IS S U E NO . 5
AUGU ST 2017
MASS
MONTHLY A P P L ICATIO NS IN
STR E NG TH S P O R T
E R I C HE L MS | G R EG N U C KOLS | M IC H AEL Z OU RD OS
1
The Reviewers
Eric Helms
Eric Helms is a coach, athlete, author, and educator. He is a coach for drug-free strength and
physique competitors at all levels as a part of team 3D Muscle Journey. Eric regularly publishes
peer-reviewed articles in exercise science and nutrition journals on physique and strength
sport, in addition to writing for commercial fitness publications. He’s taught undergraduateand graduate-level nutrition and exercise science and speaks internationally at academic and
commercial conferences. He has a B.S. in fitness and wellness, an M.S. in exercise science,
a second Master's in sports nutrition, and is a strength and conditioning Ph.D. candidate at
Auckland University of Technology in New Zealand. Eric earned pro status as a natural bodybuilder with the PNBA in
2011 and competes in the IPF at international-level events as an unequipped powerlifter.
Greg Nuckols
Greg Nuckols has over a decade of experience under the bar and a B.S. in exercise and sports
science. Greg is currently enrolled in the exercise science M.A. program at the University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He’s held three all-time world records in powerlifting in the
220lb and 242lb classes. He’s trained hundreds of athletes and regular folks, both online and
in-person. He’s written for many of the major magazines and websites in the fitness industry,
including Men’s Health, Men’s Fitness, Muscle & Fitness, Bodybuilding.com, T-Nation, and
Schwarzenegger.com. Furthermore, he’s had the opportunity to work with and learn from
numerous record holders, champion athletes, and collegiate and professional strength and conditioning coaches
through his previous job as Chief Content Director for Juggernaut Training Systems and current full-time work on
StrongerByScience.com.
Michael C. Zourdos
Michael (Mike) C. Zourdos, Ph.D, CSCS, is an associate professor in exercise science at
Florida Atlantic University (FAU) in Boca Raton, FL., USA, with a specialization in strength
and conditioning and skeletal muscle physiology. He earned his Ph.D. in exercise physiology
from The Florida State University (FSU) in 2012 under the guidance of Dr. Jeong-Su Kim. Prior
to attending FSU, Mike received his B.S. in exercise science from Marietta College and M.S.
in applied health physiology from Salisbury University. Mike served as the head powerlifting
coach of FSU’s 2011 and 2012 state championship teams. As an associate professor at FAU,
Mike is the director of the FAU Muscle Physiology Research Laboratory. He also competes as
a powerlifter in the USAPL, and among his best competition lifts is a 230kg (507lbs) raw squat
at a body weight of 76kg. Mike owns the company Training Revolution, LLC., where he has coached more than 100
lifters, including a USAPL open division national champion.
2
Letter from the Reviewers
When we wrap up each issue, we cannot believe how quickly the time has
gone. Yet here we are with our fifth issue of MASS, just one month shy of
half a year. This month will be our second with the addition of audio, and we
feel that is just one way MASS has continually improved. Our goal will be
to keep improving with each and every issue.
Our study selections this month include quite a few aspects of programming. We have reviewed training studies covering the usage of drop sets and
supersets along with new information regarding if training to failure is really
necessary. Eric has tackled an interesting study regarding the time course
of fatigue in response to high volume and high intensity training, which
has implications for prescribing the magnitude of training volume within a
session. Greg has analyzed concepts related to mental training and self-talk,
which provide a very practical and easy-to-implement strategy that may
enhance strength gains. Finally, the lifting community has long discussed
the different muscle activation of the flat, incline, and decline barbell bench
presses, and we examine a recent study which takes on this question.
For the video portion, Mike has begun a multi-part series on programming and periodization, which will serve as a comprehensive guide to programming. In this issue, Eric also breaks down macrocycles, mesocycles, and
microcycles for diet periodization in order to provide a conceptual model of
bodybuilding contest preparation.
As always, we hope you enjoy this issue and we remain committed to getting better each and every month. We look forward to next month and celebrating half a year of MASS.
The MASS Team
Michael, Eric, and Greg
3
Table of Contents
6
19
31
BY G R EG NUCKOL S
Muscle Activation and Damage in Grouped vs. Separated Supersets
Grouped supersets (training the same muscle with alternating exercises) seem to be a
double-edged sword, leading to more muscle activation but also more muscle damage
than separated supersets (training different muscles with alternating exercises).
BY M I CHAEL C. ZOUR DOS
Training to Failure Has Its Place, but It is Not Necessary
Performing some or all sets during a training session to failure is common, but is it
necessary? This article discusses non-failure versus failure training when volume is equated
and when volume is different among a very large sample size. Find out if training to failure
is necessary and when it may or may not be appropriate.
BY E RI C HEL MS
Could Bulking on a High Protein Diet Limit Fat Gain and Improve
Health?
It is common practice for bodybuilders to aggressively gain weight in the offseason in
an attempt to maximize muscle gains, but excessive body fat gain often hinders this
process. Does this study provide insight on how a high protein diet might mitigate
this issue?
41
BY G R EG NUCKOL S
Mind Over Matter: Mental Training Increases Strength Gains
Everyone focuses on physical training, but mental training is a powerful, oft-overlooked
tool that can boost your strength gains.
4
52
BY M I CHAEL C. ZOUR DOS
Drop Set-Only Training Is Time Efficient, but How Can It Be Practically
Implemented?
Training with drop sets may give you a larger muscle pump; however, some data
show the pump may not be as important for hypertrophy as previously thought.
Therefore, how and when should drop sets be implemented to maximize muscular
adaptations? This article provides specific recommendations regarding this question.
64
74
82
84
BY E RI C HEL MS
Recovery from Training: High Intensity vs. High Volume
Depending on who you talk to, they might tell you that their recovery is hindered by
heavy training or by performing a lot of volume. Which type of training causes more
muscle damage, inflammation, and force production suppression? Read here to find
out.
BY G R EG NUCKOL S
How Do Bench Press Variations Affect Muscle Activity in Elite Lifters?
In spite of differences in load and technique, most bench press variations seem to
cause similar levels of muscle activation in elite benchers. However, the story may be
different for newer lifters.
BY M I CHAEL C. ZOUR DOS
VIDEO: Comprehensive Program Design, Part 1
There are many theories of periodization and program design. However, we often
get too caught up comparing one to the other. Well, the first part of this video series
demonstrates how periodization and programming concepts should be integrated
and sets the stage for a multiple part series to help you design the specifics of a
training program.
BY E RI C HEL MS
VIDEO: The Nuts and Bolts of Diet Periodization
With so many concepts to implement, such as diet breaks, intermittent caloric
restriction, and high carbohydrate refeeds, it is difficult to program a diet for contest
prep that integrates each one in an informed manner, based on the available evidence.
However, in this video, Eric shows you how.
5
Muscle Activation and Damage in
Grouped vs. Separated Supersets
Study Reviewed: Muscle Damage and Muscle Activity
Induced By Strength Training Supersets in Physically Active
Men. Brentano et al. (2017)
BY G RE G NUC KO LS
S
upersets involve alternating sets of two commonly used for two purposes:
different exercises, instead of banging Grouped supersets (GE; training the
out all of your sets with a single ex- same muscle with alternating exercises,
ercise before moving on. Supersets are sometimes referred to as compound sets)
6
KEY POINTS
1. Supersets using grouped exercises (doing two quad exercises back to back,
followed by two chest exercises back to back) resulted in higher muscle activation
at some time points and increased markers of muscle damage versus supersets
using separated exercises (with each superset including one quad exercise and one
chest exercise).
2. The key benefit of performing supersets in your training is to save time. Furthermore,
we know that insufficient rest between sets can hinder hypertrophy and strength
gains. Therefore, supersets using separated exercises are likely the better option in
most circumstances. However, supersets using grouped exercises may be useful
during a “shock” mesocycle or microcycle, as they seem to be inherently more
physiologically stressful.
are often used as an “intensity technique”
for hypertrophy. The idea is that you can
stimulate a muscle more by simultaneously training it with two different exercises – for example, alternating sets of
bench press with sets of DB flyes.
Separated supersets (SE; training different muscles with alternating exercises)
are often used simply to save time. For
example, if you bang out a set of curls
between each set of squats, you probably
won’t need to rest any longer between
each set of squats, and you won’t need
to spend more time at the end of your
workout doing curls.
groups performing both types of supersets, the group performing grouped supersets had larger elevations in creatine
kinase and experienced longer lasting
muscle soreness. Additionally, the group
performing grouped supersets had higher
levels of muscle activation in their rectus
femoris and anterior deltoid at various
time points, though pec, vastus lateralis,
and vastus medialis activation were similar between groups.
Purpose and Research
Questions
In spite of supersets’ popularity, they’re The authors had two hypotheses, stemnot incredibly well-studied. This study ming from the assumption that GE
adds to the relatively sparse literature on would require greater muscular effort:
the subject, looking at the acute effects
1. Muscle activation would be higher
of grouped versus separated supersets on
with GE versus SE.
muscle activation and muscle damage.
While it took the same amount of time 2. Indirect markers of muscle damage
(performance decrements, creatine
for strength levels to return to baseline in
7
kinase levels, and muscle soreness) degrees of flexion. Peak isometric joint
would be more elevated with GE torque was measured for the shoulder
horizontal flexors (primarily the pecs)
versus SE.
with the shoulders in 90 degrees of adduction and 30 degrees of horizontal
flexion (like a machine pec fly). PlasSubjects and Methods
ma creatine kinase levels were assessed
Subjects
from analyzing venous blood. Soreness
The subjects were 20 healthy men (22 was assessed using a 0-10 scale (with 0
were recruited, and two dropped out) who representing no pain, the 10 representing
were familiar with strength training but maximum pain) after one rep of shoulder
were not competitive lifters. They appear horizontal flexion/extension and one rep
to have had some training experience, as of knee flexion/extension.
their 10RM lifts were better than most
people can manage on day one (10RM Muscle activation was assessed on the
bench press around 50kg, and 10RM leg first and fifth sets of pec deck and knee express around 160kg), but they were clear- tensions using surface EMG. The EMG
ly quite new to strength training on av- signals were gathered during the concenerage, though training age wasn’t report- tric phase of all reps during the first and
ed. They were split into two groups. The fifth sets, and normalized as a percentage
subjects in the GE group (n=10) were of the EMG amplitude measured during
26.6±3.4 years old, while the subjects in an isometric voluntary contraction. Musthe SE group (n=10) were 24.9±2.6 years cle activation was assessed in the vastus
lateralis, vastus medialis, and rectus femold.
oris during knee extensions, and the pecTesting
toralis major and anterior deltoid during
Indirect markers of muscle damage, the sets of pec deck. Knee extensions and
including peak isometric joint torque, pec deck were chosen as the exercises
creatine kinase activity, passive range of during which to measure EMG as they
motion, and perceived soreness were as- were placed in the same position for both
sessed pre-training, and for the following groups (knee extensions were the second
five days at the same time of day as the exercise in the first superset, and pec deck
initial training session (to control for any was the second exercise in the second sudiurnal variations). Peak torque was also perset).
assessed immediately after training.
Training Protocol
Peak isometric joint torque was mea- Both groups did five sets apiece of
sured for the knee extensors (quads) us- bench press, pec deck, leg press, and knee
ing a dynamometer with the knees in 70 extension. The GE group supersetted
8
FIGURE 1
Bench press
Pec deck
Bench press
Pec deck
Bench press
Pec deck
Bench press
Pec deck
Bench press
Pec deck
Leg press
Pec deck
Leg press
Pec deck
Leg press
Pec deck
Leg press
Pec deck
Leg press
Pec deck
Knee extension
Leg press
Knee extension
Leg press
Knee extension
Leg press
Knee extension
Leg press
Knee extension
Leg press
Grouped Exercise Supersets
EMG Recorded
Knee extension
Bench press
Knee extension
Bench press
Knee extension
Bench press
Knee extension
Bench press
Knee extension
Bench press
THREE MINUTES OF REST
EMG Recorded
EMG Recorded
EMG Recorded
Separated Exercise Supersets
Schematic of the exercise sessions; minimal rest between
exercises during each superset
their five sets of leg press and knee extensions (one set of leg press, one set of knee
extensions, one set of leg press, etc.) with
no rest between sets. They rested three
minutes after their last set of knee extensions, and then supersetted their five
sets of bench press and pec deck with no
rest between sets. The SE group supersetted bench press and knee extensions
first, followed by supersetting leg press
and pec deck.
It’s not entirely clear how they chose
the training weights. Before training,
the subjects tested their 10RMs on all
four exercises. The authors state “all exercises were performed at the load obtained during the 10RM tests; therefore,
both sessions were conducted with loads
equivalent to 85% of 10RM.” I think
they used 85% of their 10RMs from all
exercises, but the wording isn’t entirely
clear. It seems that all sets were taken to
failure.
Findings
Performance
Both groups performed roughly the
9
CK (% PRE EXERCISE)
FIGURE 2
1200
GE
SE
1000
*#
*#
800
600
400
*
200
0
*#
*#
*
Pre
Day 1
*
*
Day 2
Day 3
*
Day 4
Day 5
TIME
Mean and SDs of normalized plasmatic creatine kinase activity (%CK) before and during five days after performing
grouped exercises (GE) or separated exercises (SE). #Difference between GE and SE sessions (p≤0.05). *Difference
from pre-exercise (p≤0.05). From Brentano et al. (1)
same amount of training volume (volume point.
load differed by less than 1% between Creatine Kinase
groups), and their workouts took roughly
Creatine kinase levels increased sigthe same amount of time (the mean difnificantly in both groups. They remained
ference was only six seconds).
significantly elevated above baseline for
Peak Torque
five days in the GE group, and for four
Peak knee extension and shoulder hor- days in the SE group. Furthermore, CK
izontal flexion torque decreased in both levels were significantly higher in the GE
groups immediately after training. How- group than the SE group for days 2-5
ever, they were not significantly differ- following the training session, with peak
ent from pre-training after one day, and levels roughly twice as high. It should
didn’t differ between groups at any time also be noted that the researchers only
10
FIGURE 3
KE
DOMS
3
GE
SE
*
*
2
1
0
SHF
4
3
DOMS
4
*
Pre
Day 1
*
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5
TIME
GE
SE
2
*
1
*
*
0
Pre
*
*
Day 1
Day 2
*
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5
TIME
Mean and SDs of delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) of the knee extensors (KE) and shoulder horizontal
flexors (SHF), before and during five days, after performing grouped exercises (GE) or separated exercises (SE).
There is no difference between GE and SE. *Difference from pre-exercise (p≤0.05). From Brentano et al. (1)
took measurements for five days follow- Muscle Activation
ing training – it’s possible that CK levels Muscle activation tended to increase
were elevated for more than five days in across sets in all muscles in both groups
the GE group.
(as you’d expect), except for the pecs.
There were no differences in vastus laterSoreness
Muscle soreness increased in both alis, vastus medialis, or pec activation begroups following training. The increase tween groups. However, anterior deltoid
was significant for two days for knee ex- and rectus femoris activation were hightension, and three days for shoulder hor- er at some time points in the GE group
izontal flexion. Peak soreness appears to than the SE group.
be higher in the GE group, but the difference wasn’t statistically significant.
