sports

Article
Resistance Training Volume Load with and without
Exercise Displacement
W. Guy Hornsby 1, * , Jeremy A. Gentles 2 , Paul Comfort 3 , Timothy J. Suchomel 4 ,
Satoshi Mizuguchi 2 and Michael H. Stone 2
1 Athletic Coaching Education, College of Physical Activity and Sport Sciences, West Virginia University,
Morgantown, WV 26505, USA
2 Center of Excellence for Sport Science and Coach Education, Department of Sport, Exercise, Recreation and
Kinesiology, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN 37614, USA;
GENTLESJ@mail.etsu.edu (J.A.G.); harahara10@hotmail.com (S.M.); STONEM@mail.etsu.edu (M.H.S.)
3 Directorate of Sport, Exercise and Physiotherapy, University of Salford, Salford,
Greater Manchester M5 4WT, UK; p.comfort@salford.ac.uk
4 Department of Human Movement Sciences, Carroll University, Waukesha, WI 53186, USA;
timothy.suchomel@gmail.com
* Correspondence: william.hornsby@mail.wvu.edu; Tel.: +1-304-293-0851




Received: 10 September 2018; Accepted: 31 October 2018; Published: 3 November 2018


Abstract: Monitoring the resistance training volume load (VL) (sets × reps × load) is essential
to managing resistance training and the recovery–adaptation process. Subjects: Eight trained
weightlifters, seven of which were at national level, participated in the study. Methods: VL was
measured both with (VLwD) and without (VL) the inclusion of barbell displacement, across twenty
weeks of training, in order to allow for comparisons to be made of these VL calculating methods.
This consisted of recording the load, repetition count, and barbell displacement for every set executed.
Comparisons were made between VL and VLwD for individual blocks of training, select training
weeks, and select training days. Results: Strong, statistically significant correlations (r ≥ 0.78,
p < 0.001) were observed between VL and VLwD between all training periods analyzed. t-tests
revealed statistically significant (p ≤ 0.018) differences between VL and VLwD in four of the seven
training periods analyzed. Conclusion: The very strong relationship between VL and VLwD suggest
that a coach with time constraints and a large number of athletes can potentially spare the addition of
displacement. However, differences in percent change indicate that coaches with ample time should
include displacement in VL calculations, in an effort to acquire more precise workload totals.

Keywords: volume load; athlete monitoring; exercise displacement; resistance training

1. Introduction
Appropriate quantification of resistance training volume is believed to be a necessary step in
understanding the link between training and the associated adaptations. Detailed resistance training
studies report estimates of work from all resistance training sessions, allowing their studies to be
reproducible [1–4], and coaches commonly track the volume of their exercise prescriptions. Acute and
prolonged physiological responses to stress derived from resistance training can include hormonal
alterations [5,6], increased energy expenditure [7], and neuromuscular fatigue [8]. Häkkinen [8]
demonstrated that the greater the amount of resistance training work performed during a single
training session, the greater the physiological disturbance [8]. Thus, more accurate estimations of
work (training volume) could be beneficial in associating training volume with potential fatigue and
recovery resulting from the disturbance of homeostasis. Monitoring resistance training volume can be
critical for several reasons:

Sports 2018, 6, 137; doi:10.3390/sports6040137 www.mdpi.com/journal/sports

Sports 2018, 6, 137 2 of 10

1. It allows coaches to monitor whether or not the pre-planned training volume closely matches the
volume actually performed in training;
2. It allows coaches to better achieve targeted volume ranges for specific phases of training that
involve a targeted objective (e.g., a strength endurance phase requires a greater training volume
than a power phase);
3. It allows superior management of training volume from one phase (e.g., block) of training to the
next (e.g., a desired drop in training volume);
4. It allows long term monitoring (e.g., when an athlete returns to a similar block of training, are
they performing more work?).

