This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.

The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 13 (2010) 65–69

Original paper

Influence of exercise order on maximum strength in

untrained young men
Ingrid Dias a,b , Belmiro Freitas de Salles b,c , Jefferson Novaes b ,
Pablo Brando Costa d , Roberto Simão b,∗
a Castelo Branco University, Physical Education Post-Graduation Program in Human Science Motricity – PROCIMH – LABIMH,
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
b Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, School of Physical Education and Sports, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
c Laboratory for Research in Microcirculation, Department of Physiological Sciences, State University of Rio de Janeiro,

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

d Department of Health and Exercise Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK – USA

Received 13 May 2008; received in revised form 2 September 2008; accepted 4 September 2008

Abstract
It is generally recommended that exercises involving large muscle groups be placed at the beginning of a training session. However,
methodological training studies manipulating exercise order and the investigation of its influence on strength have not been conducted.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the influence of exercise order on strength in untrained young men after 8 weeks of
training. Prior to the training program, participants were randomly assigned to three groups. One group began with large and progressed
toward small muscle group exercises (G1) while another performed the opposite order (G2). The third group did not exercise and served as
a control (CG). Training frequency was three sessions per week with at least 48 h of rest between sessions for a total of 24 sessions in the
8-week period. One repetition maximum (1RM) was assessed for all exercises at baseline and after 8 weeks of training. Both G1 and G2
resulted in significant increases of 16.3–77.8% in 1RM compared to baseline (p < 0.05). However, only the small muscle group exercises
revealed significant differences between groups (p < 0.05). The results demonstrated exercise order of small muscle group exercises might be
particularly important during the initial stages of strength training in untrained young men.
© 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Sports Medicine Australia.

Keywords: Muscle strength; Weight lifting; Exercise test; Physical fitness; Physical education and training

1. Introduction performing large muscle group exercises first can be changed

depending on the goals of the training program.
It is generally recommended that exercises involving large Sforzo and Touey3 suggested if the goal is to maximise
muscle groups be placed at the beginning of a training ses- the strength gains for a particular muscle group, then the
sion because this exercise sequence would result in the ability exercises for that muscle group should be completed first.
to resist higher loads.1–3 The rationale for performing large Similarly, Simão et al.5,6 observed that performing either
muscle group exercises in the beginning of a training session large or small muscle group exercises at the end of an
is that total work (repetitions × resistance) is greater when exercise sequence resulted in significantly fewer repetitions
compared to performing small muscle group exercises or compared to when the same exercises were performed early
single-joint exercises first, and may result in greater long- in an exercise sequence. In contrast, Spreuwenberg et al.7
term strength gains.2,3 However, Kraemer and Ratamess4 showed exercise order can facilitate the power developed
suggested the general recommendation for exercise order of during an exercise placed at the end of a training session
despite reductions in total work and number of repetitions
∗ Corresponding author. performed in a set. Finally, Gentil et al.8 recommended if the
E-mail address: robertosimao@ufrj.br (R. Simão). strength and conditioning professional wants to maximise the

1440-2440/$ – see front matter © 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Sports Medicine Australia.
doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2008.09.003
 Author's personal copy