Range of motion
Passive range of motion decreased in
both groups following training. There
were no significant differences between
groups. However, ROM was decreased
below baseline for longer (2-4 days) in
the GE group versus the SE group (1-2
days).
Interpretation
The overall picture presented by this
study was that GE supersets are generally more physiologically stressful than
SE supersets, as seen via larger increases
in markers of muscle damage and higher
muscle activation at some time points.
The million-dollar questions are 1) how
11
FIGURE 4
140
1st set - RF
SE
GE
120
EMG (%)
100
80
60
40
20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
REPETITIONS
140
5th set - RF
SE
GE
120
#
EMG (%)
100
#
*#
#
80
60
40
20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
REPETITIONS
Mean and SDs of normalized electromyographic signal (%EMG) of the rectus femoris (RF) during
the first set and the fifth set when performing grouped exercises (GE) and separated exercises (SE).
*Difference from first repetition of fifth set (p≤0.05). #Difference between GE and SE (p≤0.05). From
Brentano et al. (1)
12
this study informs when you should implement supersets into your training, and
2) how you should configure your supersets.
I’m generally of the opinion that supersets should primarily only be implemented for gaining strength or building
muscle if you simply don’t have time to
do all of your sets with one exercise before moving on to the next. While most
acute muscle fatigue comes from local
factors (i.e. from cellular changes leading to fatigue within the target muscle
itself ), acute muscular fatigue also has a
global component (i.e. if your legs are fatigued, arm muscle performance can decrease a bit as well) (2). This leads me to
believe that SE supersets will likely be a
bit less effective than simply performing
exercises one at a time in order of importance. Furthermore, several studies (3,
4) indicate that longer rest intervals between sets can lead to more hypertrophy
and greater strength gains, leading me to
believe that GE supersets will likely be
a bit less effective than performing their
constituent exercises one at a time.
That being said, if you are short on time
and you want to cut down on workout
duration, SE supersets have been shown
to be effective for gaining strength. Most
of the prior studies have specifically examined antagonistic supersets (i.e. bench
supersetted with rows, or a quad exercise
supersetted with a hamstrings exercise)
(5), but I’d assume those findings mostly generalize to the sort of SE supersets
SUPERSETS SHOULD PRIMARILY
ONLY BE IMPLEMENTED
FOR GAINING STRENGTH OR
BUILDING MUSCLE IF YOU
SIMPLY DON’T HAVE TIME
TO DO ALL OF YOUR SETS
WITH ONE EXERCISE BEFORE
MOVING ON TO THE NEXT.
used in this study, pairing an upper body
exercise with a lower body exercise (more
on that later).
GE supersets may be a useful tool in a
couple of circumstances:
1. If training frequency for a muscle is
low, so it doesn’t matter that markers of muscle damage are elevated
for 5+ days.
2. During a “shock” microcycle or mesocycle in a periodized program.
Under most circumstances, I probably
wouldn’t recommend GE supersets, as
the disproportionate amount of fatigue
they induce probably isn’t worth it: They
would have the potential to compromise
total weekly training volume if training
a particular muscle 2-3+ times per week.
13
FIGURE 5
280
240
EMG (%)
200
1st set - AD
SE
GE
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
6
7
8
*#
*#
9
10
160
120
80
40
0
1
2
3
4
5
REPETITIONS
280
EMG (%)
240
5th set - AD
SE
GE
200
160
120
80
40
0
1
2
4
REPETITIONS
Mean and SDs of normalized electromyographic signal (%EMG) of the anterior deltoid (AD) during the first set
and the fifth set when performing grouped exercises (GE) and separated exercises (SE). *Difference from first
repetition of fifth set (p≤0.05). #Difference between GE and SE (p≤0.05). From Brentano et al. (1)
14
TABLE 1
“Good” Supersets
“Bad” Supersets
Two non-competing
exercises
Two exercises using the same
muscle groups or movement
patterns
Adequate rest (45-120 seconds
between exercises, meaning ~2-5
minutes of rest before repeating an
exercise)
Insufficient rest (30 seconds or less
between exercises, or 60 seconds
or less before repeating an
exercise)
High-quality training with the
benefit of time savings
Saves time, but training quality
suffers
Useful for anyone who’s
time-limited
Potentially useful in a "shock"
training cycle, or if training
frequency is low
The simplest suggestion would be to
retain sufficient rest between each set,
unlike the protocol used in this study.
For example, if you rest four minutes
between sets of squats and you want to
sneak a little extra triceps work in, you
could do a set of squats, rest a minute and
a half, knock out a set of triceps extensions, rest two more minutes, do another set of squats, and repeat the process.
That would almost definitely be doable
Looking beyond this study, we can for the vast majority of lifters, allowing
think conceptually about how to retain you to get in quality work for your squats
the benefits of supersets while avoiding and your triceps, as opposed to the sort
of back-to-back-to-back sets with no
some of the potential downsides.
rest during each superset in this present
With that being said, the stress they induce would doubtlessly be smaller for
more highly trained lifters, so that’s not
too big of a concern. However, the previous point concerning the prior research
on hypertrophy and rest periods is still
relevant here; supersetting two exercises
targeting the same muscle/s with short
rest periods between each set probably
isn’t the most effective way to grow that
muscle.
15
APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
GE supersets may lead to more muscle activation than SE supersets, but at the cost
of increased and longer-lasting indirect markers of muscle damage. As such, GE
supersets may be occasionally useful as a “shock,” but they may hamper weekly
training volume. If you implement supersets regularly into your training to save time,
SE supersets are probably the better option, with a focus on still resting long enough
between consecutive sets of both exercises so that training quality doesn’t suffer.
study. (I know that immediately after a
hard set of squats, I wouldn’t be able to
put a full effort into essentially any other
exercise.) Using this method, you’re still
doing twice as many work sets per unit
of time, allowing you to complete your
workouts faster. However, you’ll still be
able to maintain training quality for both
of the exercises involved. This would be
more applicable to SE supersets than GE
supersets. In support of this idea, a 2014
study (6) compared traditional sets of
squats to sets of squats interspersed with
bench press and bench pull (seal rows);
in both conditions, there were about
three minutes between sets of squats. The
load used was 80% of 1RM for all sets.
The first three sets were sets of four reps,
and the last set was taken to failure. There
weren’t significant differences in peak
ground reaction force, peak power, and
average power between groups for the
first three sets of squats, but the group
performing traditional sets could do one
additional rep on the final set taken to
failure – squatting performance wasn’t
absolutely maximized with this approach,
but the relative performance cost was
quite small. Furthermore, this general
approach was also taken in a 2009 study
(7) utilizing bench press and bench pull;
that study found no significant differences in strength gains between traditional
sets (four minutes between sets, completing all sets of one exercise before moving
on to the next) and supersets (with two
minutes between sets, and four minutes
between sets of the same exercise) over
eight weeks.
One final thing to mention about the
present study: I’m sure the increased
muscle activation in the GE group will
catch your eye, but I’d caution against
getting too excited about it. For starters,
there’s no solid evidence that increased
surface EMG necessarily leads to more
hypertrophy or larger strength gains.
Furthermore, both significant differences
in EMG readings in this study were observed in supporting muscles (the rectus
femoris and the anterior deltoid) rather
than the prime movers (the vasti and the
pecs). Finally, the difference in anterior
deltoid activation during the first set of
pec deck was the only particularly large
difference. This potentially indicates that
16
the pecs were fatigued from bench press,
so the anterior deltoids needed to take
over on the pec deck. If you want to ensure that your pec deck sets give your anterior deltoids a bigger stimulus, I’m not
going to stop you, but this study doesn’t
provide evidence that GE supersets increase activation of the prime movers in
an exercise.
Next Steps
We need more studies examining the
long-term effects of supersetted training
versus traditional set configurations. We
have several studies utilizing acute designs, but long-term training studies are
rare. At this point, we can make suggestions based off what we do know from
acute studies combined with basic physiological rationales, but those suggestions
have to be quite tentative due to the paucity of good training studies.
17
References
1. Brentano MA, Umpierre D, Santos LP, Lopes AL, Radaelli R, Pinto RS, Kruel LFM. Muscle
Damage and Muscle Activity Induced by Strength Training Super-Sets in Physically Active Men. J
Strength Cond Res. 2017 Jul;31(7):1847-1858. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001511.
2. Halperin I, Chapman DW, Behm DG. Non-local muscle fatigue: effects and possible mechanisms.
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2015 Oct;115(10):2031-48. doi: 10.1007/s00421-015-3249-y. Epub 2015 Sep
2.
3. Buresh R, Berg K, French J. The effect of resistive exercise rest interval on hormonal response,
strength, and hypertrophy with training. J Strength Cond Res. 2009 Jan;23(1):62-71. doi: 10.1519/
JSC.0b013e318185f14a.
4. Schoenfeld BJ, Pope ZK, Benik FM, Hester GM, Sellers J, Nooner JL, Schnaiter JA, Bond-Williams KE, Carter AS, Ross CL, Just BL, Henselmans M, Krieger JW. Longer Interset Rest Periods
Enhance Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy in Resistance-Trained Men. J Strength Cond Res. 2016
Jul;30(7):1805-12. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001272.
5. Robbins DW, Young WB, Behm DG, Payne WR. Agonist-antagonist paired set resistance training:
a brief review. J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Oct;24(10):2873-82. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181f00bfc
6. Ciccone AB, Brown LE, Coburn JW, Galpin AJ. Effects of traditional vs. alternating whole-body
strength training on squat performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2014 Sep;28(9):2569-77. doi: 10.1519/
JSC.0000000000000586.
7. Robbins DW, Young WB, Behm DG, Payne WR. Effects of agonist-antagonist complex resistance
training on upper body strength and power development. J Sports Sci. 2009 Dec;27(14):1617-25.
doi: 10.1080/02640410903365677.
█
18
Training to Failure Has Its Place, but
It is Not Necessary
Study Reviewed: Strength Training with Repetitions to
Failure Does Not Provide Additional Strength and Muscle
Hypertrophy Gains in Young Women. Martorelli et al. (2017)
BY MICHAE L C . ZO URD O S
T
raining to failure on each set is to understand why, since taking a set to
commonplace in many resis- failure is associated with a greater pump,
tance-training programs. It’s easy difficulty level, and feeling of accomplish-
19
KEY POINTS
1. This study examined failure training compared to non-failure training in a population
of 89 novice female trainees.
2. Overall, when volume is equated, training to failure is not necessary to significantly
improve muscle strength, hypertrophy, and muscular endurance.
3. It remains unknown just how far from failure a lifter can train and still receive the
same muscular adaptations as training to failure.
ment; however, some data suggest that
it might not be necessary to take each
set to failure. Despite recent studies that
question the necessity of training to failure for muscle adaptations, the practice
remains common. This study compared
three resistance training programs over
the course of 10 weeks in 89 young women. Training in all three programs was
limited to the barbell biceps curl and occurred two days per week with two minutes of rest between every set. The three
groups were as follows:
1. Repetitions to failure (RF, n=30)
in which subjects performed 3 sets
to failure at 70% of one-repetition
maximum-1RM.
2. Repetitions not leading to failure but
with volume equal to RF (RNFV,
n=32), which encompassed 4 sets of
7 reps @70% of 1RM.
3. Repetition not to failure (RNF,
n=27), which had lower volume than
the other groups, as they only performed 3 sets of 7 at 70% of 1RM.
Strength was measured via a 1RM
barbell curl; power was measured via
peak torque (PT) of the elbow flexors; biceps hypertrophy was assessed in terms of
changes in muscle thickness (MT) measured via ultrasound; and muscular endurance was tested by performing max reps
at 70% of 1RM. All tests were conducted at pre-study, week 5 (mid-study), and
week 10 (post-study). All groups increased
1RM strength between 26-28% from preto post-study with no group differences;
however, the RNFV (+13.7%) and RNF
(+4.1%) groups increased PT at post-study,
whereas the RF group (-0.5%) did not improve PT. For MT, the RF (+17.5%) and
RNFV (+8.5%) groups experienced significant hypertrophy from pre- to poststudy, while the RNF (+2.1%) group did
not experience significant hypertrophy after 10 weeks of training. Finally, all groups
increased muscular endurance to the same
degree. These data demonstrate that in relatively untrained women, training to failure
produces significant strength and hypertrophy adaptations over 10 weeks; however,
when volume is matched without training
to failure, similar progress will occur.
20
TABLE 1
Group, Subjects
Age (years)
Height (cm)
Body Mass (kg)
Training Experience
RF, n=30
22.3±3.8
161.6±6.0
63.7±22.5
Physically active women, but no
resistance training for 6 months
RNFV, n=32
21.7±2.8
162.6±6.0
60.2±13.5
Physically active women, but no
resistance training for 6 months
RNF, n=27
21.6±3.3
162.2±6.2
62.5±14.1
Physically active women, but no
resistance training for 6 months
Data are Mean ± Standard Deviation
Subject characteristics from Martorelli et al. 2017 (1).
Purpose and Research
Questions
Purpose
The main purpose of the reviewed
study was to compare the strength and
hypertrophy responses in three groups of
young women performing biceps curls
over 10 weeks. One group trained to
failure, one group trained sub-maximally
with volume load equated to the failure
group, and one group trained sub-maximally with less volume than the failure
group. A secondary purpose was to examine the muscular endurance responses
between the groups.
Research Question
Does training to failure elicit greater hypertrophy, strength, and endurance responses than non-failure training in young women? Further, is there
a difference in muscle adaptations with
non-failure training if volume is equated
to, or lower than, failure training?
Hypotheses
The authors hypothesized that all
groups would experience the same
strength improvements and that RF and
RNFV would experience similar increases in strength to each other and greater increases in hypertrophy compared to
RNF due to the lower total training volume in RNF. No hypothesis was provided regarding muscular endurance.
Subjects and Methods
Subjects
Eighty-nine physically active young
women who had not performed resistance training for the past six months
participated. This large sample size is an
excellent characteristic of this study. It is
likely that the researchers specifically re-
21
TABLE 2: RESISTANCE TRAINING PROGRAM
Repetitions to Failure Group (RF, n=30)
Bar
curl
Day 1
Day 2
3 sets to failure
@70% of 1RM
3 sets to failure
@70% of 1RM
Repetitions Not to Failure with Volume
Equate to RF Group (n=27)
Bar
curl
Day 1
Day 2
4 sets of 7 reps at
70% of 1RM
4 sets of 7 reps at
70% of 1RM
Repetitions Not to Failure with
Lower Volume Group (n=32)
Bar
curl
Day 1
Day 2
3 sets of 7 reps at
70% of 1RM
3 sets of 7 reps at
70% of 1RM
1RM= One-Repetition Maximum. Percentages are week 1 loads, then training
load was progressed in each group throughout; however, no specifics were given
regarding the progression.
cruited participants who had not trained
for the prior six months because that is
how long it takes for muscles to be fully
susceptible to damage again if no training
has occurred (2). Specific subject characteristics are provided in Table 1.