Exercise displacement is calculated by the distance covered for a given movement task, and for
free weight barbell exercises, displacement can be assessed as the distance the barbell travels during the
concentric (vertical) portion of a resistance exercise for a single repetition. In a review on quantifying
workloads in resistance training, Haff [9] explains that the mechanical work performed by an athlete
can be quantified by multiplying the athlete’s force times displacement for each repetition. From a
study by McBride et al. [10], in which four different volume assessment protocols were compared
using force plate assessments, the authors stated that “total work” (TW) (force (N) × displacement
(m)) was the “most valid” of the four resistance training quantification protocols examined. This was
based upon TW being a direct measure of mechanical work and the other three volume estimations
(reps × load, time under tension, and repetitions × (body mass − shank mass + external load)) each
having specific limitations, as noted by the investigators [10].
Volume load (VL) (repetitions × load) has been reported in long-term resistance training studies
for the past several decades. Haff [9] explains that displacement can be added to VL, the most common
resistance training volume calculation, thus resulting in VLwD (repetitions × load × displacement).
This may be warranted, because, for a practitioner, measuring the forces generated for every repetition
is impractical. In 1987, Stone et al. [11] published a descriptive study on high repetitions (sets of 10) of
back squats and an individual’s physiological response. To the authors knowledge this study was the
first to include displacement in VL calculations. Over the last several years, Stone and colleagues have
begun to use VLwD as an estimate of work in resistance training studies, for example, Bazyler et al.
2017 [4], Bayzler et al. 2018 [12], Caroll et al. [13], and Hornsby et al. [14].
Over the course of a macrocycle, exercises can change based on the overall goals of a specific
block of training. Thus, the tracking of training volume from one phase of training to the next is
a common consideration for the management of resistance volume. Block periodization models
commonly involve a transition across the macrocycle from periods of higher volume to periods of
lower volume. Though changes in the number of overall repetitions plays a major role in resultant
volume alterations (e.g., decreasing across a macrocycle), so too does the manipulation of training load,
as well barbell displacement alterations, via changes in exercises. Exercises commonly change from
one phase (block) to the next due to changes in the coaches’ adaption objective(s). For example, during
the accumulation block, training may consist of a greater amount of large range of motion exercises,
whereas during a realization block, with a taper, a greater amount of partial range of motion exercises
may be included in the training program. Exercise intensity (i.e., external load for a given resistance
exercise) is commonly factored into volume estimations (e.g., VL), and its impact on an individual’s
acute physiological response (e.g., heavier or lighter loads) has been well examined [5].
McBride et al.’s [10] study demonstrated that exercise displacement provides a more accurate
assessment of resistance training volume. However, McBride et al. [10] calculated exercise displacement
along with force output and did not compare displacement to VL. Previously, no longitudinal study
has been performed comparing changes in VL with and without exercise displacement. Practitioners
are likely less interested in the accuracy of their resistance training volume assessment compared to
how well changes in their volume calculation reflect changes in an athlete’s overall workload. Based on
Haff [9] and McBride et al. [10], the inclusion of exercise displacement into VL provides a more accurate
estimation of training volume. The authors of the present study were interested in how worthwhile it
Sports 2018, 6, 137 3 of 10

would be, for the coach or strength and conditioning specialist, to include displacement measures along
with VL calculations; specifically, is it worth the additional time to collect? If differences exist between
VL and VLwD it can be surmised that VLwD is a more accurate estimation of work performed. Thus,
the aim of this study was to compare the VL and VLwD during individual blocks of training, select
training weeks, and select training days to determine if there are meaningful differences between these
methods. For example, if differences exist between VL and VLwD when changing from one specific
training period to another, this would suggest that VLwD is worth the additional time. The authors
hypothesized that the inclusion of barbell displacement would, for certain periods of training (e.g.,
when greater changes in volume occur), result in differences in reported workloads performed by the
weightlifters. The authors considered it advantageous to observe training in athletes in an ecologically
valid environment (i.e., normal training and coaching conditions) over a prolonged period, as this
better mirrors real-world training situations.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Approach to the Problem

All of the training data was retrospective information collected, over the course of twenty weeks,
by weightlifting coaches and sport scientists of the East Tennessee State University Designated Olympic
Training Site as part of an ongoing athlete monitoring program. The training took place in the Exercise
and Sport Science Laboratory weight room on the campus of East Tennessee State University. Data
collected was approved to be utilized for the purposes of this study by East Tennessee State University’s
Institutional Review Board.
Of particular interest was the comparison between various training phases (e.g., training blocks),
training weeks (microcycles), and individual training days (intra-microcycles), and specifically for
situations in which greater contrasts existed in terms of repetitions and/or training intensity. For
example, sets of 10 repetitions compared to sets of five repetitions, or a heavier training day (90%–95%)
compared to a lighter training day (70%–75%).