66 I. Dias et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 13 (2010) 65–69

athlete’s performance in one specific resistance exercise, this attempts with a rest interval of 5 min between 1RM attempts
exercise should be placed at the beginning of the training and 10 min were allowed before the start of the test for the
session. next exercise. Following the 8 weeks of training, the 1RM
To our knowledge, methodological training studies manip- test was performed similarly to the pre-training test in order
ulating exercise order and the investigation of the influence to compare the strength changes in those exercises. Again,
on strength have not been conducted. Therefore, the purpose the highest load achieved in both days was considered as the
of the present study was to examine the influence of exer- 1RM.
cise order of a training session on strength during 8 weeks of The exercise order for G1 was barbell bench press (BP),
training in untrained young men. machine lat pulldown (LPD), seated machine shoulder press
(SP), free weight standing biceps curl with a straight bar
(BC), and machine triceps extension (TE). The exercise
2. Methods order for G2 was TE, BC, SP, LPD, and BP. All exercises
for both groups were performed for three sets. In addi-
Forty-eight young men from the Brazilian Navy tion, an experienced strength and conditioning professional
Academy were randomly assigned to three groups. One supervised all training sessions. Frequency of the training
group (18.7 ± 1.5 years, 68.5 ± 4.0 kg, 167.1 ± 2.0 cm, program was three sessions per week with at least 48 h
24.4 ± 1.5 kg m−2 ) trained with large muscle group exer- of rest between sessions and 2 min between sets and exer-
cises progressing toward small muscle group exercises (G1) cises. Twenty-four sessions were performed during the 8
(n = 16). The second group (19.4 ± 1.4 years, 72.7 ± 4.4 kg, weeks training period. The resistance for a given exercise
170.2 ± 4.5 cm, 25.2 ± 1.9 kg m−2 ) trained using the exact was increased whenever an individual could perform more
opposite exercise order beginning with small muscle group than the prescribed number of repetitions (8–12RM) of a
exercises progressing toward large muscle group exer- particular exercise. Prior to each training session, the par-
cises (G2) (n = 17). The third group (18.8 ± 1.6 years, ticipants performed a specific warm up, consisting of 20
73.9 ± 4.4 kg, 171.3 ± 3.0 cm, 25.2 ± 1.9 kg m−2 ) served as repetitions with approximately 50% of the resistance used in
a control group (CG) (n = 15) and continued performing the the first exercise of the training session. During the exercise
regular military physical activity component during the 8- sessions, participants were verbally encouraged to perform
week period, but not the resistance training program. There all sets to concentric failure and the same definitions of
were no significant differences between groups in anthropo- a complete range of motion used during the 1RM testing
metric parameters or one repetition maximum (1RM) prior were used to define completion of a successful repetition.
to training. In addition, the military diet was the same for There was no attempt to control the velocity of the repeti-
all participants throughout the course of the study. Inclusion tions performed. Adherence to the program was 100% for all
criteria were the following characteristics for all participants: groups.
(a) were physically active, but had not taken part in resistance The total work performed by G1 and G2 were calculated
training for at least 6 months prior to the start of the study; by multiplying the number of sessions by the number of
(b) not performing any type of regular physical activity for sets and resistance load (session × sets × load). Intra-class
the duration of the study other than the prescribed resistance correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to determine 1RM
training and the regular military physical activity; (c) did test–retest reliability. The ICC method was used based on
not have any functional limitations for the resistance training a repeat measurement of maximal strength. Coefficient of
program or the 1RM tests; (d) not presenting any medi- variation (CV) was used to calculate within-subject variation
cal condition that could influence the training program; and (CV% = [standard deviation/mean] × 100).9 The statistical
(e) did not use any nutritional supplements. All participants analysis was initially done by the Shapiro–Wilk normal-
read and signed an informed consent document after being ity test and by the homocedasticity test (Bartlett criterion).
informed of the testing and training procedures to be per- All variables presented normal distribution and homocedas-
formed during the study. The experimental procedures were ticity. Following two-way (time) by three-way (groups)
approved by the Ethics Committee of the Castelo Branco ANOVAs (time [baseline vs. 8-week training] × group [G1
University. vs. G2 vs. CG]) were used to analyse for differences
The 1RM tests were performed on two nonconsecutive among the groups in the 1RM and kilogram of body
days for all exercises as described previously.5,6 Two weeks mass (1RM load/body mass). When appropriate, follow-up
of familiarisation took place prior to the 1RM tests (four analyses were performed using Fisher post hoc tests. T-
sessions). The 1RM tests were performed following the tests were used to analyse for differences between 1RM
anthropometric measurements on the first day. After 48 h, test and retest, pre- and post-training, and between the
the 1RM tests were repeated to determine test–retest reliabil- total work in both training programs. An alpha level
ity. The heaviest load achieved on either of the test days was of p ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all
considered the pre-training 1RM. No exercise was allowed comparisons. Statistica version 7.0 (Statsoft, Inc., Tulsa,
in the 48 h between 1RM tests, so as not to interfere with the OK) statistical software was used for all statistical analy-
reliability results. The 1RM was determined in fewer than five ses.
 Author's personal copy

