angiotensin-converting enzyme; MJ-SJ 5 group that performed RT in a multijoint to single-joint order. SJ-MJ 5 group that performed RT in a single-joint to multijoint order.
†The physical characteristics values are displayed as mean and SD. The clinical conditions (medical history and medical treatment) are presented as percentage.
‡Chi-square test.

Table 4 presents the effects size values of the training groups
and the differences between them. Except for upper limb LST (ES:
0.00), differences of trivial to small magnitude (between 0.10 and
0.26 ES) were observed for LST and strength outcomes, favoring
MJ-SJ vs. SJ-MJ.
Discussion
The gains in LST and 1RM strength for both training groups were
significant in relation to the control group, indicating that both
tested EOs are effective to elicit such adaptations. However, the
changes were very similar between MJ-SJ and SJ-MJ (Table 3 and
4), suggesting that EO did not influence the muscle morpho-
functional gains in our cohort of untrained older women, that is,
both MJ-SJ and SJ-MJ were similarly effective in improving LST
and 1RM.
When analyzing each component individually, analysis of the
ES showed that the greatest differences between EO was for the
lower limbs, albeit these differences were of a small magnitude
(0.18 for LST and 0.26 for 1RM) and likely not of practical
meaningfulness. These findings are consistent with those of
Avelar et al. (5) in young adults. Augustsson et al. (4) provided
a possible mechanistic explanation for these results by
investigating electromyographic activity during 1 set of the leg
press (MJ exercise) with and without the previous performance of
a set of knee extensions (SJ exercise). Results indicated that per-
forming the knee extension before the leg press impaired quad-
riceps activation during the leg press. While this finding allows for
hypothesis generation, it remains to be determined whether the
observed differences in lower-body LST changes in our study
were in fact related to alterations in muscle activation.
Another novel finding of our investigation is the analysis of
changes in trunk lean mass. Results indicated the EO did not
influence the LST gains of this region because differences between
conditions were neither statistically significant (p . 0.05) nor
practically meaningful (relative ES 5 0.10). Previous studies in-
vestigating the acute effects of EO have shown that EO does not
change trunk muscle activity patterns (28). For example, Soares
et al. (39) observed that performing the triceps pushdown before
bench press had no effect on neuromuscular activity nor lactate
concentration. Similarly, Brennecke et al. (6) found that using the
pre-exhaustion system (i.e., SJ-MJ order with no rest between the
SJ and MJ exercises) did not alter pectoralis major muscle activity
during chest press when compared with non–pre-exhaustion.
Interestingly, while these investigations fail to show an influence
of EO on the pectoralis major during the bench press, there was

Table 2
Values of volume load (VL) of all exercises and total, progression in total VL, and TTVL according to training groups.*
Variables (ton) MJ-SJ (n 5 15) SJ-MJ (n 5 14) p
Chest press VL 40.8 6 8.1 34.6 6 4.5 0.02
Seated row VL 32.3 6 6.3 30.2 6 6.0 0.38
Triceps pushdown VL 29.8 6 5.3 28.9 6 5.9 0.70
Preacher curl VL 18.7 6 3.7 18.3 6 3.0 0.71
Leg press VL 96.1 6 15.6 79.0 6 14.2 0.01
Knee extension VL 29.2 6 5.8 25.3 6 4.5 0.04
Leg curl VL 11.9 6 2.8 10.3 6 2.2 0.10
Calf raise VL 59.7 6 8.6 55.3 6 9.1 0.20
Total TTVL 318.5 6 45.9 281.9 6 40.0 0.03
Week 1 VL 19.9 6 2.9 18.2 6 3.1 0.46
Week 12 VL 29.8 6 4.8 27.5 6 3.5 0.49
D[Week 12 2 Week 1] 9.89 6 2.8 9.24 6 3.1 0.57
*TTVL 5 total training volume load; MJ-SJ 5 group that performed RT in a multijoint to single-joint order; SJ-MJ 5 group that performed RT in a single-joint to multijoint order.

Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 RT Order in Older Women (2019) 00:00 | www.nsca.com

Table 3
Muscular strength, lean soft tissue, and anabolic hormones of the older women after the 12-week period of intervention.*†
MJ-SJ (n 5 15) SJ-MJ (n 5 14) Control (n 5 15)
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Interaction p
Chest press 1RM (kg) 42.3 6 6.4 47.7 6 8.1‡§ 44.5 6 8.0 48.7 6 6.9‡,§ 42.2 6 5.6 38.8 6 6.3‡ ,0.001
Knee extension 1RM (kg) 52.3 6 10.0 63.1 6 10.9‡§ 53.9 6 11.7 61.9 6 12.3‡§ 50.1 6 8.3 45.8 6 8.9‡ ,0.001
Preacher curl 1RM (kg) 19.5 6 3.6 22.3 6 4.3ठ20.1 6 4.4 22.3 6 3.8ठ19.4 6 2.5 18.8 6 2.6 ,0.001
Upper limb LST (kg) 3.6 6 0.3 3.9 6 0.3‡ 3.7 6 0.7 4.0 6 0.7‡ 4.0 6 0.6 3.9 6 0.6 ,0.001
Lower limb LST (kg) 12.5 6 1.3 13.3 6 1.5‡§ 12.1 6 2.0 12.6 6 2.0‡ 11.5 6 1.7 11.4 6 1.5 ,0.001
Trunk LST (kg) 17.8 6 1.8 18.8 6 1.8‡ 18.4 6 2.4 19.2 6 2.6‡ 19.0 6 2.4 18.6 6 2.6 ,0.001
Testosterone (ng/dL) 17.3 6 7.9 19.0 6 8.1 17.3 6 6.5 17.9 6 7.0 16.3 6 12.1 15.2 6 9.7 0.30
IGF-1 (mU/mL) 126.5 6 25.4 121.4 6 26.2 114.6 6 23.5 114.3 6 19.6 115.8 6 23.9 111.1 6 22.1 0.78
*LST 5 lean soft tissue; IGF-1 5 insulin-like growth factor 1; MJ-SJ 5 group that performed RT in a multijoint to single-joint order; SJ-MJ 5 group that performed RT in a single-joint to multijoint order.
†Data expressed as mean and SD.
‡p , 0.05 vs. pre-training.
§p , 0.05 vs. control group.

a reported increase in activity of the synergist triceps brachii
(6,28), indicating a possible benefit of the SJ-MJ order for the
elbow extensors. Our results do not seem to support such a ben-
efit, as upper limb LST was unaffected by EO. This finding is in
agreement with those of Spineti et al. (40) and Simão et al. (38)
who also found that EO had no effect on triceps brachii hyper-
trophy. Collectively, these results suggest that once a given
threshold is reached for neuromuscular activity, any further
increases would have no further effects on muscle hypertrophy,
making alterations in EO irrelevant from this standpoint. How-
ever, in the study by Simão et al. (38), EO did affect biceps brachii
hypertrophy, whereby only the SJ-MJ group realized a significant
increase in elbow flexor thickness from pre-training to post-
training. These conflicting findings are difficult to reconcile and
warrant further study.
In addition, research indicates that RT-induced gains in lean
mass occur in a volume-dependent manner (10,26); thus, the
small magnitude differences observed for lower limb and trunk
LST favoring MJ-SJ may be related to the higher TTVL noted in
this condition (Table 2). A higher TTVL for MJ-SJ compared with
the inverse order also has been reported in the literature (38,40).
Alternatively, changes in upper limb LST did not differ between
groups; predictably, the VLs (Table 2) for both exercises that
target the upper limb muscles (i.e., triceps pushdown and
preacher curl) were similar.
With regard to muscle strength, our results showed no signif-
icant differences between training groups. However, a greater VL
was observed favoring MJ-SJ regardless of whether the exercise
was MJ or SJ. Because 1RM strength gains may be greater when
training is performed with a higher VL (42), and considering the
MJ-SJ group presented higher VL in all exercises, this may help to
explain the somewhat more pronounced ES differences in muscle
strength favoring MJ-SJ. However, it remains questionable
whether the higher VL achieved in MJ-SJ would have practical
value to long-term strength development in our study’s target
population. Discrepancies with previous studies in EO may be
related to sex because those that observed an influence of EO on
strength gain were performed in male subjects (3,13,38,40),
whereas that of Nazari et al. (24) and our study were conducted
on women did not. Although uncertain, this can be because
women are more fatigue-tolerant than men (15); thus, the possible
fatigue-oriented influence of EO on training loads is minimized in
women. Studies comparing the effect of EO on male and female
subjects are needed.
Subjects in our experiment achieved significant increases in
LST after RT despite no statistically significant changes in chronic

Figure 2. Changes from preintervention to postintervention of the muscular strength and lean soft tissue (LST) according to
groups. §p , 0.05 vs. MJ-SJ and SJ-MJ. MJ-SJ 5 group that performed resistance training (RT) in a multijoint to single-joint
order; SJ-MJ 5 group that performed RT in a single-joint to multijoint order.

Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 RT Order in Older Women (2019) 00:00

Table 4 Tomeleri (postdoctoral) and M.F. Souza (doctoral), and the

Effects size values of muscular strength, LST, and anabolic National Council of Technological and Scientific Development
hormones according to training groups.*† (CNPq/Brazil) for the scholarship conferred to J.P. Nunes (scientific
MJ-SJ (n 5 15) SJ-MJ (n 5 14) Difference initiation), and for the grants conceded to E.S. Cyrino. This study
was partially supported by Ministry of Education (MEC/Brazil)
Chest press 0.75 0.58 0.17
Knee extension 1.00 0.74 0.26
and CNPq/Brazil (process number: 309455/2013-8).
Preacher curl 0.70 0.55 0.15
Upper limb LST 0.60 0.60 0.00 References
Lower limb LST 0.48 0.30 0.18
1. American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand. Progression models
Trunk LST 0.48 0.38 0.10 in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41:
Testosterone 0.24 0.08 0.15 687–708, 2009.
IGF-1 20.21 20.01 20.20 2. Ahtiainen JP, Pakarinen A, Kraemer WJ, and Häkkinen K. Acute hor-
monal and neuromuscular responses and recovery to forced vs maximum
*LST 5 lean soft tissue; IGF-1 5 insulin-like growth factor 1; MJ-SJ 5 group that performed RT in
repetitions multiple resistance exercises. Int J Sports Med 24: 610–618,
a multijoint to single-joint order; SJ-MJ 5 group that performed RT in a single-joint to multijoint
2003.
order.
3. Assumpção CO, Tibana RA, Viana LC, Willardson JM, and Prestes J.
†Relative effect size 5 MJ-SJ minus SJ-MJ. Effect size interpretation: 0.00–0.19 5 trivial,
Influence of exercise order on upper body maximum and submaximal
0.20–0.49 5 small, 0.50–0.79 5 moderate, and $0.80 5 large.
strength gains in trained men. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging 33: 359–363,
2013.
4. Augustsson J, Thomeé R, Hörnstedt P, Lindblom J, Karlsson J, and
circulating testosterone and IGF-1 levels. As no chronic changes Grimby G. Effect of pre-exhaustion exercise on lower-extremity muscle
were observed, results suggest that it is not obligatory to increase activation during a leg press exercise. J Strength Cond Res 17: 411–416,
baseline levels of testosterone and IGF-1 to induce muscle growth 2003.
5. Avelar A, Ribeiro AS, Nunes JP, Schoenfeld BJ, Papst RR, Trindade MCC,
in older women. Moreover, the influence of EO on acute hor-
et al. Effects of order of resistance training exercises on muscle hypertro-
monal elevations noted in previous work (MJ-SJ . SJ-MJ) phy in young adult men. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 44: 420–424, 2019.
(36,44) does not seem to translate in a chronic manner. These 6. Brennecke A, Guimarães TM, Leone R, Cadarci M, Mochizuki L, Simão
results are in line with previous studies that investigated the effects R, et al. Neuromuscular activity during bench press exercise performed
of RT on testosterone and IGF-1 in older women (16,17). Our with and without the preexhaustion method. J Strength Cond Res 23:
1933–1940, 2009.
study only measured serum hormonal values; it is possible the RT 7. Carpinelli R. Does the sequence of exercise in a resistance training session
program induced changes at the hormone receptor level, which in affect strength gains and muscular hypertrophy? A critical examination of
turn may have enhanced anabolic processes (22). the evidence. Med Sport 17: 37–50, 2013.
The study had several limitations of note. First, the study pe- 8. Clark BC and Manini TM. Functional consequences of sarcopenia and
dynapenia in the elderly. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 13: 271–276,
riod of 12 weeks can be considered fairly short; it remains to be
2010.