2.1.1. Athletes
Data from eight well-trained weightlifters (Table 1) were utilized in the study, across five months
of training. Of the eight, seven were national level weightlifters (three U.S. National Championship
qualifiers, one American Open qualifier, three National Collegiate Championship qualifiers) and one
was a regional level weightlifter. Most likely due to the lifters being experienced, little variation existed
in displacement within a particular exercise for the same weightlifter (SD < 0.05 m). The variability in
body size (height = 174 ± 8.4 cm, body mass = 88.4 ± 22.7 kg) were of important consideration as this
heavily influences the exercise displacements.

Table 1. Descriptive weightlifters’ data.

Height Body Mass RT Age WL Age Clean and

Sex N Snatch (kg)
(cm) (kg) (years) (years) Jerk (kg)
Males 5 178 ± 6.9 103.1 ± 13.7 9.8 ± 5.1 5.1 ± 5.0 107.4 ± 27.6 135 ± 32.9
Females 3 166.2 ± 4.6 64.8 ± 2.9 5.3 ± 2.5 3.0 ± 1.4 55.3 ± 6.4 69 ± 8.5
RT = resistance training, WL = weightlifting.

2.1.2. Procedures
The monitoring of VL across six phases consisted of recording the load and repetition count,
whilst factoring in barbell displacement, during the concentric portion of the exercise. Displacement
for each exercise was measured using the V-scope 120 (Lipman Electronic Engineering Ltd., Ramat
Hahayal, Israel). Created for real time bar path analysis for weightlifters, the V-scope involves placing
a cap on the end of a weightlifting barbell that contains an ultrasound emitting device. Three infra-red
Sports 2018, 6, 137 4 of 10

emitting towers, interfaced with a computer, detect the ultrasound beam. Through a triangulation
method, accurate measurements of displacement and barbell path can be made [14,15].
V-scope methods utilized were based on Stone et al. [15]. Displacement measurements took
place before the five months of training began, and the mean was taken from three trials for each
exercise for each weightlifter. High intra-class correlations coefficients (ICCs > 0.9) were displayed
for displacement during each exercise. Reliability and validity of the V-scope (frequency: 66 Hz) was
assessed by moving the V-scope cap by hand, vertically, along a straight edge, across a pre-determined
distance (50 cm). The total displacement difference between trials was less than 1 cm (<1%), and high
ICCs were obtained (>0.99). Exercises involving two concentric portions involved measuring segments
of the full movement and adding the segments together (e.g., clean = clean pull into the catch position
+ front squat out of the catch).
Mathematically, calculating VL times displacement (VLwD) entailed multiplying the displacement
for the given exercise by the number of repetitions and the given load for each repetition (sets ×
repetitions × load × displacement).

2.2. Training Prescription

The training prescription involved six distinct training blocks (active rest > strength endurance >
taper > active rest > STRENGTH/power > strength/POWER) and was based on scientific literature
and common training approaches in weightlifting [13,14,16,17]. Variation is a key component of
periodized training prescription, which allows a coach to manage and guide training variables toward
a specific adaptation goal [13,14]. Figure 1 displays the set and repetition scheme executed by the
weightlifters, and demonstrates that different training blocks involved different set and repetition
prescription. Table 2 displays the relative intensities for the 20 weeks of training. Relative intensities
(e.g., percentage of set-rep best) allow for proper fatigue management and, along with the set and
repetition scheme and the exercises, dictate the resistance training volume [14,17].

Figure 1. Sets and repetitions with corresponding training foci across the 20 weeks.

Table 3 displays all of the exercises the weightlifters performed during the 20 weeks, and Table 4
displays the average displacements for each exercise, ordered from largest to smallest displacement.
These exercises are commonly used in training prescriptions for weightlifters [14], and have been used
successfully for athletes of other sports as well [4,12]. Though barbell displacements are certainly
specific to an individual athlete, this order of displacements is likely to be found for other athletes due
to the common demands of a given exercise. For example, a snatch requires moving the bar farther
than a snatch pull from the floor, regardless of the height and limb lengths of the athlete.
Sports 2018, 6, 137 5 of 10

Table 2. Percentage of set-rep best across the 20 weeks of training.