Study Design and Training Program
The subjects trained twice per week for
10 weeks and were divided into three
different groups. At pre-, mid-, and
post-study, 1RM bar curl, isometric elbow flexor PT, hypertrophy via MT, and
muscular endurance (max reps at 70% of
1RM) of the biceps were assessed.
22
FIGURE 1: TOTAL TRAINING VOLUME
Total Volume (kg)
10000
*
*
RF
RNFV
8000
RNF
6000
4000
2000
0
*Significantly greater than RNF. RF= Repetitions to Failure; RNFV= Repetitions Not to Failure with Equated
Volume; RNF=Repetitions Not to Failure.
The three groups were as follows:
1. RF (n=30) in which subjects performed 3 sets to failure at 70% of
1RM.
2. Repetitions not leading to failure, but with volume equal to RF
(RNFV, n=32), which involved 4
sets of 7 reps @70% of 1RM.
3. Repetitions not to failure (RNF,
n=27), which had lower volume than
the other groups, as they only performed 3 sets of 7 at 70% of 1RM.
ther details on the progression model are
provided. Also, subjects performed 4-6
other exercises per session to train the
entire body, and all groups performed
these other exercises sub-maximally (i.e.
not to failure). The training programs for
each group on the bar curl are provided
in Table 2.
Findings
Total Training Volume
By design, total training volume (volAll groups had two minutes rest beume load) was similar between RF and
tween each set. The authors state that the
RNFV, and both of those groups had
training loads were gradually increased
greater total volume than RNF. The authroughout the study; however, no fur-
23
thors first carried out a pilot study before
designing the protocol to determine that
4 sets of 7 (RNFV group) would perform
similar volume to the RF group. The total
training volume for each group over the
entire 10 weeks can be seen in Figure 1.
Strength
There were no between-group differences in 1RM strength at either mid- or
post-study, but all groups significantly
increased strength from pre- to mid- and
post-study. The percentage changes and
pre- to post-study within-group effect
sizes (ES) for 1RM can be seen in Table
3. Isometric PT was tested at contraction velocities of 60°.s-1 and 180°.s-1. The
RNFV group increased PT at 60°.s-1 from
pre- to post-study, while neither the RF nor
RNF groups improved this measure. Additionally, both the RNFV and RNF groups
improved PT at 180°.s-1 from pre- to poststudy; however, RF did not (p>0.05). The
RF group was the only group to not improve PT at either velocity.
Hypertrophy (Muscle Thickness-MT)
Both the RF and RNFV groups increased MT from pre- to mid- and
post-study (p<0.001). The RNF group
did not significantly increase MT from
pre- to post-study; however, this change
did approach significance with a p-value
of p=0.09. Table 3 shows the percentage
change, ES, and p-value for MT increases in each group from pre- to post-study.
Muscular Endurance
All groups significantly increased mus-
IF VOLUME IS NOT
DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT
BETWEEN GROUPS,
STRENGTH ADAPTATIONS
SHOULD BE SIMILAR IF
INTENSITY BETWEEN
GROUPS IS THE SAME.
cular endurance in terms of the number
of repetitions performed at 70% of 1RM
(p<0.05); however, no group differences
existed.
Interpretation
This study is in agreement with a meta-analysis that training to failure is not
necessary for strength adaptations (3).
Specifically, the meta-analysis from Davies et al. only included four studies similar to the present study, in which failure
training and non-failure training with
equated volume were compared. In these
studies, there was no significant difference in strength gained. Additionally, of
the four previous studies analyzed, none
of them included only women, and all
had much smaller sample sizes than the
24
TABLE 3: PRE- TO POST- STUDY PERCENTAGE
INCREASES AND EFFECT SIZES FOR 1RM STRENGTH
1RM Strength
Group Subjects
% Change
Effect Size
P-Value
RF
+28.3%
0.99
<0.001*
RNFV
+28.3%
1.26
<0.001*
RNF
+26.8%
1.00
<0.001*
Muscle Thickness
Group Subjects
% Change
Effect Size
P-Value
RF
+17.5%
0.57
<0.001*
RNFV
+8.5%
0.50
<0.001*
RNF
+2.1%
0.20
<0.09#
*Significant increase from pre- to post-study, #Did not significantly increase from pre- to post-study, but p-value
approached significance. RF= Repetitions to Failure, RNFV= Repetitions Not to Failure with Equated Volume,
RNF= Repetitions Not to Failure with Lower Volume.
present investigation, thus this study is
unique in providing findings in a large
group of females. The likely explanation
for the similar strength adaptations is
that all groups trained at the same av-
erage intensity (70%). Even when volume has been equated in previous studies, strength gains are larger in groups
training at higher intensities (4). In the
present study, the RNF group did have
25
lower volume than the other groups and
experienced similar strength adaptations.
Thus, if volume is not drastically different between groups, strength adaptations
should be similar if intensity between
groups is the same.
Various articles in MASS have discussed the strong relationship between
total training volume and muscle hypertrophy, so I won’t rehash the same data
over again as I’m sure we’re all well aware
of it by now. Because of this relationship,
it’s absolutely no surprise that hypertrophy was not statistically different in RF
and RNFV and increased slightly less in
the RNF group, which completed slightly less volume. Further, analysis of the
data shows a +17.5% increase in muscle
size in RF compared to a +8.5% change
in RNFV, thus there may have been
meaningfully greater hypertrophy for the
RF versus the RNFV group that wasn’t
picked up by the statistical analyses. Actually, the within-group effect sizes of
0.57 (RF) and 0.50 (RNFV) were interpreted as the same magnitude of change
(small in this study) despite the 9% greater hypertrophic change in the RF group.
As pointed out in the MASS interpreting research document, between-group
effect sizes are a more robust analysis
for comparing two groups than within
group effect sizes, and that calculation
may have determined a greater meaningful change in RF versus RNFV. Indeed, I
do feel confident that at least a small between-group effect in favor of RF versus
RNFV was likely present based upon the
9% difference; however, we simply cannot state that to be 100% true without
the individual subject data to calculate
this. Importantly, this is the first study to
my knowledge to examine hypertrophy
responses in a group performing repetitions to failure versus a group stopping
short of failure with equated volume in
only women, which is a significant contribution to the literature. So, despite the
lack of between group ES, the novelty
makes this study important, and it should
be further stressed that the hypertrophy
response was statistically similar between
RF and RNFV, meaning that training to
failure is not required for large hypertrophy increases in the early phases of training.
It isn’t surprising that all groups experienced similar increases in muscular endurance. However, I would have preferred
a slightly different method of assessment.
Specifically, the muscular endurance test
at each time point was conducted using 70% of the pre-study 1RM, instead
of using 70% of the 1RM obtained at
each specific time point. Testing muscular endurance should use a percentage of
current strength and not past strength.
In this study, all groups increased 1RM
strength to the same degree; therefore, I
think it’s likely that muscular endurance
improvements were the same as concluded. However, an increase in reps with 70%
of the pre-study 1RM at mid- and poststudy reflects an increase in strength in
26
addition to endurance. If the new 1RM
was used at each time point to calculate
a new 70%, and maximum repetitions
completed improved, then that would
have been able to truly evaluate if relative
muscular endurance increased rather than
just strength improving reps performed
at the same load as pre-study. To validate
this, previous research has demonstrated
groups of high and low repetitions to experience similar strength improvement
in eight weeks, but the high-rep group
improved muscular endurance to a greater degree when the post-study 1RM was
used to calculate the load for the endurance test (5).
In this study, isometric PT was used as
a method of power assessment, and both
non-failure training groups improved PT
at one or both of the contraction velocity.
There is precedent from Izquierdo et al.
(6), who showed that training to failure
did not improve bench press power output, and other researchers have demonstrated that leg pressing to failure leads to
a lower power adaptation than non-failure training (7). These findings are likely
due to the decrease in velocity during the
final repetitions when training to failure,
whereas a non-failure group won’t see
the same degree of velocity decrease, and
they spend more of their training time
lifting at a higher velocity.
Practically, training to failure does not
need to be used as a primary method
for inducing muscle adaptations. In fact,
training to failure for strength, and espe-
IT MAY NOT BE THE CASE
THAT LEAVING 8 RIR
WOULD PROVIDE SIMILAR
ADAPTATIONS TO FAILURE
TRAINING, BUT ENDING A SET
WITH AN RIR BETWEEN 1-5
(RPE: 9-5) MAY BE SUFFICIENT.
cially power production, should likely be
avoided as the primary training strategy.
Rather, it should be used strategically
in contexts such as an as-many-repsas-possible (AMRAP) set toward the
end of a training week, as to not interfere with a subsequent training session.
Additionally, since this study was in
novice trainees, it should also be noted
that beginners are wise to save failure
training for assistance or isolation-type
movements and avoid failure training on
compound exercises (squat, bench press,
and deadlift). Since technique is rapidly improving on the main lifts, the risk
of injury is exacerbated when training to
failure, and there is no reason for novices to heighten this risk. For hypertrophy,
a lifter can certainly train submaximally
and achieve excellent progress; however,
the greater percentage change for hyper-
27
APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
1. It is not necessary for novice females to train to failure to achieve robust hypertrophy
and increases in strength.
2. If novices do choose to utilize failure training, it should be relegated to assistance
movements, as a technique breakdown during failure training on the powerlifts
raises the risk of injury.
3. Training to failure may compromise gains in power output, thus lifters should be
cautious about performing too much failure training to not impair rate of force
development.
trophy in the RF group versus the RNFV
group in the presently reviewed study is
interesting. This percentage change difference without any other statistics to
support it is not enough to recommend
failure training as a standalone strategy.
Further, previous research from Sampson et al. showed that both failure and
non-failure training of the biceps caused
hypertrophy with no difference between
groups over the first 12 weeks of training
(8). Therefore, it seems that submaximal
training should be utilized with failure
training interspersed. Further, it must be
pointed out that this study was on novice female trainees and utilized the bar
curl exercise rather than the powerlifts.
Therefore, training to failure as a novice
on the powerlifts should be discouraged
for two reasons: 1) Similar adaptations
can occur without failure training, and
2) The skill level of the powerlifts is far
greater than a barbell curl, thus novices with poor technique are at a greater
injury risk due to technique breakdown
during the latter reps of a set when train-
ing to failure versus training sub-maximally. It must also be pointed out that
the number of repetitions performed by
the RF group on each set was not reported; therefore, we cannot know exactly the
rating of perceived exertion (RPE) or the
amount of repetitions in reserve (RIR)
left on each set in the RNFV and RNF
groups, which is important to know to
determine how far from failure a lifter
can train and receive the same benefits
as failure training. However, we can look
at the data presented and gather a decent estimate of RPE in the non-failure
group. At pre-study, the RNFV group
performed 11 reps at 70% during their
muscular endurance test (this number is
derived from the bar graph in the paper).
Remember, during the study, they did 4
sets of 7 @70% of 1RM; therefore the
first set would have corresponded to an
RPE of 6 (or 4 RIR) after the first set,
then that RPE likely rose to 7-8 over the
next few sets. With that in mind, we can
estimate that there were 2-4 RIR during
most sets; however, it should also be stat-
28
ed that the ability to perform repetitions
at a specific intensity is individual, thus it
is also likely that some subjects in RNFV
had >4 RIR on some sets, while others
had <2 on some sets. Nonetheless, based
on the data provided, it seems reasonable
to estimate that subjects in RNFV averaged 2-4 RIR throughout the study. This
is important because, even though training sub-maximally can provide the same
muscular adaptations as failure training, it may not be the case that leaving
8 RIR would provide similar adaptations
to failure training, but ending a set with
an RIR between 1-5 (RPE: 9-5) may be
sufficient.
Next Steps
The next steps are two-fold. First, this
design should be carried out in more
highly trained subjects. Further, research
which examines failure training versus
non-failure training with equated volume
should aim to collect RPE/RIR at the
end of each set in the non-failure group
to provide insight into how far from failure a lifter can train and not compromise
adaptations.
29
References
1. Martorelli S, Cadore EL, Izquierdo M, Celes R, Martorelli A, Cleto VA, Alvarenga JG, Bottaro M.
Strength training with repetitions to failure does not provide additional strength and muscle hypertrophy gains in young women. European Journal of Translational Myology. 2017 Jun 27;27(2).
2. Hyldahl RD, Chen TC, Nosaka K. Mechanisms and Mediators of the Skeletal Muscle Repeated
Bout Effect. Exercise and sport sciences reviews. 2017 Jan 1;45(1):24-33.
3. Davies T, Orr R, Halaki M, Hackett D. Effect of training leading to repetition failure on muscular
strength: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine. 2016 Apr 1;46(4):487-502.
4. Schoenfeld BJ, Ratamess NA, Peterson MD, Contreras B, Sonmez GT, Alvar BA. Effects of different volume-equated resistance training loading strategies on muscular adaptations in well-trained
men. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2014 Oct 1;28(10):2909-18.
5. Klemp A, Dolan C, Quiles JM, Blanco R, Zoeller RF, Graves BS, Zourdos MC. Volume-equated
high-and low-repetition daily undulating programming strategies produce similar hypertrophy and
strength adaptations. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism. 2016 Feb 16;41(7):699-705.
6. Izquierdo M, Ibanez J, González-Badillo JJ, Häkkinen K, Ratamess NA, Kraemer WJ, French DN,
Eslava J, Altadill A, Asiain X, Gorostiaga EM. Differential effects of strength training leading to
failure versus not to failure on hormonal responses, strength, and muscle power gains. Journal of
Applied Physiology. 2006 May 1;100(5):1647-56.
7. Gorostiaga EM, Navarro-Amézqueta I, Calbet JA, Hellsten Y, Cusso R, Guerrero M, Granados C,
González-Izal M, Ibañez J, Izquierdo M. Energy metabolism during repeated sets of leg press exercise leading to failure or not. PloS one. 2012 Jul 13;7(7):e40621.
8. Sampson JA, Groeller H. Is repetition failure critical for the development of muscle hypertrophy and
strength?. Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports. 2016 Apr 1;26(4):375-83.
█
30
Could Bulking on a High
Protein Diet Limit Fat Gain
and Improve Health?
Study Reviewed: Protein Overfeeding is Associated with Improved
Lipid and Anthropometric Profile thus Lower Malondialdehyde
Levels in Resistance-Trained Athletes. de Moraes et al. (2017)
BY E RI C HE LMS
B
odybuilders and strength athletes possible to improve their performance.
try to gain as much muscle mass as Overfeeding to produce weight and
31
KEY POINTS
1. Bodybuilders practicing overfeeding, defined as consuming an amount of calories
at least two standard deviations over their predicted maintenance requirements and
more than 50kcal/kg, were assessed based on protein intake, body composition,
health, and mood state.
2. Bodybuilders consuming over 1.7g/kg of protein daily (average 3.1g/kg) weighed
less, were leaner, and had healthier blood biomarkers compared to bodybuilders
consuming less than 1.7g/kg (average 1.6g/kg).