I. Dias et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 13 (2010) 65–69 67

Table 1
Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) and range values in kg for each exercise, between 1RM tests and retests at baseline and after 8 weeks.
Group Bench press Lat pulldown Shoulder press Biceps curl Triceps extension
Baseline 8 week Baseline 8 week Baseline 8 week Baseline 8 week Baseline 8 week
G1 (n = 16) r = 0.99, r = 0.99, r = 0.94, r = 0.98, r = 0.98, r = 0.99, r = 0.96, r = 0.94, r = 0.99, r = 0.96,
59.7–61.9 83.1–83.3 48.8–50.0 72.0–72.9 33.8–34.6 50.7–51.8 27.5–30 32.0–33.5 21.8–24.6 32.1–32.8
G2 (n = 17) r = 0.99, r = 0.99, r = 0.96, r = 0.96, r = 0.98, r = 0.98, r = 0.97, r = 0.97, r = 0.99, r = 0.98,
61.7–62.0 73.2–73.7 54.3–55.5 65.5–67.2 35.0–37.1 49.6–51.5 29.5–31.7 39.2–40.1 25.5–25.2 44.1–46.4
CG (n = 15) r = 0.98, r = 0.99, r = 0.99, r = 0.97, r = 0.98, r = 0.98, r = 0.98, r = 0.96, r = 0.98, r = 0.99,
56.5–57.0 57.7–58.0 46.6–47.0 46.8–48.0 32.1–32.8 31.0–31.8 27.7–28.0 26.6–24.5 22.3–22.6 21.0–21.3
r = ICC.

3. Results ences were found in small muscle group exercises between

the different exercise sequences, suggesting exercise order
Table 1 presents ICC, in addition to ranges, for 1RM test may be particularly important during the initial stages of
and retest of each exercise at baseline and after 8 weeks. resistance training in untrained men, mainly in small muscle
Table 2 shows 1RM loads and the kilogram of body mass, group exercises.
along with CVs, at baseline and after 8 weeks of resistance Hansen et al.10 compared two protocols; one using eight
training. Fig. 1 presents 1RM progression in G1 and G2 after sets of 8–12 repetitions of arm exercises versus eight sets of
8 weeks. 10RM of the leg press followed by the same arm training.
After the normalisation per kilogram of body mass, with The authors of the study reported large muscle group exer-
the exception of the TE that did not present differences cises for the lower body performed early in a training session
between trained groups, all of the other results remained the have a stimulatory effect on small muscle group exercises
same. There were no differences (p = 0.725) between total for the upper-body performed later in the same session.10 In
work performed by G1 (36682,612.0 ± 3819,151.4 kg) and contrast to what was found by Hansen et al.,10 our findings
G2 (35040,160.0 ± 9916,373.5 kg). indicated arm exercises provided greater strength gains when
performed early in the training session. This discrepancy can
be associated to the fact that the sessions investigated in our
4. Discussion study involved only exercises for the upper-body and had the
same total work. This difference in total work might have
The purpose of this study was to examine the influence influenced the results of the study by Hansen et al.,10 as well
of exercise order of a training session on strength during 8 as the fact the exercises used were for different parts of the
weeks of training in untrained young men. To our knowl- body.
edge, this was the first study to investigate the chronic effects It is very difficult to compare our results with previous
of different exercise orders of equal total work. The current similar studies,5,6,8 since none of these studies investigated
results revealed no significant differences in strength gains in chronic effects of exercise order on strength. In addition,
large muscle group exercises. In contrast, significant differ- all previous studies used trained participants. However, the

Fig. 1. 1RM strength progression (%) in each exercise of G1 and G2 after 8 weeks of resistance training (mean).
 Author's personal copy