Week Monday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1 60–65% 60–65%
2 60–65% 65–70% 65–70%
3 75–80% 70–75% 80–85% 80–85%
4 80–85% 70–75% 80–85% 85–90%
5 85–90% 70–75% 75–80% 90–95%
6 75–80% 70–75% 75–80% ≥95%
7 75–80% 70–75% 80–85% 80–85%
8 80–85% 75–80% 80–85% 85–90%
9 85–90% 75–80% 75–80% 90–95%
10 90–95% 80–85% 70–75% 90–95%
11 75–80% 70–75% 75–80% ≥95%
12 70–75% 70–75% 75–80%
13 75–80% 70–75% 70–75%
14 75–80% 70–75% 80–85% 80–85%
15 80–85% 75–80% 80–85% 85–90%
16 85–90% 75–80% 75–80% 90–95%
17 90–95% 80–85% 70–75% 90–95%
18 75–80% 75–80% 80–85% 80–85%
19 80–85% 75–80% 80–85% 85–90%
20 85–90% 80–85% 70–75% ≥95%
Note: Tuesdays and Sundays were always rest days.

Table 3. Exercises for each block of training.

Block 1: Weeks 3–6 Block 2: Weeks 7–11 Block 3: Weeks 14–17 Block 4: Weeks 18–20
Monday/Thursday Monday/Thursday Monday/Thursday Monday/Thursday
AM AM AM AM
Squats Squats (drop after 2nd week) Squats Squats
PM PM PM PM
Front squats Push press Push press Push jerks (front squat 1st rep)
Standing press Change to push jerks on week 3 Jerk recoveries Jerk recoveries
Wednesday Wednesday Wednesday Wednesday
AM AM AM AM
CGSS CGSS CGSS CGSS
CGMTP CG pulls—floor CG pulls—floor CG pulls—floor
PM PM PM PM
CGSS (20% less) CGSS (20% less) CGSS (20% less) CGSS (20% less)
CG pulls—knee CG pulls—knee CG pulls—knee CG pulls—knee
CGMTP CGMTP CGMTP CGMTP
SLDL SLDL SLDL SLDL
Saturday Saturday Saturday Saturday
SGSS SGSS SGSS SGSS
Undulating snatch 10 × 1 Undulating snatch 5 × 1 Undulating snatch 5 × 1 Undulating snatch 5 × 1
(up to 85% of best on week 4) (up to 90% of best on week 4) (up to 85% of best on week 4) (up to 90% of best on week 2)
SG–SLDL Undulating clean and jerk 5 × 1 Undulating clean and jerk 5 × 1 Undulating clean and jerk 5 × 1
Lateral raises (up to 90% of best on week 3) (up to 80% of best on week 3) (up to 90% on week 1)
SG–SLDL SG–SLDL SG–SLDL
SG: Snatch grip; CG: Clean grip; CGSS: Clean grip shoulder shrugs; CGMTP: Clean grip mid-thigh pull; SLDL:
Stiff-legged deadlifts; SGSS: snatch grip shoulder shrugs.

2.3. Statistical Analyses

Statistical analyses involved the comparison of VL and VLwD (SPSS statistical analysis software
version 19, Armonk, NY, USA), which was used to determine Pearson correlation coefficients (r =
−1.0 to 1) to identify relationships between training blocks, as well as select training weeks and select
training days [17]. Correlations were evaluated as follows: Small (0.1), moderate (0.3), and large (0.5).
A test of multi-collinearity [18] was performed (VL vs. VLwD) displaying a variance inflation factor
(VIF) of 1.0. t-tests (p < 0.05) were used to analyze the changes (percent differences) from one training
block to the next, as well as the changes between two selected training weeks and within a selected
training week. An a priori alpha level was set at p ≤ 0.05. Cohen’s d effect sizes were also calculated to
Sports 2018, 6, 137 6 of 10

determine the magnitude of any observed differences, and classified as trivial (< 0.20), small (0.20–0.59),
moderate (0.60–1.19), large (1.20–1.99). and very large (≥2.0) [19].

Table 4. The exercises executed during the weightlifters’ 20 weeks of training and the corresponding displacements.