3. As an acute cross-sectional study, causation cannot be inferred. It is not known
whether bodybuilders who are leaner and healthier tend to eat higher protein diets,
but are actually leaner for some other reason (less frequent or shorter gaining
phases, more cardio in the offseason), or if it actually is true that bulking on a much
higher protein intake limits fat gain and improves health compared to a lower protein
intake.
muscle gain is the most common strategy,
yet bodybuilders and weight class-restricted athletes have to ensure that the overfeeding process doesn’t make it too much
harder for them to get in stage condition
or make weight when the competition season rolls around. In this study, a group of
male competitive bodybuilders (age 20-35
years), who were currently practicing overfeeding, recorded three-day food records.
The bodybuilders were then further divided into a normal overfeeding group eating
≤1.7g/kg/day of protein (NO, n=10), and
a protein overfeeding group consisting
of those eating >1.7g/kg/day (PO, n=9).
Blood, anthropometric, and mood state
data were collected to assess differences in body composition, physical health,
and mental stress levels between groups.
The mean protein intake in the NO and
PO groups were 1.6 and 3.1g/kg/day, re-
spectively. The higher protein group had
significantly (p<0.05) lower body weight,
waist circumference, body fat percentage,
malondialdehyde levels, total cholesterol, triglycerides, VLDL, non-HDL cholesterol, atherogenic index, and a higher
HDL to total cholesterol ratio. Furthermore, the higher protein group tended
to have higher HDL overall, though the
difference didn't quite reach significance
(p=0.07).There were no significant differences in mood state between groups. Thus,
in this sample, overfeeding bodybuilders
eating a high protein intake tended to be
healthier and leaner than those consuming a protein intake of 1.7g/kg or less.
Purpose and Research
Questions
32
TABLE 1: TRAINING CHARACTERISTICS IN NORMAL AND
HIGH PROTEIN OVERFEEDING GROUPS
Variable
Normal Protein
Overfeeding
High Protein
Overfeeding
Experience in training
(years)
10.9±2.7
10.4±2.9
Experience in
bodybuilding (years)
5.4±1.4
5.6±1.9
Days per week
4.9±0.6
4.5±0.6
Minutes per day
66.5±16.7
58.3±10.2
Minutes per week
325.8±91.7
260.8±49.3
Data from de Moraes et al. 2017 (1)
Purpose
The purpose of present study was to investigate if a high protein intake is associated with lower body fat levels, an improved blood lipid profile, better mood
state, or lower malondialdehyde (MDA)
(an oxidative stress marker) levels in
overfeeding male bodybuilders.
Subjects and Methods
Subjects
in the offseason, and reported a caloric
intake meeting two criteria: 1) Intake
needed to be at least two standard deviations above their predicted maintenance,
and 2) It needed to be at least 50kcal/
kg. Individuals who performed regular
aerobic exercise or used any medication
that could interfere with a lipid profile,
including anabolic steroids, were excluded if they had used them within the prior
eight months.
Overall Design
Nineteen male bodybuilders between This was a cross-sectional design,
the ages of 20 and 35 were recruited. meaning that unlike a controlled trial, the
Participants must have participated in at participants were not randomly assigned
least one championship-level event, been into dietary interventions that altered
33
only protein intake but kept everything
else the same. Rather, this study compared
differences in bodybuilders who were already overfeeding, and then compared
differences in those bodybuilders when
they were stratified by protein intake. This
design is a useful way to get an adequate
sample in a hard-to-study population, and
it allows a study to be quickly completed; however, one can’t infer causality from
cross-sectional studies.
Resistance Training Characteristics
Training experience and the weekly time spent training were reported and
were similar between the high and normal
protein groups. Participant training characteristics are shown below in Table 1.
Body Composition, Biochemical, Dietary,
and Mood State Testing
Participants completed a three-day food
record (two weekdays and one weekend
day) in order to assess energy and nutrient intake. Height, weight, skinfold
thicknesses, and body circumferences
were measured. Body fat percentage was
derived from those measurements. Total
cholesterol, HDL, VLDL, triglycerides,
malondialdehyde, and creatine kinase-MB
(a marker for muscle damage specific to
heart muscle) levels were assessed. Finally,
the profile of mood states questionnaire
was given to all participants.
Findings
Body Composition Differences
Table 2 shows the body composition
differences between groups. Weight,
BMI, body fat percentage, total fat mass,
and waist circumference were all significantly lower in the PO group without
any significant differences in age, height,
or fat-free mass between groups.
Dietary Differences
Energy intake was similar when comparing NO (56.1±3.2kcal/kg/day) to
PO (58.8±3.4kcal/kg/day), as was fiber intake (NO, 42.1±9.2g/day vs PO,
40.4±7.4g/day). Similarly, fat intake as
a percentage of total daily calories was
similar between NO (21.4±1.5) and PO
(23.8±1.3). However, protein intake (as
designed) differed between groups, such
that NO consumed 1.6±0.2g/kg/day and
PO, 3.1±0.3g/kg/day (p<0.05). Additionally, carbohydrate intake was higher
(p<0.05) in NO (8.5±0.8g/kg/day) than
in PO (6.2±0.5g/kg/day), as was dietary
cholesterol (NO, 387.7±94.8 mg/day versus PO, 302.1±101.3 mg/day; p<0.05).
Health Biomarker Differences Between
Groups
Table 3 displays the mean or median
(when data were not normally distributed) values of blood markers associated with health. Malondialdehyde, lipoprotein, and lipoprotein-related indexes
and ratios were more often in line with
the recommended guidelines the authors
used as a reference (2) in PO versus NO
and were significantly different in seven
out of nine comparisons, with relatively
low p-values reported in the markers that
34
TABLE 2: ANTHROPOMETRIC DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN GROUPS
Variable
Normal Protein
Overfeeding
High Protein
Overfeeding
Age (years)
28.1±2.9
26.9±3.3
Height (cm)
172.9±1.0
172.1±0.4
Body mass (kg)
89.9±6.5
82.9±4.4*
Body mass index (kg/m2)
30.1±1.9
27.9±1.4*
Body fat percentage (%)
20.9±2.9
14.3±2.5*
Fat mass (kg)
18.9±3.8
11.8±3.4*
Fat free mass (kg)
70.8±3.5
71.0±3.5
Waist circumference (cm)
90.8±4.1
83.5±3.5*
*p<0.05 difference between groups
were non-significant. Finally, there were it’s rare to see lipoprotein and heart
no reported differences in mood state or health-related blood work reported in
creatine-kinase MB between groups.
bodybuilders not using anabolic steroids.
Typically, lipoprotein cross-sectionInterpretation
al comparisons such as this are done to
There are a few reasons why I think it’s compare differences in those using anaworthwhile to review this study. First, bolic steroids versus those not using ste-
35
TABLE 3: LIPOPROTEIN AND HEALTH BIOMARKER
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GROUPS
Variable
Mean or
Median NO
Mean or
Median PO
P-Value
Guidelines
NO Meeting
Guidelines
PO Meeting
Guidelines
Triglycerides
(mg/dl)
155.1
141.6
0.045
<150.0
4/10 (40%)
8/9 (88.9%)
Total
Cholesterol
(mg/dl)
193.8
186.1
0.013
<200.0
6/10 (60%)
7/9 (77.8%)
HDL (mg/dl)
44.6
54.1
0.067
≥40.0
7/10 (70%)
8/9 (88.9%)
LDL (mg/dl)
126.4
100.8
0.153
<100.0
2/10 (20%)
5/9 (55.5%)
VLDL (mg/dl)
31.0
28.3
0.045
10.0-50.0
9/10 (90%)
9/9 (100%)
Non-HDL
Cholesterol
(mg/dl)
165.0
127.0
0.013
≤159.0
6/10 (60%)
8/9 (88.9%)
HDL to
Cholesterol
Ratio
0.21
0.31
<0.05
NA
-
-
Atherogenic
Index
209.4
180.8
<0.05
NA
-
-
Malondialdehyde (uL)
6.6
5.5
<0.05
NA
-
-
roids. However, in this study, all partici- ers have a pretty deep-seated belief that
pants had not used any anabolic steroids high protein diets are inherently better
for at least eight months.
for performance, muscle gain, fat loss,
Second, I think this is a really useful health, and just in general being a more
self-test to gauge whether or not you legit bro. This is certainly something I’ve
have a high-protein bias. If you read this had to assess and moderate as a researchstudy and pretty quickly decided it was er, and reading this article did indeed
a net win for team high protein, this is a initially evoke my internal pro-protein
useful moment to reflect on your biases. bodybuilding bias. However, we have to
In my experience, a lot of us bodybuild- acknowledge the substantial limitations
36
of this data set.
As a cross-sectional study, this research
cannot imply causation. More so, this is
a relatively small sample cross-sectional
study. If you aren’t quite sure of what I
mean or why a study like this can’t “prove”
something, let’s talk about what actually
occurred. In this study, nothing was actually changed in the diets of these bodybuilders. Food records were collected
along with body composition and health
data, but nothing was modified and compared to baseline, or to a control group,
or to a parallel group over time that was
modified in a different way. Rather, the
surveyed bodybuilders were simply stratified based on their protein intake and
compared once. Without control, who is
to say what caused what?
For example, while I don’t think it’s
BOTTOM LINE, THIS STUDY
SHOULD ONLY BE USED AS AN
INTERESTING HYPOTHESISFORMING DATA SET. TO TRULY
KNOW IF THE RESULTS ARE
DUE TO A HIGHER PROTEIN
INTAKE, A CONTROLLED
TRIAL WOULD BE NEEDED.
likely, perhaps the differences in body
composition and bloods were due to the
high-protein group consuming lower
carbohydrates. Or maybe bodybuilders
who consume such high protein intakes
tend to have a different mindset than
those who consume a lower intake, which
leads to different behaviors which weren’t
captured in this data set. Maybe the lower protein group doesn’t track calories as
accurately and underreported their total
food intake. Perhaps the higher protein
bodybuilders have a mindset that they
need to more carefully control body fat in
the offseason, and thus while they might
bulk on similar calories, they might not
do it as often or for as long. Bottom line,
this study should only be used as an interesting hypothesis-forming data set.
To truly know if the results are due to
a higher protein intake, a controlled trial
would be needed.
With that said, it is not completely unreasonable to hypothesize that the
high-protein content of the PO group
(or the lower protein content of the NO
group) contributed to the differences between groups. Antonio and colleagues
have done a number of controlled trial
field studies in resistance-trained individuals consuming this level of protein
and higher, comparing them to individuals consuming more moderate protein
intakes (~1.8-2.2g/kg). Indeed, in these
studies, either similar amounts of fat are
gained despite a higher caloric intake
in the higher protein group (3), or less
37
fat mass is gained in the higher protein
groups despite a higher energy intake
(4). Additionally, they’ve found that high
protein diets don’t seem to negatively
impact blood biomarkers (5). However,
they have not found an actual superiority for health from higher protein diets.
Conceivably, though, if a lower protein
group did indeed gain more fat during a
bulking phase, continued this each offseason in the long term, and ended up
with substantially more body fat than a
higher protein group, that in and of itself
could negatively impact blood biomarkers, which may be what we are seeing
here.
However, even this research is not
without limitations. The work by Antonio and colleagues stands in contrast to
a metabolic ward study (the highest level
of control possible) by Bray et al (6) a few
years back that found that weight gain
was proportionate to energy intake, but
that lean mass gain was higher when a
greater proportion of calories came from
protein. While similar to the findings by
Antonio (and those reported here), the
substantially lower body weights and
similar levels of lean mass suggest that
perhaps the satiating power of protein
(7) leads to over-reporting of total calories among the high-protein group.
Conversely, higher protein intakes may
actually lead to more accurate reporting
and better adherence, while lower protein groups under-report. It is possible
that the combination of a very high pro-
tein intake (higher than Bray), resistance
training (which did not occur in Bray),
and a population of resistance-trained
males (which was different from Bray)
led to the divergent results. Perhaps
high-protein diets in these conditions
lead to big upticks in non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT), which – in
combination with a higher thermic effect
of food (TEF) on a high-protein diet –
prevents fat gain without negatively impacting muscle accrual. While possible,
I tend to think differences in calorie intake reporting is more likely (or at least a
larger contributor to the findings). Is that
what is happening in the present study
as well? We don’t know, but it’s certainly possible that there are differences in
bodybuilders who consume moderateversus high-protein intakes, which could
manifest in divergent body composition
and health markers that could be unrelated to the protein intake difference itself.
Next Steps
While this cross-sectional study and
the controlled trials in an applied setting
by Antonio and colleagues are intriguing, I think it’s high time someone put
together a more tightly controlled feeding study. These days, I’m confident that
protein intakes over ~1.8-2.2g/kg while
in a caloric surplus won’t aid in muscle
mass or strength gains (on average, your
mileage may vary), but it’s worthwhile
38
APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
1. If you were to randomly sample a group of bodybuilders of a similar training
experience with a similar total volume of training, you would probably find that those
consuming higher versus lower protein intakes would be leaner and have a better
lipoprotein profile.
2. While we can’t say for certain that this outcome is directly caused by a higher
protein intake, prior research in this area has shown that consuming roughly 3g/kg
of protein or higher is not unhealthy and may result in less fat mass accrual than
consuming a more typical intake in the range of 1.6-2.0g/kg.
3. Given the very low chance of any detrimental effect, if a bodybuilder or strength
athlete struggles to not put on excess fat while going through a gaining period, it
wouldn’t be a bad idea to try a high-protein approach (probably not more than 2.83.2g/kg) to see if this strategy helps keep fat gains at bay.
investigating whether or not consuming
very high protein intakes could be a useful strategy to prevent excess fat gain in
the offseason without causing any negative health issues. In fact, I’m pretty sure
it would be a useful strategy, and these
data certainly support that possibility.
However, we need a follow up, preferably
one with a greater level of dietary control
than has been previously utilized in the
literature, and also a mechanistic analysis of TEF and NEAT to determine why
this works.
39
References
1. de Moraes, W.M.A.M., et al., Protein Overfeeding is Associated with Improved Lipid and Anthropometric Profile thus Lower Malondialdehyde Levels in Resistance-Trained Athletes. International
Journal of Sports Science, 2017. 7(2): p. 87-93.
2. Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection,
Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) final
report. Circulation, 2002. 106(25): p. 3143-421.
3. Antonio, J., et al., The effects of consuming a high protein diet (4.4 g/kg/day) on body composition
in resistance-trained individuals. J Int Soc Sports Nutr, 2014. 11(19).
4. Antonio, J., et al., A high protein diet (3.4 g/kg/d) combined with a heavy resistance training program improves body composition in healthy trained men and women--a follow-up investigation. J
Int Soc Sports Nutr, 2015. 12: p. 39.
5. Antonio, J., et al., The effects of a high protein diet on indices of health and body composition – a
crossover trial in resistance-trained men. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition,
2016. 13(1): p. 3.
6. Bray Ga, S.S.R.d.J.L. and et al., Effect of dietary protein content on weight gain, energy expenditure,
and body composition during overeating: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA: The Journal of the
American Medical Association, 2012. 307(1): p. 47-55.
7. Paddon-Jones, D., et al., Protein, weight management, and satiety. Am J Clin Nutr, 2008. 87(5): p.
1558S-1561S.