68 I. Dias et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 13 (2010) 65–69

current study investigated the influence of resistance train-

29.9 ± 4.4a,b,c
0.48 ± 0.07a,b

0.61 ± 0.11a,b
44.1 ± 6.6a,b

0.30 ± 0.05
ing sessions in untrained men. The different exercise orders

21.0 ± 3.8
did increase strength differently in small muscle group exer-
8 week

14.7

14.9

10.9
cises throughout the course of the study, but the same did
Triceps extension

not occur in the large muscle group exercises. Nevertheless,

it should be noted both training groups revealed significant
0.32 ± 0.07

0.35 ± 0.08

0.32 ± 0.08
21.8 ± 5.1

25.0 ± 5.0

22.3 ± 5.6
increases in strength over the course (8 weeks) of the training
Baseline

period in all exercises (Table 2). Another interesting point to

23.3

20.0

11.1
observe was the strength progression in each exercise in both
sequences (Fig. 1). The 1RM strength progression was higher
0.47 ± 0.05a,b,c

for the exercises performed earlier in a training session for

32.0 ± 2.4a,b,c

0.55 ± 0.06a,b
39.2 ± 3.7a,b

0.38 ± 0.04
both training groups.
26.6 ± 2.9

The current results are in agreement with previous

8 week

studies3,5,6 and suggest whenever an exercise is performed

7.5

9.4

3.7

last in an exercise sequence or training session, perfor-

mance of that particular exercise may be negatively affected.
0.41 ± 0.06

0.41 ± 0.05

0.39 ± 0.05
Biceps curl

27.5 ± 3.1

29.5 ± 3.3

27.7 ± 3.1

This is true whether the exercise involves large or small

Baseline

muscle groups. This negative effect on exercises performed

11.2

11.1

11.1

later in a training session needs to be considered when

designing programs for both athletes and fitness enthusiasts.
Simão et al.5 investigated the influence of different exer-
0.75 ± 0.11a,b

0.68 ± 0.09a,b
50.7 ± 7.3a,b

49.6 ± 5.6a,b

0.44 ± 0.04

cise sequences on the number of repetitions performed in

31.0 ± 2.1

a group composed of both men and women with at least

8 week

14.3

11.2

2 years of recreational resistance training experience. The

6.7

exercise sessions, which were similar to our study, consisted

Shoulder press

of performing three sets of each exercise with a resistance

0.50 ± 0.08

0.48 ± 0.08

0.46 ± 0.06
35.0 ± 5.0

32.1 ± 3.5

of 10RM and 2-min rest periods between sets and exer-

1RM loads, kilogram of body mass, and CV at baseline and after 8 weeks of resistance training (mean ± S.D.).

Baseline

32 ± 5.1

cises. The results demonstrated performing either large or

15.9

14.2

10.9

small group exercises for the upper-body at the end of an

exercise sequence resulted in significantly fewer repetitions
compared to when the same exercises were performed early
72.0 ± 11.6a,b
1.07 ± 0.18a,b

0.91 ± 0.15a,b
65.5 ± 7.8a,b

0.68 ± 0.08

in an exercise sequence. A more recent study by Simão

47.8 ± 7.5

et al.6 suggested a similar phenomenon in trained women

8 week

16.1

11.9

15.6

when both upper- and lower-body exercises are performed

in the same exercise session. The previously mentioned
studies3,5,6 demonstrated that an exercise performed last in
Lat pulldown

0.72 ± 0.15

0.75 ± 0.16

0.66 ± 0.08

a training session, is negatively affected in an acute man-

48.8 ± 9.4

54.3 ± 8.6

46.6 ± 6.9
Baseline

ner whether the exercise involves large or small muscle

19.2

15.8

14.8

groups. Our findings revealed those effects can influence

the results also in a chronic manner. These results suggest
the exercise most important for the training goals should
83.1 ± 10.9a,b
1.23 ± 0.17a,b

1.02 ± 0.18a,b
73.2 ± 8.3a,b

be placed at the beginning of the training session for larger

0.82 ± 0.09
57.8 ± 7.1

strength gains, independent of the size of the muscle groups

8 week

13.1

11.3

12.2

involved.
b Significant difference from control group.

