More importantly: a progressive increase in workload or a frequent change in training?

In order to progress continuously with your training, it is necessary to progressively increase the stress that that training causes. After a while, our body adapts to a certain workout, after which we make less and less progress.

One good example of adaptation to training is found in the work of Volek and colleagues (2013). In this study, subjects increased muscle mass by 3.3 kilograms during the right three months of training. In the next three months of training, the increase was only an additional 0.2 kilograms - the body simply adapted to training in the first three months.

How to make continuous progress? Two philosophies

In order to have continuous progress the body needs more stimuli. When talking about continuous progress with training, we often hear two conflicting opinions:

Some advocate that the best progress can be made by doing the same workout only with a progressive increase in workload (for example, lifting larger and larger weights)
Others suggest that it would be best to change the type of training we are doing, for example, by varying training intervals, changing the number of repetitions, performing a larger / smaller series, and the like. Frequent changes in training should prevent the body from adapting to training and consequently result in continuous progress.

What does science tell us about this, which of the two approaches is better?

Comparison of the effectiveness of both approaches

Recent work by Damas and colleagues (2019) compared the effects of training that was solely targeted at progressive workload increases with a training program that included frequent variations.

In the study of Damas and colleagues (2019), 20 men who already had experience in workout training were included.

Respondents spent a total of 8 weeks training and were divided into two groups:

1. The group did 4 sets of sitting extensions and 4 sets of leg press with 9 to 12 reps each workout. The goal of the training was to progressively increase the weight in these two exercises so that it remains in the set number of reps (i.e. 9 to 12 reps).

2. The group trained so that each training was modified by one of the training variables:

• one training the subjects changed the number of repetitions so that instead of 9 to 12 repetitions they worked 25 to 30 repetitions per series
• in one of the training sessions they changed the number of series, so instead of 4 series per workout, they did 6 series
• subjects in this group also changed the form of contraction so that in one of the training sessions they performed only eccentric muscular action (ie only lowering the load) with 110% of the maximum
• the last training variant involved changing the rest interval from a standard two minute rest to 4 minutes between batches

Remember that in both groups all repetitions at each workout are made until muscle failure. This information will later be important to us in interpreting the data.

What did the researchers measure and what do the results tell us - which approach is better?

Protein synthesis

The first variable we will look at is protein synthesis. Protein synthesis is measured after only one training session. The results of this analysis showed that group 2 (the group that changed variables in training) had slightly higher protein synthesis after training, although the difference was minimal (Figure 1).


Figure 1 - Increase in post-training protein synthesis in a group that only focused on progressive load increases (Group 1) and in a group that changed training variables at each training session (eg, higher reps, more series, longer rest intervals; Group 2) . Although the increase in protein synthesis was greater in Group 2, the differences between the groups were minimal

Muscle hypertrophy

Although group 2 had slightly higher levels of protein synthesis after training, muscle hypertrophy after 8 weeks was almost identical in both groups. Group 1 increased muscle mass by 7.4%, while group 2 increased muscle mass by 7.2% - that is, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups (Figure 2).


Figure 2 - Increase in protein synthesis after training in a group that only focused on progressive load increase (Group 1) and in a group that changed training variables at each training session (eg, higher reps, more series, longer rest intervals; Group 2) . After 8 weeks of training, the increase in muscle mass was almost identical in both groups

What do these results mean to us in practice?

According to the results obtained, it is clear to us that both groups have made almost identical progress. Thus, both approaches appear to produce similar results. So, if you are stagnant in your training program, focusing on progressively lifting larger weights or varying your workout should make similar progress.

What I think is the key message of this paper is that the effort you put into training is much more important than the training program itself. Remember, in this study, the subjects worked each series until muscle failure, that is, training in either group 1 or group 2 was not easy at all. If you train with such intensity then what matters is exactly what the training program is.


You may also have the best designed training program, but the results may again be lacking if you do not give your best in training. Likewise, you may have a training program that may not be the best for you, but if you do your best at each workout, the results will certainly not be lacking.