Exercise Mean Displacement (m)

Snatch 2.21 (±0.12)
Clean 1.88 (±0.08)
Power snatch 1.53 (±0.14)
Snatch grip pull from floor 1.08 (±0.10)
Clean grip pull from floor 1.01 (±0.07)
Push press 0.76 (±0.10)
Back squat 0.71 (±0.04)
Push jerk 0.70 (±0.10)
Jerk 0.68 (±0.10)
Front squat 0.68 (±0.06)
Overhead squat 0.67 (±0.05)
Clean grip pull from knee 0.67 (±0.08)
Snatch grip SLDL 0.58 (±0.07)
Press 0.56 (±0.05)
Clean grip SLDL 0.55 (±0.06)
Behind Neck Press 0.53 (±0.05)
Mid-thigh pull—Snatch grip 0.47 (±0.04)
Mid-thigh pull—Clean grip 0.39 (±0.05)
Lockouts 0.07 (± 0.01)
Note: Exercises involving two concentric portions required the full movement segments to be measured, and then
the segments were added together (e.g., snatch = snatch pull + overhead squat).

3. Results

3.1. Relationships
Volume load (VL) correlated strongly with VLwD for all training phases, weeks, and days
analyzed (Table 5). All of the correlations were large and significant (r > 0.78, p < 0.001).

Table 5. Comparison between volume load (VL) and volume load with displacement (VLwD) for
various portions of the training prescription.

Description of Training Period Pearson’s r

Active rest one—2 weeks 0.99
Strength endurance—4 weeks 0.98
Taper—5 weeks 0.99
Active rest two—2 weeks 0.94
STRENGTH/power—4 weeks 0.98
strength/POWER—3 weeks 0.99
Week of 3 × 10 0.96
Week of 3 × 5 0.93
Training day—3 × 5, 90%–95% 0.96
Training day—3 × 5, 70%–75% 0.78

3.2. Percent Change

Percent change data displayed two key findings. Percent change for both VL and VLwD appeared
to demonstrate the same general direction of change in resistance training work for various periods of
training (Table 6). However, the results of the paired samples t-tests demonstrated that the percent
change between VL and VlwD was statistically different in four of the seven periods analyzed (Table 6).
Additionally, six of the seven periods displayed a strong effect size (Table 6).
Sports 2018, 6, 137 7 of 10

Table 6. Comparison between VL and VLwD.

Description of Training Period Change Measurement % ∆ AVG. p Value Cohen’s d

Active rest to strength endurance VL 1303.1 (±495.0) 0.002 0.63
VLwD 1018.0 (±400.1)
Strength endurance to taper VL −38.5 (±5.0) 0.00 2.45
VLwD −27.9 (±3.6)
Taper to active rest VL −91.8 (±2.3) 0.105 0.27
VLwD −91.2 (±2.1)
Active rest to strength/POWER VL 1181.8 (±307.7) 0.003 0.93
VLwD 929.2 (±231.1)
STRENGTH/power to strength/POWER VL −20 (±11.4) 0.613 0.06
VLwD −20.6 (±10.4)
Week of 3 × 10 to week of 3 × 5 VL −30.2 (±10.1) 0.018 0.8
VLwD −21.1 (±12.2)
Heavier training day (90%–95%) to lighter
VL −32.9 (±18.3) 0.089 0.77
training day (70%–75%)
VLwD −21.5 (±10.3)

3.3. Visual Representation

Coaches often “track” resistance training volumes via graphical representations [14,20]. Comparable
to the percent change data, Figure 2 demonstrates that fluctuations for VL and VLwD were similar. Simply
put, when VL rose, VLwD rose, and when VL decreased, so too did VLwD. However, the amount of
space between VL and VLwD did fluctuate from week to week.

Figure 2. VL and VLwD changes across the 20 Weeks.

4. Discussion
Good fatigue management is paramount. Importantly, the percent changes for four of the seven
time periods investigated demonstrated statistically significant differences. These differences were
displayed when a comparison was made between high(er) and low(er) volume training blocks, in
which there was a large contrast in training volume. Similar results were noted for heavy and light
days. Thus, if a coach wants to be assured that changes in training volume are best represented it is
worth including displacement (VLwD).
In addition to disparities in volume as a result of changes in the number of prescribed repetitions,
another important consideration for changes in VLwD, and not necessarily VL, is changes in range
of motion (displacement) due to changes in exercise selection from one training block to the next.
For example, full movements may eventually switch to partial movements later in the macrocycle.
Sports 2018, 6, 137 8 of 10

A switch from a full movement exercise to a partial movement exercise (e.g., full squat replaced with
a quarter squat) is common when a coach implements either a taper or an in-season maintenance
program. Heavier loading is typically used with partial movements (but less displacement) and thus,
when comparing a quarter squat (see Figure 3 below) to a full squat, the load for the quarter squat will
be much higher for the same relative training intensity. However, when taking into account barbell
displacement, the VL is less than when compared to executing the full movement. Table 7 illustrates
this difference. Additionally, based on the data generated from the current study, differences in relative
work when switching from block to block can be underestimated using only VL (Table 7).