determined whether results would differ over a longer timeframe. 9. Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull 112: 155–159, 1992.
Second, the use of DXA, while well-established as a valid in- 10. Correa CS, Teixeira BC, Cobos RCR, Macedo RCO, Kruger RL, Carteri
strument to estimate body composition, lacks the sensitivity to RBK, et al. High-volume resistance training reduces postprandial lipaemia
detect subtle changes in muscle mass compared with direct im- in postmenopausal women. J Sports Sci 33: 1890–1901, 2015.
11. Cunha PM, Nunes JP, Tomeleri CM, Nascimento MA, Schoenfeld BJ,
aging modalities such as computed tomography and magnetic Antunes M, et al. Resistance training performed with single- and multiple-
resonance imaging. Finally, the study is specific to untrained older sets induces similar improvements in muscular strength, muscle mass,
women, and results cannot be generalized to other populations, muscle quality, and IGF-1 in older women: A randomized controlled trial.
and those with RT experience. J Strength Cond Res 2018. Epub ahead of print.
12. Dankel SJ, Loenneke JP, and Loprinzi PD. Dose-dependent association
between muscle-strengthening activities and all-cause mortality: Pro-
spective cohort study among a national sample of adults in the USA. Arch
Conclusion Cardiovasc Dis 109: 626–633, 2016.
13. Dias I, de Salles BF, Novaes J, Costa PB, Simão R. Influence of exercise
Both MJ-SJ and SJ-MJ are effective ways to structure exercise order on maximum strength in untrained young men. J Sci Med Sport 13:
order for promoting increases in strength and muscle mass in 65–69, 2010.
older women. 14. Fisher JP, Carlson L, Steele J, Smith D. The effects of pre-exhaustion,
exercise order, and rest intervals in a full-body resistance training in-
tervention. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 39: 1265–1270, 2014.
15. Grgic J and Schoenfeld BJ. A case for considering age and sex when pre-
Practical Applications scribing rest intervals in resistance training. Kinesiology 2018. Epub
ahead of print.
Both MJ-SJ and SJ-MJ are effective strategies to structure 16. Häkkinen K, Pakarinen A, Kraemer WJ, Häkkinen A, Valkeinen H, and
exercise order for promoting increases in strength and muscle Alen M. Selective muscle hypertrophy, changes in EMG and force, and
serum hormones during strength training in older women. J Appl Physiol
mass in older women. These results suggest that fitness pro-
91: 569–580, 2001.
fessionals can be flexible in the prescription of EO, allowing 17. Häkkinen K, Pakarinen A, Kraemer WJ, Newton RU, and Alen M. Basal
the individual to choose an order based on preference. This in concentrations and acute responses of serum hormones and strength de-
turn may help to promote better exercise adherence in an velopment during heavy resistance training in middle-aged and elderly
older, female population. men and women. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 55: B95–B105, 2000.
18. Kalapotharakos VI, Michalopoulos M, Tokmakidis SP, Godolias G, and
Gourgoulis V. Effects of a heavy and a moderate resistance training on func-
tional performance in older adults. J Strength Cond Res 19: 652–657, 2005.
Acknowledgments 19. Kraemer WJ and Ratamess NA. Hormonal responses and adaptations to
resistance exercise and training. Sports Med 35: 339–361, 2005.
The authors thank all the subjects for their engagement in this 20. Mangine GT, Hoffman JR, Gonzalez AM, Townsend JR, Wells AJ, Jajtner
study, the Coordination of Improvement of Higher Education AR, et al. Exercise-induced hormone elevations are related to muscle
Personnel (CAPES/Brazil) for the scholarship conferred to C.M. growth. J Strength Cond Res 31: 45–53, 2017.

Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 RT Order in Older Women (2019) 00:00
21. Morton RW, Oikawa SY, Wavell CG, Mazara N, McGlory C, Quad-
rilatero J, et al. Neither load nor systemic hormones determine resistance
training-mediated hypertrophy or strength gains in resistance-trained
young men. J Appl Physiol 121: 129–138, 2016.
22. Morton RW, Sato K, Gallaugher MPB, Oikawa SY, McNicholas PD,
Fujita S, et al. Muscle androgen receptor content but not systemic hor-
mones is associated with resistance training induced skeletal muscle hy-
pertrophy in healthy, young men. Front Physiol 9: 1373, 2018.
23. Nascimento MA, Januário RS, Gerage AM, Mayhew JL, Cheche Pina FL,
and Cyrino ES. Familiarization and reliability of one repetition maximum
strength testing in older women. J Strength Cond Res 27: 1636–1642, 2013.
24. Nazari M, Azarbayjani MA, and Azizbeigi K. Effect of exercise order of
resistance training on strength performance and indices of muscle damage
in young active girls. Asian J Sports Med 7: e30599, 2016.
25. Nunes JP, Ribeiro AS, Schoenfeld BJ, and Cyrino ES. Comment on:
“Comparison of periodized and non-periodized resistance training on
maximal strength: A meta-analysis”. Sport Med 48: 491–494, 2018.
26. Radaelli R, Fleck SJ, Leite T, Leite RD, Pinto RS, Fernandes L, et al. Dose-
response of 1, 3, and 5 sets of resistance exercise on strength, local mus-
cular endurance, and hypertrophy. J Strength Cond Res 29: 1349–1358,
2015.
27. Ribeiro AS, Avelar A, Schoenfeld BJ, Fleck SJ, Souza MF, Padilha CS, et al.
Analysis of the training load during a hypertrophy-type resistance training
programme in men and women. Eur J Sport Sci 15: 256–264, 2015.
28. Ribeiro AS, Nunes JP, Cunha PM, Aguiar AF, and Schoenfeld BJ. The
potential role of pre-exhaustion training in maximizing muscle hypertrophy:
A review of the literature. Strength Cond J 2018. Epub ahead of print.
29. Ribeiro AS, Schoenfeld BJ, and Nunes JP. Large and small muscles in
resistance training: Is it time for a better definition?. Strength Cond J 39:
33–35, 2017.
30. Rønnestad BR, Nygaard H, and Raastad T. Physiological elevation of
endogenous hormones results in superior strength training adaptation.
Eur J Appl Physiol 111: 2249–2259, 2011.
31. Schoenfeld BJ. Postexercise hypertrophic adaptations: A reexamination of
the hormone hypothesis and its applicability to resistance training pro-
gram design. J Strength Cond Res 27: 1720–1730, 2013.
32. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Contreras B, Cappaert T, Silva Ribeiro A, Alvar
BA, et al. A comparison of increases in volume load over 8 Weeks of low-
versus high-load resistance training. Asian J Sports Med 7: e29247, 2016.
33. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, and Krieger JW. Dose-response relationship
between weekly resistance training volume and increases in muscle mass:
A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sports Sci 35: 1073–1082, 2017.
Copyright © 2019 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
View publication stats
| www.nsca.com
34. 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.
35. Simão R, Farinatti PT, Polito MD, Viveiros L, Fleck SJ, Maior AS, et al.
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.
36. Simão R, Leite RD, Speretta GF, Maior AS, de Salles BF, de Souza
Junior TP, et al. Influence of upper-body exercise order on hormonal
responses in trained men. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 38: 177–181,
2013.
37. Simão R, de Salles BF, Figueiredo T, Dias I, and Willardson JM. Exercise
order in resistance training. Sports Med 42: 251–265, 2012.
38. Simão R, Spineti J, de Salles BF, Oliveira LF, Matta T, Miranda F, et al.
Influence of exercise order on maximum strength and muscle thickness in
untrained men. J Sport Sci Med 9: 1–7, 2010.
39. Soares EG, Brown LE, Gomes WA, Corrêa DA, Serpa ÉP, da Silva JJ, et al.
Comparison between pre-exhaustion and traditional exercise order on
muscle activation and performance in trained men. J Sport Sci Med 15:
111–117, 2016.
40. Spineti J, de Salles BF, Rhea MR, Lavigne D, Matta T, Miranda F, et al.
Influence of exercise order on maximum strength and muscle volume in
nonlinear periodized resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 24:
2962–2969, 2010.
41. Spreuwenberg LP, Kraemer WJ, Spiering BA, Volek JS, Hatfield DL, Sil-
vestre R, et al. Influence of exercise order in a resistance-training exercise
session. J Strength Cond Res 20: 141–144, 2006.
42. Steele J, Fisher JP, Assunção AR, Bottaro M, and Gentil P. The role of
volume-load in strength and absolute endurance adaptations in adoles-
cent’s performing high- or low-load resistance training. Appl Physiol Nutr
Metab 42: 193–201, 2017.
43. Steib S, Schoene D, and Pfeifer K. Dose-response relationship of resistance
training in older adults: A meta-analysis. Med Sci Sports Exerc 42:
902–914, 2010.
44. Vatani DS, Ahmadi S, and Salavati R. Comparison of the effects of re-
sistance exercise orders on number of repetitions, serum IGF-1, testos-
terone and cortisol levels in normal-weight and obese men. Asian J Sports
Med 7: e30503, 2016.
45. West DWD, Cotie LM, Mitchell CJ, Churchward-venne TA, Macdonald
MJ, and Phillips SM. Resistance exercise order does not determine post-
exercise delivery of testosterone, growth hormone, and IGF-1 to skeletal
muscle. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 38: 220–226, 2013.