Muscle Hypertrophy, Strength, and Salivary Hormone Changes Following 9 Weeks of High- or Low-Load Resistance Training

<b>Background:</b> Resistance training has recently focused more on a high- vs. low-load training approach, suggesting heavier loads optimize strength adaptations through maximal recruitment of motor units, whereas lower loads stimulate a greater hypertrophy response. The purpose of this investigation was to examine and determine significant differences in muscle thickness, strength, and hormonal markers over nine weeks of high- or low-load resistance training. <b>Methods:</b> Seventeen recreationally-trained males were recruited for this study (M_age = 20.4 ± 2.7 years). Participants were split into training with high-loads (85% 1-RM; <i>n</i> = 8) or low-loads (30% 1-RM; <i>n</i> = 9) completing 3 whole-body training sessions per week for 9 weeks. Each session included three working sets per exercise of repetitions to failure. Measures were collected at baseline and every three weeks after of muscle thickness (biceps brachii, triceps brachii, pectoral major, rectus femoris, and biceps femoris) and salivary hormones (basal and acute post-exercise testosterone and cortisol). RM-ANOVAs were conducted to analyze changes in hypertrophy and the hormones, with significance set at <i>p</i> < 0.05. <b>Results:</b> Muscle thickness increased significantly over time for all sites (<i>p</i> < 0.05), with no significant group × time interactions except for the triceps brachii (<i>p</i> = 0.04). There were no significant changes in basal hormone levels or changes from basal to immediately post exercise (<i>p</i> > 0.059). The high-load group showed greater increases in 1-RM following the training program. <b>Conclusions:</b> Our results demonstrate similar hypertrophy regardless of training volume and training load, but greater increases in strength in the high-load group. Hormonal data revealed no significant changes in basal cortisol and testosterone, suggesting similar stress and recovery. While nonsignificant for differences pre-post in either marker, the pattern of a slight decrease in testosterone may be an effect of receptor uptake, and additional monitoring over a longer time interval should be used to track the changes over a full recovery window.