Early muscular strength gains (during the first few weeks

a Significant difference from baseline.

c Significant difference from group 2.

of training) are predominantly mediated by the increase

Bench press

59.7 ± 12.4
0.88 ± 0.18

0.86 ± 0.17

0.80 ± 0.10

in motor unit firing rate.11 Thus, an increase in muscu-

61.7 ± 9.1

56.5 ± 7.5
Baseline

lar strength without hypertrophy is commonly observed in

20.7

14.7

13.2
CV = coefficient of variation.

the initial stages of resistance training. However, we are

unaware if our results are associated with neuromuscular
adaptations only, given that muscle volume and hypertro-
phy were not assessed. Therefore, additional investigations
kg/body mass

kg/body mass

kg/body mass

with longer interventions and using procedures to assess

1RM (kg)

1RM (kg)

1RM (kg)
CG (n = 15)
G1 (n = 16)

G2 (n = 17)
CV (%)

CV (%)

CV (%)

muscle volume and hypertrophy are necessary to promote

Table 2

Group

further understanding of the chronic effects from the exercise

order.
 Author's personal copy

I. Dias et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 13 (2010) 65–69 69

5. Conclusion References

The present study suggests exercise order during a resis- 1. American College of Sports Medicine. Position stand: progression
tance training session involving upper-body single- and models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc
2002;34(2):364–80.
multi-joint exercises may influence strength gains during 8 2. Fleck SJ, Kraemer WJ. Designing resistance training programs. 3rd
weeks of training in untrained young men. The results of the ed. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2004.
present study are relevant to the design of training sessions 3. Sforzo GA, Touey PR. Manipulating exercise order affects muscular
with the goal of maximising muscle strength in untrained performance during a resistance exercise training session. J Strength
young men during the initial 8 weeks of resistance training. Cond Res 1996;10(1):20–4.
4. Kraemer WJ, Ratamess NA. Fundamentals of resistance train-
ing: progression and exercise prescription. Med Sci Sports Exerc
2004;36(4):674–88.
Practical implications 5. Simão R, Farinatti PTV, Polito MD, Maior AS, Fleck SJ. Influ-
ence of exercise order on the number of repetitions performed and
• The two resistance training programs utilised promote perceived exertion during resistive exercises. J Strength Cond Res
2005;19(1):152–6.
strength gains in untrained young men. 6. Simão R, Fleck SJ, Polito MD, Viveiros L, Fleck SJ. Influence of
• Exercise order appears to be important to improve strength exercise order on the number of repetitions performed and perceived
during 8 weeks of resistance training in young men. exertion during resistance exercise in women. J Strength Cond Res
• If an exercise is important for the training goals of a pro- 2007;21(1):23–8.
gram, then it should be placed at the beginning of the 7. Spreuwenberg LPB, Kraemer WJ, Spiering BA, Volek JS, Hat-
field DL, Silvestre R, et al. Influence of exercise order in a
training session, whether or not it is a large or a small resistance-training exercise session. J Strength Cond Res 2006;20(1):
muscle group exercise. 141–4.
8. Gentil P, Oliveira E, Rocha Júnior VA, Carmo J, Bottaro
M. Effects of exercise order on upper-body muscle activa-
Conflict of interest tion and exercise performance. J Strength Cond Res 2007;21(4):
1082–6.
9. Levinger I, Goodman C, Hare DL, Jerums G, Toia D, Selig S. The reli-
None declared. ability of the 1RM strength test for untrained middle-aged individuals.
J Sci Med Sport 2009;12:310–6.
10. Hansen S, Kvorning T, Kjaer M, Sjogaard G. The effect of short-
Acknowledgments term strength training on human skeletal muscle: the importance of
physiologically elevated hormone levels. Scand J Med Sci Sports
2001;11:347–54.
Dr. Roberto Simão would like to thank the Brazilian 11. Gabriel DA, Kamen G, Frost G. Neural adaptations to resistive exercise
National Board for Scientific and Technological Develop- mechanisms and recommendations for training practices. Sports Med
ment (CNPq) and Research and Development Foundation of 2006;36(2):133–49.
Rio de Janeiro State (FAPERJ) for the research grant support.