█
40
Mind Over Matter: Mental
Training Increases Strength Gains
Study Reviewed: Effects of Mental Training on Muscular
Force, Hormonal and Physiological Changes in
Kickboxers. Slimani et al. (2017)
BY G RE G NUC KO LS
W
hen you talk to elite lifters, you’ll
notice that, in addition to discussing their training approach, a
lot of them also talk about their mental
approach to training and competing. This
study set out to test the degree to which
mental training could augment physical
training.
41
KEY POINTS
1. Two groups of high-level kickboxers performed the same lifting program over 12
weeks. One of the groups did additional mental training, including motivational selftalk and visualization.
2. While both groups experienced increased performance, the group doing additional
mental training made larger gains. For our purposes here, their additional strength
gains in the bench press and half squat are most relevant.
3. The group doing additional mental training also showed markers of decreased
stress, including an elevation in testosterone:cortisol ratio and larger decreases in
resting heart rate and blood pressure than the group not performing mental training.
Over 12 weeks, two groups of
high-level kickboxers followed the
same strength training program, but
one group also performed additional
mental training (self-talk and visualization). While both groups got stronger in the bench press and half squat,
the group doing additional mental
training experienced larger strength
increases, along with decreases in heart
rate and blood pressure, and increases
in testosterone:cortisol ratio. Therefore,
purposefully adding self-talk and visualization training to your lifting may
help you make faster strength gains
without incurring additional recovery
demands.
1. Physical training plus mental training would lead to larger strength
gains than physical training alone.
2. Physical training plus mental training would lead to larger increases
in testosterone and a larger increase
in testosterone:cortisol ratio than
physical training alone.
3. Physical training plus mental training would lead to larger decreases in
cortisol, heart rate, and blood pressure than physical training alone.
Subjects and Methods
Subjects
The subjects were 53 male elite (n=9)
or sub-elite kickboxers (n=44), meaning
Purpose and Research they competed in at least four national
or international competitions per year.
Questions
They were 24.2±4.4 years old, weighing
The authors of this study had three hy- 70.4±10.4kg, and all had at least one year
potheses:
of resistance training experience.
42
To be included in the study, they had to to analyze testosterone and cortisol levels. All tests, measurements, and blood
meet these criteria:
1. They’d never done any sort of dedi- draws were performed at the same times
cated mental training with the goal of day (7-8 a.m. for blood draws, blood
pressure, and heart rate and 5:30-7 p.m.
of improving sport performance.
for physical tests) at all three time points
2. They didn’t use any drugs or dietary
to minimize the effect of diurnal fluctuasupplements.
tions in hormone levels, heart rate, blood
3. They had no recent injuries.
pressure, and performance.
4. They had no history of using drugs It’s worth noting that the half squats
or medications that could affect the used in this study were actually relatively
hypothalamic-adrenal-gonadal axis. close to legal squats in powerlifting. The
5. They had no history of chronic dis- participants were required to squat until
the greater trochanter of the femur was
ease.
parallel with the knee – probably ~2-3
6. They had regular eating patterns.
inches above legal powerlifting depth,
7. They had no depressive illnesses.
depending on quad size.
8. They had no severe cognitive impairment.
Training Protocol
9. They had to have at least moderate
mental imagery ability, according to The participants were split into three
the Sport Imagery Ability Measure. groups:
1. One group (n=20) performed only
physical training (PT).
Testing
2. One group (n=18) performed physOne week before the start of the study,
ical training plus mental training
the participants all tested 1RM bench
(PT-MT).
press, 1RM half squat, max distance
medicine ball throw, and max height 3. One group (n=15) served as a control group, doing no physical or
countermovement jump to familiarize
mental training.
themselves with the tests.
At the start of training, after 6 weeks of Training for the PT and PT-MT
training, and after 12 weeks of training, groups took place three days per week
all groups completed those same physi- for 12 weeks, consisting of a 15-mincal tests again. In addition, the research- ute warm-up, 4 sets of 8 half squat and
ers measured the subjects’ resting heart bench presses with 70% 1RM loads, and
rate and blood pressure and drew blood 4 sets of 10-12 medicine ball throws or
43
15 MINUTES
30 MINUTES
30 MINUTES
15 MINUTES
TABLE 1: TRAINING PROGRAM
Physical Training
Physical Plus Mental Training
General and specific
warmup
General and specific
warmup
Bench press and half squat
(4x8 with 70% 1RM)
Bench press and half squat
(4x8 with 70% 1RM)
Medicine ball throws and
counter-movement jumps
(4x10-12 apiece)
Medicine ball throws and
counter-movement jumps
(4x10-12 apiece)
80 seconds of rest
between sets
80 seconds of motivational
self-talk (MST) between sets
Neural cognitive tasks
First-person motor imagery for
bench press, half squat, medicine
ball throws, and countermovement jumps
Cooldown (jogging,
stretching, shadow boxing)
Cooldown (jogging,
stretching, shadow boxing)
countermovement jumps. They rested
80 seconds between sets of all exercises.
Unfortunately, the authors don’t explicitly state how load was progressed for the
half squat and bench press.
In addition to the physical training,
the PT-MT group also performed motivational self-talk between sets and performed mental imagery training at the
end of each workout.
The motivational self-talk was self-selected, in accordance with self-determination theory. The athletes were told to
identify negative self-talk before, during,
or after training, write down the negative statement, and to restate that negative statement as a positive or motivating statement. For example, if an athlete
44
FIGURE 1
Relative Increases in Performance
30%
20%
2.0 **
0.74*
0.84**
Physical Plus Mental Training
Physical Training Only
* = Medium between-group effect
size
0.98**
** = Large between-group effect size
CMJ = counter-movement jump
MBT = medicine ball throw
10%
0%
CMJ (cm)
MBT (m)
Bench press (kg)
caught himself thinking “I’m not sure I
can lift this much weight,” they’d instead
be instructed to repeat something like,
“I could lift more weight” between sets.
The athletes were asked to change their
motivational statements each time a new
piece of negative self-talk arose.
Mental imagery consisted of internal
kinesthetic imagery. This means that the
participants were instructed to imagine
themselves performing each exercise,
looking out through their own eyes (i.e.
a first-person view, instead of imagining
watching themselves performing the exercise), and maximally exerting themselves through the exercise. The study
also notes that they “urged the muscles
to contract maximally,” though it’s un-
Half squat (kg)
clear whether the participants actually
maximally contracted their muscles, or
just imagined their muscles contracting.
While the PT-MT group performed
their mental training post-exercise, the
PT group performed neural cognitive
tasks. The study doesn’t make the nature
of those tasks clear, simply stating that
they “never involved the abilities needed
to form mental images.” I honestly have
no idea whatsoever what those tasks involved.
Finally, the PT and PT-MT groups
performed two 90-minute sessions of
kickboxing training per week, mostly focusing on technique and sport-specific
training.
45
FIGURE 2
Mental Group
Physical Group
Control Group
TESTOSTERONE (NG/ML)
8
**#
7
*+
6
5
4
3
0
6
12
TRAINING PERIOD
Mental Group
Control Group
Physical Group
CORTISON (NG/ML)
130
**#
120
*+
110
100
90
80
70
0
6
12
TRAINING PERIOD
Mental Group
Physical Group
Control Group
0,1
**#
T/C RATIO
0,08
0,06
0,04
0,04
0
6
12
TRAINING PERIOD
Mean ± SD values for resting testosterone, cortisol concentrations,
and T/C ration during 12 weeks of mental training in male, trained
kickboxers. *Significant difference at post-training compared
with pre-training at p<0.05; **Significant difference at posttraining compared with pre-training at p<0.001; # Higher values
for the mental group at post-training compared to physical and
control groups at p<0.05; + Higher values for the physical group
at post-training compared to the control group at p<0.05. From
Slimani et al. (1)
Findings
While the PT and PT-MT groups
both improved significantly (p<0.05)
in all measures of performance, improvements were larger in the PT-MT
group across the board. Performance
decreased non-significantly in the control group. The statistical tests reported
didn’t check to see if gains were significantly different, strangely (i.e. they
reported that relative bench press was
higher post-training for the PT-MT
group than the PT group, but I don’t
think they ran tests to see if the actual increase itself was larger). However,
between-group effect sizes can be seen
in Figure 1.
When looking at the hormonal data,
I think the authors had reporting issues. For testosterone, the authors report in the results section and in their
figure that testosterone concentrations
increased in both the PT and PT-MT
groups, and they don’t mention a significant change in the control group.
So far, so good.
For cortisol, the authors report in the
results section that cortisol was higher post-training in the PT-MT group
than the PT or control groups. However, that doesn’t match their figure,
which shows significant increases in the
PT and control groups and a non-significant decrease in the PT-MT group.
In the discussion section, the authors
report a decrease in cortisol in the PT-
46
FIGURE 3
Physical Plus Mental Training and Physical Training Only
0.0%
Physical Plus Mental Training
Physical Training Only
-2.5%
** = Large between-group
effect size (negative means a
larger decrease in the PT-MT
group)
-5.0%
-7.5%
-10.0%
MT group.
-1.75**
Resting Heart Rate
(beats/min)
-1.14**
Mean Arterial Pressure
(mmHg)
Finally, for T:C ratio, the authors report
that T:C ratio was higher post-training
for the PT-MT group than the PT and
control groups. That seems to indicate
that the authors simply misstated the
cortisol data in their results section, but
correctly reported it in on their graphs
and in their discussion (as a decrease in
cortisol would increase T:C ratio). However, if we assume the graphs for testosterone and cortisol are accurate, we
run into another problem with the T:C
graph. Testosterone concentrations decreased non-significantly for the control
group on the graphs, while cortisol levels
increased significantly. That would necessarily mean that T:C ratio would decrease over the course of the study. However, the T:C graph shows unchanged
T:C ratios for the control group.
It’s impossible to square this circle given the data reported. We can make the
reported results for the PT and PT-MT
groups add up if we assume the authors
just made a typo in their results section,
but even if we do that, there’s no way we
can wind up with a coherent picture for
all three groups. As such, I’m not going to
pay too much attention to the hormonal
47
TABLE 2
CMJ (cm)
MBT (m)
Bench press (kg)
Half squat (kg)
Resting HR (bpm)
MAP (mmHg)
Physical Plus
Mental Training
Group
Physical
Training
Group
Pre
32.6±2.6
33±2.5
Post
37.9±2.8
25.8±2.7
Pre
4.3±0.3
4.2±0.3
Post
5.5±0.3
4.8±0.3
Pre
60.2±7.8
60.3±7.7
Post
76.2±8.7
69.8±8.7
Pre
89.2±12.5
90.1±13.4
Post
113.5±14.1
104.8±14.7
Pre
69.6±2.5
69.7±2.4
Post
63.2±3.3
67.6±2.8
Pre
89.1±2.3
90.2±2.6
Post
81.5±3.1
85.4±3.5
data for the rest of this review, as there
seem to be unresolvable data reporting
issues.
Lastly, resting heart rate and blood
pressure decreased in both the PT and
PT-MT groups, with larger decreases in
the PT-MT group.
All pre- and post-training performance
and physiological characteristics of the
PT and PT-MT groups can be seen in
Table 2.
Interpretation
The beauty of mental training is that it
can increase strength gains without making it more challenging to recover from
training. In fact, if you take the hormonal
data reported in this study at face value
(which, again, may not be prudent), the
mental training performed by the PTMT group in this study may have put
them in a hormonal state indicative of
48
lower fatigue (increased T:C ratio). That’s
corroborated by the larger decreases in
resting heart rate and blood pressure in
the PT-MT group as well.
In this study, the PT-MT group performed two different types of mental training: motivational self-talk, and
mental imagery.
The way they used self-talk – during rest
periods to mentally prepare themselves
for their next set – is something we can all
implement. At the very least, it will keep
you engaged and focused on your training instead of wasting time goofing off
or checking Instagram. I think the way
they determined the self-talk to use was
instructive as well: the participants identified negative self-talk they already had
and turned it around to make it positive.
That shifts the focus from your perceived
shortcomings to your ability to overcome
those shortcomings. For example, if your
speed off the floor is slow when deadlifting, you’ll be in a much better mental
space if you focus more on overcoming
that issue (“I can pull these reps faster off
the floor”) rather than simply dwelling
on it in a negative light (“well, my deadlifts are always slow, so I’m sure this next
set will be slow too”).
The way mental imagery was used in
this study, on the other hand (for 30
minutes post-training), may be less convenient for most people to implement.
I’d assume most people don’t want to
hang around the gym for another half
hour when they’re done training to do
THE BEAUTY OF MENTAL
TRAINING IS THAT IT CAN
INCREASE STRENGTH
GAINS WITHOUT MAKING
IT MORE CHALLENGING TO
RECOVER FROM TRAINING.
visualization exercises. However, I doubt
that the timing of your mental imagery is
crucially important. Furthermore, if selftalk (especially through the entire duration of a rest period) feels hokey to you,
you could perform your mental imagery
between sets as well. In a prior study, for
example, people doing visualization exercises between their training sets gained
more strength on the leg press than people not performing visualization exercises between sets (2).
The most effective form of imagery
tends to be the first-person style used
in this study (looking through your own
eyes as you imagine the task, rather than
observing yourself performing the task
from a third-person point of view) (3).
Furthermore, the more details you can
evoke from the experience – the bar digging into your hands, the feeling of your
muscles straining against the load, the
music you listen to when you train, etc.
49
APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
Adding mental training to your current program will likely boost your strength gains
and may even decrease markers of physiological stress. Positive self-talk and first
person kinesthetic mental imagery absolutely don’t replace slinging around heavy iron,
obviously, but they can help you get larger gains from your training program.
– the more effective your mental imagery training will be. If the details of using
mental imagery to enhance performance
interest you, I’d highly recommend this
review (4). The nitty gritty details are
outside the purview of this article, but
the linked review is very well-written.
Next Steps
One drawback of this study was that it
was performed on people who were prescreened to have at least moderate mental imagery ability. It would be interesting
for future studies to address 1) the degree
to which that skill is trainable and 2) the
relationship between mental imagery
ability and the additive strength benefits
one can expect from mental training.
Furthermore, while this study used
participants with some degree of training
experience, they were far from elite lifters. Future studies should determine the
degree to which high-level lifters benefit
from added mental training.
50
References
1. Slimani M, Taylor L, Baker JS, Elleuch A, Ayedi FM, Chamari K, Chéour F. Effects of mental
training on muscular force, hormonal and physiological changes in kickboxers. J Sports Med Phys
Fitness. 2017 Jul-Aug;57(7-8):1069-1079. doi: 10.23736/S0022-4707.16.06421-5.
2. Lebon F, Collet C, Guillot A. Benefits of motor imagery training on muscle strength. J Strength
Cond Res. 2010 Jun;24(6):1680-7. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181d8e936.
3. Yao WX, Ranganathan VK, Allexandre D, Siemionow V, Yue GH. Kinesthetic imagery training of
forceful muscle contractions increases brain signal and muscle strength. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013
Sep 26;7:561. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00561.
4. Wakefield C, Smith D. Perfecting Practice: Applying the PETTLEP Model of Motor Imagery.
Journal of Sport Psychology in Action. 2012 Volume 3, Issue 1.
