Long or Shorter Training Sessions: Does Session Length Matter?
Surprising insights into training volume and enjoyment among resistance-trained women.
This study published in Frontiers in Psychology (PMID: 36248475) aimed to compare the acute effects of performing a lower body resistance training program in one long session versus two shorter sessions on training volume and affective measures among resistance-trained women.
Study Overview
Participants: 23 resistance-trained women (average age 22 years, height 166 cm, weight 66.4 kg).
Design: Randomised crossover design with two training conditions:
Long Session: One continuous session lasting 46 minutes.
Short Sessions: Two shorter sessions totalling 43 minutes, separated by a 3.5 to 5-hour rest.
Exercises: Six lower body exercises were performed to failure, with three sets for each exercise.
Measurements:
Training volume (total repetitions).
Affective measures assessed through various scales (RPE for effort and discomfort, session pleasure/displeasure, and exercise enjoyment).
Readiness to train assessed 24 hours post-session.
Key Findings
Perceived Effort and Discomfort:
The long session resulted in significantly higher ratings for perceived exertion (RPE) and discomfort (RPD) compared to the short sessions (both p < 0.05).
Participants reported greater session pleasure after the long session (sPDF) than after the short sessions.
Training Volume:
The short sessions yielded a higher training volume by approximately 3% compared to the long session (p = 0.002).
Exercise Enjoyment:
No significant difference in exercise enjoyment scores was found between the two formats (p = 0.118).
Readiness to Train:
There were no significant differences in perceived readiness to train between the two conditions after 24 hours (p = 0.166–0.856).
Preference:
A majority of participants (22 out of 23) preferred the long session format over the short sessions.