Figure 3. Exercise displacement comparison. (A) Weightlifter executing a full squat; and (B) weightlifter
executing a quarter squat.

Table 7. Example: Volume load and training intensity (average load) comparison of the full squat and
quarter squat.

Sets and Reps L VL TI D VLwD

Full squat
1 × 10 60 600 60 0.55 330
1 × 10 100 1000 100 0.55 550
3 × 10 130 3900 130 0.55 2145
Total (50 reps) 5500 3025
Mean reps per set (10) 110 110 0.55
Quarter squat L VL TI D VLwD
1 × 10 60 600 60 0.28 168
1 × 10 150 1500 100 0.28 420
3 × 10 200 6000 130 0.28 1680
Total (50 reps) 8100 2268
Mean reps per set (10) 162 162 0.28
Note: In this scenario the VL for quarter squats provide an inflated estimate of work. Thus, if comparisons are being
made between the two exercise sessions, VLwD can provide a more accurate estimate of the work performed and
the physiological impact. L: Load (kg); VL: Volume load (sets × repetitions × load); TI: Training intensity (VL/reps
(kg)); D: Bar displacement (or weight displacement) in meters; VLwD: VL × displacement (kg).

Although the use of VLwD requires some additional effort, its use provides a more accurate
characterization of loading. Based on the data in the present study, a coach may mischaracterize the
changes between loading periods by using VL. Factors influencing a potential difference between a
change in VL and VLwD likely include the changes in the number of partial versus full movements,
and the relative alterations between loading periods (e.g., heavy and light days, high volume block to
low volume block).
Sports 2018, 6, 137 9 of 10

5. Conclusions
The direct measurement of weight training volume can involve measuring forces, displacement
of the external load, and the energy expenditure. Thus, researchers can examine various methods of
estimating weight training volume by comparing it to direct measurements. Volume load has been
shown to be a reasonable estimate of work when compared to the direct measurements of forces and
barbell displacement (i.e., mechanical work) in the back squat; however, is not as accurate as when
including exercise displacement (one of the two variables for quantifying mechanical work) [10].
The process of calculating VLwD is certainly more time consuming than for VL; however, sound
planning and structure can minimize the burden and provide a rather efficient system. This can
include: (1) Measuring exercise displacements before implementing several blocks of training (e.g., the
first day of team training for a given year or season); and (2) inserting the displacements for the given
exercises into excel, allowing VLwD to be “auto-calculated”, following data imputation (e.g., loads and
repetitions). Based on the present study findings and previous research [10], despite the calculation
VLwD being more time-consuming compared to VL (i.e., load x repetitions), coaches and sports
scientists are recommended to use VLwD to provide estimates of work in a more meaningful fashion.