█
51
Drop Set-Only Training Is Time
Efficient, but How Can It Be
Practically Implemented?
Study Reviewed: Effects of Drop Sets with Resistance Training on
Increases in Muscle CSA, Strength, and Endurance: A Pilot Study.
Ozaki et al. (Published Ahead of Print)
BY MIC HAE L C . ZO URD O S
T
o maximize hypertrophy, a variety of riety is used not only because we are conprogramming strategies are often in- tinually searching for the key to muscle
tegrated into a periodized design. Va- growth, but also for enjoyment.
52
KEY POINTS
1. In untrained lifters, sessions of only drop sets are very time-efficient and produce
similar hypertrophy and strength gains compared to high- and low-load training.
2. There is a diminishing return on the amount of volume that is beneficial for hypertrophy
and strength.
3. While metabolic accumulation may play some role in the hypertrophic response, it
does not seem to be the primary driver; therefore, drop sets should likely be used
in conjunction with traditional sets and not as a standalone strategy once training
experience increases.
Drop sets, which can be defined as one
or more sets with a reduction in load and
no rest interval performed immediately
after a heavier set, are used to increase the
muscle pump. The muscle pump mechanisms may play a role in hypertrophy, but
achieving the pump is enjoyable and drop
sets are effective at accumulating volume
in a short amount of time. The purpose of
this study was to examine the changes in
biceps hypertrophy, strength, and endurance with a group doing multiple drop
sets (DS) compared to a group doing
straight sets with a high load (HL) and a
group doing straight sets with a low load
(LL). Nine untrained males were used in
the study, and one arm of each subject
was assigned to either the HL, LL, or
DS groups, thus there were six subjects
(or arms) in each group as there were
18 total arms. For eight weeks, the HL
group performed three sets to failure at
80% of one-repetition maximum (1RM)
on the seated dumbbell curl with three
minutes of rest between sets, while the
LL group performed the seated curl for
three sets of max reps with 30% of 1RM
with 90 seconds of rest between sets, and
the DS group did one set to failure at 80,
65, 50, 40, and 30% of 1RM in descending order with <5 seconds of rest between
sets. Strength (1RM dumbbell curl and
maximal voluntary isometric contraction
– MVIC) and hypertrophy were tested
before and after the eights weeks as well
as during week 5, while muscular endurance (max reps at 30% of 1RM) was tested at only pre- and post-study. All groups
experienced significant hypertrophy (assessed via changes in muscle cross-sectional area – CSA) over the eight weeks
with no differences between groups. For
1RM dumbbell curl strength, there were
no statistically significant differences between groups; however, both HL and DS
increased from pre- to post-study, while
LL did not. Therefore, even though there
was no group interaction for strength,
two groups (HL and DS) experienced
significant strength improvements, while
53
LL experienced no change in strength.
Similar to 1RM curl strength, elbow flexor MVIC increased significantly in both
HL and DS from pre- to post-study, but
the LL group did not increase MVIC.
Additionally, LL performed significantly more repetitions at 30% of 1RM at
post-study versus both the HL and DS
groups. Importantly, the DS group finished each training session more quickly
than the HL or LL groups. Therefore, in
untrained individuals who require little
volume to progress, using a session of
solely DS is a time-efficient way to increase hypertrophy, strength, and muscle
endurance in the short term.
Purpose and Research
Questions
Purpose
The purpose of the reviewed study was
to compare the effects of HL, LL, and
DS training on hypertrophy, strength,
and muscular endurance of the biceps
over eight weeks in untrained males.
Research Question
HL groups would increase hypertrophy,
strength, and muscle endurance. The
authors did not explicitly predict a difference between groups, and they didn’t
mention the LL group in the hypotheses.
However, in the discussion, the authors
state that the findings were in conflict
with their hypothesis, in that hypertrophy was the same between the HL and
DS groups. Therefore, it does seem that
the authors hypothesized that DS would
produce the greatest hypertrophic response, with no prediction of the other
variables.
Subjects and Methods
Subjects
Nine men were in this study. The subjects were all untrained, which was classified as not having performed resistance
training for at least one year prior to the
start of the study. For group allocation,
each arm of every subject was assigned
to either the HL, LL, or DS training. So,
since there were 18 total arms, this means
there were six arms or subjects in each
group. Specific subject characteristics are
provided in Table 1.
Could a training session of only drop
sets increase hypertrophy, strength, and Overall Design
muscular endurance to the same or even
Subjects trained for eight total weeks
greater extent as HL and LL training usand underwent pre-, mid-, and posting traditional straight sets?
study testing. Seated dumbbell biceps
Hypotheses
curl 1RM strength and hypertrophy were
The authors only provided the hy- tested at all time points, while MVIC and
pothesis that they believed the DS and muscular endurance were only tested at
54
TABLE 1: SUBJECT CHARACTERISTICS
Number of
subjects
-9 Total People
-18 Total Arms
-6 Arms/Subjects in
Each Group
Age
(years)
26±1
Height
(centimeters)
173±2
Body mass
(kg)
65.1±2.5
Training
experience
Untrained
Data are Mean ± Standard Error
Subjects characteristics from Ozaki et al. 2017 (1).
pre- and post-study. The MVIC was assessed by subjects performing a five-second maximal contraction of the biceps
with the elbow fixed at 60° of flexion. For
muscular endurance, subjects performed
as many repetitions as possible at 30% of
1RM; however, it is unclear if the poststudy muscular endurance test used 30%
of the pre-study 1RM or 30% of the new,
post-study 1RM. Before beginning the
eight-week training program, subjects
came to the lab four times about one
week prior to the official program. The
first visit was used to assess CSA via magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and to
teach proper technique; the second visit
was to test 1RM on the seated dumbbell
curl and to familiarize everyone with the
MVIC procedures; the third visit tested
MVIC; and the fourth preliminary visited tested muscular endurance.
two weeks and then three times per week
in weeks 3, 4, 6, and 7. Weeks 5 and 8
had only two training days, as the latter
day of each week was used for mid- and
post-testing respectively.
The HL and LL groups did three sets to
failure at 80% and 30% of 1RM, respectively, on the seated dumbbell curl in every
training session. The HL group had three
minutes of rest between sets, while the LL
group had 90 seconds of rest between sets.
The DS group performed one set with
80%, 65%, 50%, 40%, and 30% of 1RM all
to failure while only taking enough time
between sets to switch dumbbells, which
was <5 seconds. Subjects in all groups
were instructed to perform the concentric
(up motion) as fast as possible while taking two seconds to perform the eccentric
(down motion). Additionally, load was
determined for weeks 6, 7, and 8 based off
the of the 1RM obtained at mid-testing.
Resistance Training Protocol
Over the eight weeks, all groups The complete training program is providtrained two times per week for the first ed in Table 2.
55
TABLE 2: RESISTANCE
TRAINING PROGRAM
HIGH LOAD GROUP (n=6, Rest Interval=3 minutes)
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Weeks 1-2
3 Sets of Max Reps
at 80% of 1RM
3 Sets of Max Reps at
80% of 1RM
Off
Weeks 3-4
3 Sets of Max Reps
at 80% of 1RM
3 Sets of Max Reps at
80% of 1RM
3 Sets of Max Reps
at 80% of 1RM
Week 5
3 Sets of Max Reps
at 80% of 1RM
Mid-Testing: Hypertrophy
via MRI 1RM Seated
Dumbbell Curl
Off
Weeks 6-7
3 Sets of Max Reps
at 80% of 1RM
3 Sets of Max Reps at
80% of 1RM
3 Sets of Max Reps
at 80% of 1RM
Week 8
3 Sets of Max Reps
at 80% of 1RM
Post-Testing: Hypertrophy
via MRI 1RM Seated
Dumbbell Curl MVIC
Muscular Endurance
Off
LOW LOAD GROUP (n=6, Rest Interval=90 seconds)
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Weeks 1-2
3 Sets of Max Reps
at 30% of 1RM
3 Sets of Max Reps at
30% of 1RM
Off
Weeks 3-4
3 Sets of Max Reps
at 30% of 1RM
3 Sets of Max Reps at
30% of 1RM
3 Sets of Max Reps
at 30% of 1RM
Week 5
3 Sets of Max Reps
at 30% of 1RM
Mid-Testing: Hypertrophy
via MRI 1RM Seated
Dumbbell Curl
Off
Weeks 6-7
3 Sets of Max Reps
at 30% of 1RM
3 Sets of Max Reps at
30% of 1RM
3 Sets of Max Reps
at 30% of 1RM
Week 8
3 Sets of Max Reps
at 30% of 1RM
Post-Testing: Hypertrophy
via MRI 1RM Seated
Dumbbell Curl MVIC
Muscular Endurance
Off
DROP SET GROUP (n=6, Rest Interval=Less Than 5 seconds)
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Weeks 1-2
1 set of Max Reps at
80, 65, 50, 40, and
30% of 1RM
1 set of Max Reps at 80,
65, 50, 40, and 30% of
1RM
Off
Weeks 3-4
1 set of Max Reps at
80, 65, 50, 40, and
30% of 1RM
1 set of Max Reps at 80,
65, 50, 40, and 30% of
1RM
1 set of Max Reps at
80, 65, 50, 40, and
30% of 1RM
Week 5
1 set of Max Reps at
80, 65, 50, 40, and
30% of 1RM
Mid-Testing: Hypertrophy
via MRI 1RM Seated
Dumbbell Curl
Off
Weeks 6-7
1 set of Max Reps at
80, 65, 50, 40, and
30% of 1RM
3 Sets of Max Reps at
30% of 1RM
1 set of Max Reps at
80, 65, 50, 40, and
30% of 1RM
Week 8
1 set of Max Reps at
80, 65, 50, 40, and
30% of 1RM
Post-Testing: Hypertrophy
via MRI 1RM Seated
Dumbbell Curl MVIC
Muscular Endurance
Off
1RM= One-Repetition Maximum. MRI= Magnetic Resonance
Imaging. MVIC= Maximal Voluntary Isometric Contraction.
Findings
Total Volume, Total Repetitions, and
Total Time
Total volume was significantly greater
(p<0.05) in LL (15365 ± 3251 kg) versus HL (4724 ± 354 kg) and DS (5308
± 408 kg). Also, the average number
of total repetitions per session in HL,
LL, and DS groups were 15, 177, and
35, respectively. If 177 seems like a lot,
that’s because it is. In fact, the LL group
did, on average, 104 reps on the first set
alone. The DS group completed each
session in significantly less time than
the HL or LL groups. The average times
to complete each training session were
as follows: HL= 6.8 ± 0.1 min, LL= 11.6
± 2.3 min, and DS= 2.1 ± 0.1 min.
Hypertrophy
While each individual group did not
experience statistically significant hypertrophy, when all groups were combined together as one cohort, there was
significant hypertrophy from pre- to
mid-testing (p<0.001) and from midto post-testing (p<0.001) with no difference between groups. Also, as you can
see in Figure 1A, muscle size gradually
increased in all groups.
Strength
For 1RM curl strength, the HL group
increased strength from pre- to mid-testing and mid- to post-testing (p<0.05).
The DS group had strength improvements that approached significance from
56
FIGURE 1A
Significant Combined Group Increase: P<0.001
20
Muscle cross-sectional area (cm2)
18
16
14
PRE
POST
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
HL
LL
DS
FIGURE 1B
*
*
20
One-repetition maximum (kg)
18
16
14
12
PRE
POST
10
8
6
4
2
0
HL
LL
DS
Maximum repetitions at 30% 1RM (repetitions)
FIGURE 1C
140
#*
120
100
Muscular Endurance
Both the LL and DS groups increased
the amount of repetitions performed at
30% of 1RM from pre- to post-study;
however, HL did not improve muscular
endurance. Additionally, at post-study,
the LL group completed significantly
more repetitions than both HL and DS
(p=0.037), which can be seen in Figure
1C.
*
80
PRE
POST
60
40
20
0
pre- to mid-testing (p=0.09) but did significantly increase strength from pre- to
post-testing (p<0.05). The LL group did
not significantly increase strength at any
time point, although 1RM curl strength
did approach a significant change in LL
from pre- to mid-testing (p=0.08). Ultimately, there were no statistically significant differences between groups for
strength, but remember, HL and DS had
statistically significant increases, and LL
did not (Figure 1B). Similarly, for MVIC,
there were no significant differences between groups, but both HL and DS increased MVIC from pre- to post-study,
while LL did not.
HL
LL
DS
Figure 1ABC shows the pre- to post-study changes
in hypertrophy, 1RM bar curl strength, and muscular
endurance. HL= High Load, LL= Low Load, DS= Drop
Set. *Significant increase from pre-study. #Significantly
greater repetitions performed at post-study compared
to both HL and DS.
Interpretation
The overall results of this study demonstrate that there are multiple short-term
programming strategies that can increase muscle performance (hypertrophy,
strength, and endurance) in untrained
individuals. This is not surprising, as it is
well-established that untrained individuals progress very rapidly in the initial
57
TABLE 3A: MAIN LIFT DROP SET WHICH MAY IMPEDE RECOVERY
Exercise
Monday
Wednesday
Friday
Squat
4X8 @70%*
5X6 @75%
5X4 @80%
Bent over row
3X15
3X12
4X8
Bar curl
3X15
3X12
4X8
*Drop set performed immediately following fourth set of eight repetitions on Monday’s squat. If 20kg is decreased
and a set to failure is performed following the last set of squats on Monday, then the very high reps from the drop
set could cause an increased damage response, which may harm Wednesday’s session.
stages of training (2). Interestingly, when
looking at the protocols used, the following concepts are in play: the contribution
of metabolites to hypertrophy and the
time efficiency of DS, the ability of lowload training to produce hypertrophy and
strength, and the specificity of low- and
high-rep training for strength and muscular endurance. Let’s discuss and apply
each of those concepts.
Metabolite Build-up and Time Efficiency
The similar hypertrophy across groups
is unsurprising, as other recent research
has shown the same hypertrophy between
drop sets and traditional sets (3). Therefore, it seems that metabolic accumulation may not be as significant a contributor to hypertrophy as previously thought.
However, MASS reviewed an article
demonstrating that rest-pause training,
which likely enhances metabolic buildup more than traditional training, led to
more hypertrophy than traditional multiple set training (4). Ultimately, we cannot
discount the idea that metabolic accumulation may play some additive role in the
hypertrophic response. Although, since
it is now well-known that hypertrophy
occurs independent of repetition range if
volume is equated (5,6), it does seem that
total volume is a greater driver of muscle hypertrophy than training specifically
for metabolite accumulation. Therefore,
it doesn’t seem necessary to specifically
train for metabolite accumulation as a
major goal of hypertrophy training; rather, this is something that can be achieved
in certain circumstances to optimize the
full potential of muscle growth. For example, this study showed that the DS
group completed each session in an average of 2.1 minutes, compared to a to-
58
TABLE 3B: ASSISTANCE WORK DROP SETS AT THE END OF A TRAINING WEEK
Exercise
Monday
Wednesday
Friday
Squat
4X8 @70%
5X6 @75%
5X4 @80%
Bent over row
3X15
3X12
4X8*
Bar curl
3X15
3X12
4X8*
*Drop sets performed immediately after the last set of both rows and curls on Friday. If 20kg is decreased and a
set to failure is performed following the last set of squats on Friday, this could add volume and would be unlikely
to affect training capabilities for the next session on Monday.
tal training time per session of 11.1 and
6.8 minutes in LL and HL respectively.
These findings related to session time reveal that DS training is useful due to the
fact that it is time-efficient. Therefore,
since we cannot completely discount the
role of metabolites to explain the totality
of muscle hypertrophy, DS can be used
as a part of a training program in a time
efficient manner to elicit metabolite accumulation.
To implement drop-set training, it’s
important to state that using it is not an
“all or none” principle, as in the present
study. It’s unlikely that a lifter would
have one or two training sessions per
week where all they perform is drop sets.
Rather, a lifter could perform 4 sets of
5 on an exercise, and then immediately
following the last set of 5, decrease the
load by 10kg and perform repetitions to
failure. This strategy is more common
in practice than a training session solely
devoted to drop sets. Further, drop sets
should be strategically placed throughout the week, and the exercises on which
they are used should be carefully selected
so that excessive fatigue doesn’t impede
the next training session. If an individual is training three times per week on
the bench press (Monday, Wednesday,
and Friday) and on Monday does 4 sets
of 8 @70% and then does a drop set that
allows for 20 repetitions on the last set,
that may create too much muscle damage, which could prevent the lifter from
training hard on Wednesday. In this scenario, more volume in one session may
actually hinder weekly volume. Moreover,
utilizing DS on main lifts for high repetitions could lead to technique breakdown. Rather, DS could be implemented
on assistance movements on the Friday
in the previous example, since the lift-
59
er would have the longest between-day
rest on this exercise or muscle group (72
hours), decreasing the odds that fatigue
from the drop set would negatively affect
the following training session. This addition of drop sets would also increase total
training volume while giving the lifter a
mental break from doing another heavy
set, which could be a practical method
of increasing volume in a time-efficient
manner. Tables 3A and 3B provide DS
scenarios that may harm recovery, along
with a more appropriate DS option.
To continue the practical discussion, we
can think of DS, rest-pause training, and
cluster sets as programming strategies.
The time efficiency in the present study
makes these all feasible options in a situation where the lifter simply has something unexpected to do during the day
and has to equate for their pre-planned
volume in a short period of time. This is
perhaps the most attractive trait of implementing one of the aforementioned
programming strategies.
Low Load Training
Previous research has shown that similar hypertrophy can be achieved when low
and high loads have both been taken to
failure (7); however, in this study, the LL
group did not experience more hypertrophy than the HL or DS groups despite
performing more volume. There are two
potential explanations to explain why the
LL group did not experience greater hypertrophy than the other groups despite
performing the most volume. Firstly, al-
THE ADDITION OF DROP SETS
WOULD INCREASE TOTAL
TRAINING VOLUME WHILE
GIVING THE LIFTER A MENTAL
BREAK FROM DOING ANOTHER
HEAVY SET, WHICH COULD
BE A PRACTICAL METHOD
OF INCREASING VOLUME IN A
TIME-EFFICIENT MANNER.
though there is a relationship between
total volume and hypertrophy, data have
shown that moderate volumes are actually preferable to high volumes in the
short term for muscle growth (8), and
MASS has covered this topic before. The
amount of repetitions per session in this
study was: HL-15, LL-177, and DS-35.
This means that the LL group performed
five times more reps per session than the
DS group and almost 12 times more reps
than the HL. The second explanation is
that the volume performed in LL was, in
part, ineffective because so many repetitions were performed at low intensity.
Essentially, it’s possible that the LL group
accumulated a ton of “junk” or ineffective
60
APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
1. Drop sets are a time-efficient way to add volume to your normal training program.
2. Adaptations to strength and endurance tend to occur specific to low and high
repetitions respectively.
3. While volume is related to muscle growth and strength, high volume in the shortterm is not necessary, especially for untrained lifters who can make rapid progress
on little training volume.
volume, which suggests that there is a
minimum threshold of intensity in which
greater volume will still contribute to
muscle adaptations. I believe the second
explanation to be more plausible for the
lack of additional hypertrophy in the LL
group. Moreover, in practice, it seems to
be difficult to train with solely low loads
in the long run, as it could become difficult to continually achieve progressive
overload with sustained low-intensity
training due to the extraordinarily high
amount of repetitions that occur with
low-load training.
Muscle Strength and Endurance Specificity
The results of the LL group having the
smallest strength improvement but performing the most reps at the post-study
muscular endurance test are not novel
findings. Rather, these results are consistent with robust literature demonstrating
low reps on the strength training continuum to produce greater strength than
higher repetitions (5, 9, 10). Similarly,
high reps have produced greater muscle
endurance than low reps (6, 9). The re-
sults simply demonstrate the specificity
of training zones for both strength and
endurance adaptations. Low reps likely
confer a greater neuromuscular benefit
due to the specificity of enhancing rate
coding (the frequency of firing of high
threshold motor units), while high reps
promote greater mitochondrial and capillary density within muscle fibers to enhance endurance. Simply, these findings
simply reinforce the principle of specificity. Additionally, for strength, it is again
necessary to state that the lifters were untrained when explaining that DS training
alone produced the same strength adaptation as HL training. Both the DS and
HL groups had one set at 80% of 1RM,
and although the HL group maintained
an overall higher intensity per session
than the DS group (HL: 80% of 1RM
vs. DS: 53% of 1RM), the additional sets
at 80% for the HL group may have not
been all that important since data have
indicated moderate and low volumes may
be preferable to greater volumes in the
short-term for strength (11). Now, the
HL group in this study did not perform
61
true high-volume training, but keeping
in mind that the subjects were untrained,
we have to ask the question: “How much
benefit would the extra sets at 80% have
for strength?” It’s possible that the first
set at 80% in the DS group was enough to
produce similar strength gains compared
to the HL group. However, as training
experience increases, multiple sets with
high intensity (i.e. 80%) would likely be
superior for strength adaptation than one
set at 80% followed by drop sets at lower
intensities.
Next Steps
While these results demonstrate the
potential usefulness of DS, a study should
examine DS as a programming strategy
on a single day or exercise throughout the
week in trained lifters, as this is a more
common and feasible training strategy. Further, future data should examine
this concept on the main lifts and aim
to gather blood samples to analyze metabolic build-up along with indirect markers of muscle damage (soreness, ROM,
isometric strength) in the 48 hours following each type of training to gauge
the time course of the recovery response,
which would examine our theories in Tables 3A and 3B.
62
References
1. Ozaki H, Kubota A, Natsume T, Loenneke JP, Abe T, Machida S, Naito H. Effects of drop sets with
resistance training on increases in muscle CSA, strength, and endurance: a pilot study. Journal of
Sports Sciences. 2017 May 21:1-6.
2. Ahtiainen JP, Pakarinen A, Alen M, Kraemer WJ, Häkkinen K. Muscle hypertrophy, hormonal adaptations and strength development during strength training in strength-trained and untrained men.
European journal of applied physiology. 2003 Aug 1;89(6):555-63.
3. Angleri V, Ugrinowitsch C, Libardi CA. Crescent pyramid and drop-set systems do not promote
greater strength gains, muscle hypertrophy, and changes on muscle architecture compared with traditional resistance training in well-trained men. European journal of applied physiology. 2017 Feb
1;117(2):359-69.
4. Prestes J, Tibana RA, de Araujo Sousa E, da Cunha Nascimento D, de Oliveira Rocha P, Camarço
NF, de Sousa NM, Willardson JM. Strength And Muscular Adaptations Following 6 Weeks Of
Rest-Pause Versus Traditional Multiple-Sets Resistance Training In Trained Subjects. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research. 2017 Apr 4.
5. Schoenfeld BJ, Ratamess NA, Peterson MD, Contreras B, Sonmez GT, Alvar BA. Effects of different volume-equated resistance training loading strategies on muscular adaptations in well-trained
men. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2014 Oct 1;28(10):2909-18.
6. Klemp A, Dolan C, Quiles JM, Blanco R, Zoeller RF, Graves BS, Zourdos MC. Volume-equated
high-and low-repetition daily undulating programming strategies produce similar hypertrophy and
strength adaptations. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism. 2016 Feb 16;41(7):699-705.
7. Schoenfeld BJ, Peterson MD, Ogborn D, Contreras B, Sonmez GT. Effects of low-vs. high-load
resistance training on muscle strength and hypertrophy in well-trained men. The Journal of Strength
& Conditioning Research. 2015 Oct 1;29(10):2954-63.
8. González-Badillo JJ, Izquierdo M, Gorostiaga EM. Moderate volume of high relative training intensity produces greater strength gains compared with low and high volumes in competitive weightlifters. Journal of strength and conditioning research. 2006 Feb 1;20(1):73.
9. Anderson T, Kearney JT. Effects of three resistance training programs on muscular strength and
absolute and relative endurance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 1982 Mar 1;53(1):1-7.
10. Campos GE, Luecke TJ, Wendeln HK, Toma K, Hagerman FC, Murray TF, Ragg KE, Ratamess
NA, Kraemer WJ, Staron RS. Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training
regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones. European journal of applied physiology.
2002 Nov 7;88(1):50-60.
11. González-Badillo JJ, Gorostiaga EM, Arellano R, Izquierdo M. Moderate resistance training volume produces more favorable strength gains than high or low volumes during a short-term training
cycle. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2005 Aug 1;19(3):689.
█
63
Recovery from Training:
High Intensity vs. High Volume
Study Reviewed: Comparison of the Recovery Response
From High-Intensity and High-Volume Resistance Exercise
in Trained Men. Bartolomei et al. (2017)
BY E RI C HE LMS
A
n appropriate training configuration
within a microcycle of training depends partially on managing fatigue
from previous training sessions. To bet-
ter understand how to distribute training
sessions, you have to know which days
produce more fatigue than others. In this
study, 12 males (18-35 years old) with at
64
KEY POINTS
1. An acute bout of high volume, moderate load training with short rest intervals (8
sets of 10 reps at 70% 1RM with 75 seconds rest between sets) suppresses force
production to a greater degree and for a longer period than a bout of moderate
volume, high load training with longer rest intervals (8 sets of 3 reps at 90% 1RM
with 3 minutes rest between sets).
2. In the 72-hour period after high volume training, increases in cross-sectional area
(CSA) occurred as a result of inflammation, evidenced by relationships (r=0.60-0.66,
p<0.05) between increases in CSA and interleukin-6 (a myokine which increases in
response to contraction induced inflammation) and creatine kinase (a biomarker for
muscle damage).
3. Additionally, changes in CSA were inversely related (r=-0.58- -0.80, p<0.05) with
various measures of muscular strength and power. Thus, performance is impeded
proportionally to the degree of inflammation and muscle damage from high volume
training for at least 72 hours. Therefore, volume should be distributed over a
microcycle so as not to impede performance in subsequent sessions. Additionally,
volume should be increased gradually (on an as-needed basis) so the repeated
bout effect is elicited, protecting against excessive damage while accomplishing
progressive overload.
least two years of training experience and
a minimum squat one-repetition maximum (1RM) of 1.5 times bodyweight
completed two protocols – a high volume (HV, 8x10x70% 1RM), and a high
intensity (HI, 8x3x90% 1RM) protocol
– in a counterbalanced crossover design.
Various tests were then conducted after
this protocol at 30 minutes, 24 hours, 48
hours, and 72 hours post-training. Specifically, performance was assessed via
counter-movement jump (CMJ) peak
power, isokinetic (fixed speed) leg extension strength, isometric (a fixed joint position) leg extension maximum voluntary
contraction (MVC) strength, isometric
mid-thigh pull strength, and isometric
half squat strength. Additionally, vastus lateralis (a muscle of the quadriceps
group) cross-sectional area (CSA) was
assessed at each time point to determine
the degree of swelling and inflammation
in response to training. Finally, blood
draws were taken from the participants
to assess changes in endocrine (testosterone and cortisol), inflammatory (interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein), and
muscle damage (creatine kinase, lactate
dehydrogenase, and myoglobin) markers,
in addition to subjective ratings of pain
and soreness. In response to training, the
HI group had lower levels of soreness and
blood lactate, and had higher CMJ, isometric leg extension, and MVC strength
65
compared to HV at various time points.
Additionally, cortisol, interleukin-6, and
vastus lateralis CSA were elevated from
baseline only in HV at specific time
points, but not HI. Thus, it seems that
the HV protocol produced more damage, soreness, and suppressed force production to a greater degree than the HI
protocol over a 72-hour period.
Subjects and Methods
Subjects
Twelve experienced, resistance-trained
men (body mass, 82.3 ± 8.4 kg; height,
175.2 ± 5.5 cm; body fat, 13.5 ± 3.4%)
volunteered to participate in this study.
Participants had to be between 18 and 35
years old with at least two years of resistance training experience (actual, 6.3 ±
3.4 years). Additionally, participants had
Purpose and Research to be able to squat at least 1.5 times their
body mass (actual, 173.4 ± 31.7 kg). ParQuestions
ticipants could not use dietary supplePurpose
ments or performance enhancing drugs
The purpose of this investigation was to during the trial and were screened for
compare the acute effects of a HV and prior use.
HI training protocol on performance and Overall Design
recovery post-exercise in experienced, reIn this crossover design, the participants
sistance-trained men.
were assessed a total of 11 times. The first
Hypotheses
assessment was to test their squat 1RM
While not directly stated, the authors and to have their descriptive characteriscited previous work showing HV train- tics measured (height, weight, body coming to suppress force production. Much position, etc.). After at least 72 hours, the
of the prior work cited, however, was in participants returned to perform either
untrained individuals, and the authors the HI or HV protocol (half started with
stated that the acute response to train- one, half the other) after baseline assessing is dependent on training experience ment of muscle CSA and baseline blood
and the protocol utilized. Thus, while the collection. Then, at 30 minutes, 24 hours,
authors likely expected HV training to 48 hours, and 72 hours post-training,
suppress force production more and re- blood, CSA, and performance analyses
quire a longer recovery period, they left were conducted. The participants then
the door open for the possibility that the performed the opposite training prototrained males in this study might have col, and this process was repeated. This is
responses that diverged from those seen shown schematically in Figure 1.
in prior research.