Author Contributions: W.G.H., data analyses and manuscript preparation; J.A.G., data analyses and manuscript
preparation; P.C., manuscript preparation; T.S., manuscript preparation; S.M., collection of data, data analyses,
and manuscript preparation; M.H.S., collection of data, data analyses, and manuscript preparation. All Authors
have read and approved the final version of the manuscript, and agree with the order of the presentation of
the authors.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Garcia-Pallares, J.; Sanchez-Medina, L.; Carrasco, L.; Diaz, A.; Izquierdo, M. Endurance and neuromuscular
changes in world-class level kayakers during a periodized training cycle. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2009, 106,
629–638. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Painter, K.B.; Haff, G.G.; Ramsey, M.W.; McBride, J.; Triplett, T.; Sands, W.A.; Lamont, H.S.; Stone, M.E.;
Stone, M.H. Strength Gains: Block Vs Dup Weight-Training among Track and Field Athletes. Int. J. Sports
Physiol. Perform. 2012, 7, 161–169. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Hornsby, W.G.; Haff, G.G.; Sands, W.A.; Ramsey, M.W.; Stone, M.H.; Stone, M.E. Strength Characteristics for
Isometric and Dynamic Mid-Thigh Pulls in Collegiate Thrower’s across 11 Weeks of Training. Gazzetta Medica
Italiana 2013, 172, 929–740.
4. Bazyler, C.D.; Mizuguchi, S.; Harrison, A.P.; Sato, K.; Kavanaugh, A.A.; DeWeese, B.H.; Stone, M.H. Changes
in muscle architecture, explosive ability, and track and field throwing performance throughout a competitive
season and after a taper. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2017, 31, 2785–2793. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Häkkinen, K. Neuromuscular and hormonal adaptations during strength and power training. A. review.
J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 1989, 29, 9–26.
6. Nunes, J.A.; Crewther, B.T.; Ugrinowistch, C.; Tricoli, V.; Viveiros, L.; de Rose, J.; Aoki, M.S. Salivary
hormones and immune responses to three resistance exercise schemes in elite female athletes. J. Strength
Cond. Res. 2011, 25, 2322–2327. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Scott, B. Quantifying the immediate recovery energy expenditure of resistance training. J. Strength Cond. Res.
2011, 25, 1159–1163. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Häkkinen, K. Neuromuscular Fatigue and Recovery in Male and Female Athletes during Heavy Resistance
Exercise. Int. J. Sports Med. 1993, 14, 53–59. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Haff, G.G. Quantifying Workloads in Resistance Training: A. Brief Review. Prof. Strength Cond. 2010, 19,
31–40.
10. McBride, J.M.; McCaulley, G.O.; Cormie, P.; Nuzzo, J.L.; Cavill, M.J.; Triplett, N.T. Comparison of methods to
quantify volume during resistance exercise. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2009, 23, 106–110. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sports 2018, 6, 137 10 of 10

11. Stone, M.H.; Pierce, K.; Godsen, R.; Wilson, G.D.; Blessing, D.; Rozenek, R.; Chromiak, J. Heart Rate and
Lactate Levels During Weight-Training Exercise in Trained and Untrained Men. Phys. Sportsmed. 1987, 15,
97–105. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Bayzler, C.D.; Mizuguchi, S.; Sole, C.J.; Suchomel, T.J.; Sato, K.; Kavanaugh, A.A.; Deweese, B.H.; Stone, M.H.
Jumping Performance is Preserved but not Muslce Thickness in Collegaite Volleyball Players After a Taper.
J. Strength Cond. Res. 2018, 32, 1020–1028. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Caroll, K.M.; Bernards, J.R.; Bayzler, C.D.; Taber, C.B.; Stuart, C.A.; Deweese, B.H.; Sato, K.; Stone, M.H.
Divergent Performance Outcomes Following Resistance Training Using Repetition Maximums or Relative
Intensity. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2018, 29, 1–28. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Hornsby, W.G.; Gentles, J.A.; McDonald, C.J.; Satoshi, M.; Ramsey, M.W.; Stone, M.H. Maximum Strength,
Rate of Force Development, Jump Height, and Peak Power Alterations in Weightlifters across Five Months
of Training. Sports 2017, 13, 78. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Stone, M.H.; O’Bryant, H.S.; McCoy, L.; Coglianese, R.; Lehmkuhl, M.; Schilling, B. Power and maximum
strength relationships during performance of dynamic and static weighted jumps. J. Strength Cond. Res.
2003, 17, 140–147. [PubMed]
16. Stone, M.H.; Pierce, K.C.; Sands, W.A.; Stone, M.E. Weightlifting: Program Design. Natl. Strength Cond.
Assoc. J. 2006, 28, 10–17. [CrossRef]
17. DeWeese, B.H.; Hornsby, W.G.; Stone, M.; Stone, M.H. The training process: Planning for strength–power
training in track and field. Part 2: Practical and applied aspects. J. Sport Health Sci. 2015, 4, 318–324.
[CrossRef]
18. O’Brien, R.M. A Caution Regarding Rules of Thumb for Variance Inflation Factors. Qual. Quant. 2007, 41,
673–690. [CrossRef]
19. Hopkins, W.G. A New View of Statistics: A Scale of Magnitude for Effect Statistics. Sportscience. Available
online: http://http://www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/effectmag.html (accessed on 14 August 2015).
20. Sands, W.A.; Kavanaugh, A.A.; Murray, S.R.; McNeal, J.; Jemni, M. Modern Techniques and Technologies
Applied to Training and Performance Monitoring. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2017, 12, 63–72. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).