Resistance Training
66
FIGURE 1
BL
Day 1
p-30
min
p-24
hr
p-48
hr
p-72
hr
� Muscle
� Anthropometric
measurements
ultrasound
� Muscle
ultrasound
� Muscle
ultrasound
� Muscle
ultrasound
� Muscle
ultrasound
� Performance
assessments
� Blood
draw
� Blood
draw
� Blood
draw
� Blood
draw
� Blood
draw
� Squat 1RM
� Training
protocol
� Performance
assessments
� Performance
assessments
� Performance
assessments
� Performance
assessments
(HV or HI)
Reproduced from Bartolomei et al. 2017 (1)
After a standardized warm-up, participants performed either the HI or HV
protocol. Both HI and HV were comprised of only the squat. During HI, participants performed 8 sets of 3 repetitions
at 90% of their previously measured 1RM
with three-minute rest intervals between
sets. During HV, participants performed
8 sets of 10 repetitions at 70% 1RM with
75 seconds between sets. During both
protocols, if the required number of repetitions per set was not completed, the
load was reduced in the subsequent set
to allow participants to complete the required number of repetitions. No forced
repetitions were performed and all training was supervised.
at a speed of 60 and 180 degrees per
second, isometric leg extension MVC,
isometric mid-thigh pull, and isometric
half squat were assessed. Prior to performance testing, serum concentrations
of testosterone, cortisol, myoglobin, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) activity, and
creatine kinase (CK), as well as plasma
interleukin-6 (IL-6) and C-reactive protein (CRP) were assayed. Additionally,
muscle CSA of the vastus lateralis was
measured via ultrasound. Finally, participants were asked to assess their perception of pain and soreness on a 0-100 visual scale.
Dietary Control
Participants were instructed to record
Performance, Biochemical, Ultrasound, everything they consumed during both
and Subjective Testing
the HI and HV four-day trial. For the
At each testing time interval, CMJ peak second experimental trial, participants
power, isokinetic leg extension strength were required to duplicate the content,
67
TABLE 1: SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN HIGH VOLUME GROUP
RELATIVE TO BASELINE AND HIGH INTENSITY GROUP
30 minutes post
24 hours post
48 hours post
72 hours post
VARIABLE
From Baseline
From HI
From Baseline
From HI
From Baseline
From HI
From Baseline
From HI
CMJ
Both lower
Lower
Lower
No difference
Lower
Lower
No difference
No difference
MVC
Lower
No difference
No difference
No difference
No difference
Lower
Lower
Lower
Iso60
Lower
Lower
Lower
Lower
No difference
No difference
No difference
No difference
CSA
Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
No difference
No difference
Soreness
Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
Higher
Cortisol
Higher
Higher
No difference
No difference
No difference
No difference
No difference
No difference
IL-6
Higher
Higher
No difference
No difference
No difference
No difference
No difference
No difference
Blood
lactate
Both higher
Higher
No difference
No difference
No difference
No difference
No difference
No difference
CMJ: counter-movement jump peak power, MVC: maximum voluntary isometric leg extension strength, Iso60:
isometric leg extension strength at 60 degrees per second, CSA: vastus lateralis cross sectional area, IL-6:
interleukin-6.
HV group relative to baseline and relative to the HI group. It’s worth pointing
out that mean changes in many of the
performance metrics that were not significantly different between groups still
followed a similar pattern of greater suppression in HV than HI, and a slower return to baseline levels over 72 hours. For
Findings
Table 1 lists all variables where signif- example, in the HI group, the mid-thigh
icant differences were reported in the pull peak force bottomed out at 98% and
was slightly higher than baseline levels at
quantity, and timing of their daily diet
from the first trial. Participants were instructed not to eat or drink anything except water within 10 hours of reporting
to the laboratory for testing sessions.
68
some time points during the post-training measurement period, while the HV
group dropped to 92% of baseline values
at 30 minutes post and gradually recovered back up to 97.5% of baseline at 72
hours. Similarly, the isometric half squat
peak force dropped to 85% of baseline
values at 30 minutes post-training in the
HV group then returned to 95% baseline
values at 48 hours, while the HI group
dropped to 93% at 30 minutes post-training and returned to 95% in only 24 hours.
Likewise, cortisol reached a peak at 24
hours relative to baseline in both groups,
increasing by roughly two-thirds in the
HI group, but by over two-fold in the
HV group. The p-values were relatively
low, yet not quite significant in the above
examples. They likely would have reached
significance with more precise measurements or a larger sample size.
Correlation between variables
The change in CSA from baseline to 30
minutes post-training in HV was inversely related to changes in CMJ (r = -0.68;
p = 0.01), MVC (r = -0.58; p=0.05), and
isokinetic leg extension strength at 180
degrees per second (r = -0.80; p=0.001).
Inverse relationships were also reported
for changes in CSA from baseline to 24
hours post-training in both isokinetic leg
extension strength at 60 (r = -0.787; p =
0.002) and 180 degrees per second (r =
-0.678; p = 0.015) after HV training.
WHILE THE DATA DO CONVINCINGLY
DEMONSTRATE THAT, INDEED,
HIGH VOLUME TRAINING CAUSES
MORE INFLAMMATION, CAUSES
MORE MUSCLE DAMAGE, AND
SUPPRESSES FORCE PRODUCTION
TO A GREATER DEGREE, AND FOR
A LONGER TIME PERIOD THAN
HIGH INTENSITY TRAINING, IT
DOES MORE THAN THAT.
30 minutes (r = 0.76; p = 0.004) and 48
hours post-training (r = 0.66; p = 0.798)
in the HV group. In addition, a significant correlation (r = 0.660; p = 0.019) was
reported between IL-6 and the increase
in CSA at 24 hours post-training in the
HV group. Finally, a correlation was also
observed between CK levels 72 hours
post-training and the change in CSA
from baseline to 72 hours post-training
in HV (r = 0.60; p = 0.037).
Interpretation
Additionally, correlations were reported between IL-6 and the magnitude of At first glance, this study seems to simreduction in CMJ performance at both ply answer the question, “What is more
69
fatiguing, high volume or high intensity
training?” While the data do convincingly demonstrate that, indeed, high volume
training causes more inflammation, causes more muscle damage, and suppresses
force production to a greater degree, and
for a longer time period than high intensity training, it does more than that. This
acute study is also illustrative of a number
of concepts we’ve discussed previously in
MASS, yet also combines them in such
a way to show the practical relevance in
the immediate microcycle-length term.
While there is a clear relationship between training volume and hypertrophy
(2, 3) and, to a lesser degree, strength (4,
5), we’ve previously discussed why more
volume is not always better and that pre-
VOLUME IS ONLY USEFUL IF
ONE CAN RECOVER FROM IT
AND, AS DEMONSTRATED BY
THIS STUDY, DOING A MASSIVE
VOLUME OF WORK YOU ARE NOT
ACCUSTOMED TO IN A SINGLE
SESSION CAN NEGATIVELY
IMPACT YOUR PERFORMANCE
FOR AT LEAST 72 HOURS.
maturely increasing training volume beyond what is appropriate for one’s training age can actually be counterproductive
(6). This study gives more mechanistic
insight into why doing massive volumes
in a single session is counterproductive.
If one were to simplistically consider the
relationship of volume with hypertrophy and strength, they might conclude
that doing as much volume as possible
at all times would be optimal. However,
volume is only useful if one can recover from it and, as demonstrated by this
study, doing a massive volume of work
you are not accustomed to in a single
session can negatively impact your performance for at least 72 hours. Getting
stronger over time is a result of stringing
multiple days, weeks, months, and years
of effective training together, meaning
that your training configuration in the
short term should pay respect to the long
term. In fact, we’ve previously discussed
the merits of setting up a microcycle of
training in an intelligent way to manage
fatigue, and how doing so in a logical way
can improve performance over an entire
mesocycle (7).
Also, another thing you’ve probably
heard about lifting heavy is that it will
cause “CNS burnout” if done too often.
While this study didn’t address that (and
I’m not sure that is something I would
even know how to quantify or measure),
it did show that on a per set basis, heavy
lifting actually did not suppress force
production to the same degree as mod-
70
APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
1. In the short term, 8 sets of 10 reps at 70% of 1RM will produce a large level of fatigue
that will suppress strength for at least 72 hours to a larger degree than performing 8
sets of 3 reps at 90% 1RM.
2. While this level of volume is not a realistic example for most people, when performing
a high-volume session relative to your own work capacity, it would be tactically
advantageous to place an easier training day (one that could be accomplished with
strength levels below normal) after this session (and maybe in conjunction with a
rest day) to allow more time for intra-week recovery before performing any heavy
sessions.
3. When you do attempt to increase volume or overreach through an increase in total
number of sets, it would behoove you to perform a microcycle (or two) in which you
gradually build up to the target volume. This will elicit the repeated bout effect and
make the coming sessions less damaging and fatiguing, so that you can complete
more of the prescribed workload.
erate load lifting. With that said, if you
were to actually match volume (not just
the number of sets), you would more
than likely run into issues lifting heavy
exclusively in the long term. It would result in greater joint stress, higher injury
risk, and more generalized “burn out,” as
sessions would take much longer because
you’d have to perform many more sets to
equal the workload of the higher-repetition group (8).
Finally, it’s also worth addressing the
potential conclusion some people might
draw when reading this study: that the
damage and inflammation from HV
training is an inherently good thing for
hypertrophy. While it is true that muscle damage likely plays a role in muscle
growth (9), in this previous review I discussed why muscle damage should not
be viewed as having a direct causative
and proportional relationship with hypertrophy, and why it likely doesn’t need
to be deliberately sought out in training.
Indeed, a systematic review from 2007
found that rates of hypertrophy peaked
in the bicep and quadriceps when performing ~40-70 repetitions 2-3 times per
week (for a total of ~80-210 repetitions),
and then slowed when more volume was
performed (on average, in a mixed group
of studies primarily on untrained and
recreationally trained lifters, with only
some well-trained lifters) (10). While
the subjects in the present study were
actually quite well-trained (on average,
over two times bodyweight squat with
about six years in the gym), achieving the
low end of the volume range presented
in the aforementioned systematic review
71
(~80 repetitions) in a single session, from
just a single exercise, is probably overkill
(even more so if it was performed in addition to other exercises for other multiple groups with similar levels of volume).
If you still remain unconvinced, I’d also
refer you back to our review of the now
infamous “German volume training”
study in which trained (not well-trained,
but trained nonetheless) lifters gained
less muscle performing 10 sets per muscle group three times per week compared
to performing five sets.
Next Steps
So much can be done in the area of
acute recovery from training. Most obviously, different amounts of volume at
different intensities could be compared.
However, no matter how much of this
type of data is collected, the response will
always be impacted by the previous training of the participants and what type and
how much training they were previously
acclimated to. It would also be interesting to see the effects of different lengths
and types of introductory microcycles
designed to acclimate the participants to
the HV training protocol to come. This
would allow us to see how much the inflammation and muscle damage response
could be mitigated, and if this results in a
faster recovery of performance.
72
References
1. Bartolomei, S., et al., Comparison of the recovery response from high-intensity and high-volume
resistance exercise in trained men. Eur J Appl Physiol, 2017. 117(7): p. 1287-1298.
2. Krieger, J.W., Single vs. multiple sets of resistance exercise for muscle hypertrophy: a meta-analysis.
J Strength Cond Res, 2010. 24(4): p. 1150-9.
3. Schoenfeld, B.J., D. Ogborn, and J.W. Krieger, Dose-response relationship between weekly resistance training volume and increases in muscle mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sports
Sci, 2017. 35(11): p. 1073-1082.
4. Krieger, J.W., Single versus multiple sets of resistance exercise: a meta-regression. J Strength Cond
Res, 2009. 23(6): p. 1890-901.
5. Robbins, D.W., P.W. Marshall, and M. McEwen, The effect of training volume on lower-body
strength. J Strength Cond Res, 2012. 26(1): p. 34-9.
6. Gonzalez-Badillo, J.J., et al., Moderate resistance training volume produces more favorable strength
gains than high or low volumes during a short-term training cycle. J Strength Cond Res, 2005. 19(3):
p. 689-97.
7. Zourdos, M.C., et al., Modified Daily Undulating Periodization Model Produces Greater Performance Than a Traditional Configuration in Powerlifters. J Strength Cond Res, 2016. 30(3): p. 78491.
8. Schoenfeld, B.J., et al., Effects of different volume-equated resistance training loading strategies on
muscular adaptations in well-trained men. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2014.
29(10): p. 2909-18.
9. Schoenfeld, B., Does exercise-induced muscle damage play a role in skeletal muscle hypertrophy? J
Strength Cond Res, 2012. 26(5): p. 1441-53.
10. Wernbom, M., J. Augustsson, and R. Thomee, The influence of frequency, intensity, volume and
mode of strength training on whole muscle cross-sectional area in humans. Sports Med, 2007. 37(3):
p. 225-64.
█
73
How Do Bench Press Variations
Affect Muscle Activity in Elite Lifters?
Study Reviewed: The Effects of Bench Press Variations
in Competitive Athletes on Muscle Activation and
Performance. Saeterbakken et al. (2017)
BY G RE G NUC KO LS
T
he bench press may just be the most
popular exercise in the gym, and
many of its variations (including
close-grip bench, incline bench, and de-
cline bench) are nearly as popular. People like to include bench press variations
in their training to work on weak areas
of their press (mostly powerlifters) or to
74
KEY POINTS
1. In elite benchers, muscle activation is pretty similar between bench press variations
(flat, incline, decline, wide grip, medium grip, and narrow grip), in spite of differences
in ROM and load used.
2. The only significant differences observed in the prime movers were lower triceps
activation in the incline bench relative to flat and decline bench, and lower anterior
deltoid activation in the decline bench relative to the incline bench.
3. If you’re a highly trained bencher, all of the variations studied here will likely provide
an effective stimulus with strong carryover to your competition bench setup.
round out the muscular development of
their pecs (mostly bodybuilders).
There are a surprising number of studies looking at muscle activation in the
bench press, including one reviewed recently in MASS. Most of them were recently summarized in a systematic review
(2). However, very few studies have specifically examined muscle activation in
the bench press in elite pressers, generally opting for untrained or recreationally
trained populations instead. This study,
on the other hand, specifically examined
the effects of grip width and bench angle on muscle activation in high-level
benchers using 6RM loads.
This study found reduced biceps activation with narrow-grip bench, increased
biceps activation with incline bench, decreased triceps activation with incline
bench, and decreased anterior deltoid activation with decline bench. There were
no other significant differences in muscle activation between pressing styles, in
spite of differences in load used.
Purpose and Research
Questions
The authors don’t offer any hypotheses. They simply state that the goal of the
study was to compare sternal pec, clavicular pec, triceps, biceps, anterior deltoid,
posterior deltoid, and lat activation in the
wide-grip, medium-grip, narrow-grip,
incline, and decline bench press in elite
benchers.
Subjects and Methods
Subjects
The subjects were 12 elite-level
benchers. Four were full-meet powerlifters, while eight were bench specialists. Nine had won national medals in
the bench press (in Norway, I believe, as
most of the researchers are Norwegian),
three had held multiple national records
in the bench press, and three had competed internationally.
75
The subjects competed in weight classes ranging from 59kg to the superheavyweight (SHW) class, with an average
body mass of 97.6±18.3kg. They benched
between 130kg and 275kg (self-reported), with a mean of 203.1±45.2kg. However, I think some of the athletes’ reported
numbers are for raw bench, while some
are for single-ply bench (unless there’s a
105kg Norwegian benching 275kg raw
I’m unaware of ), so take that average
with a small grain of salt. However, we
do know their average raw 6RM bench:
132.7±17.1kg.
Testing
The study was preceded by two familiarization sessions, during which the
lifters found their 6RMs for each bench
press variation (wide-, medium-, and narrow-grip bench during the first session,
and incline and decline bench during the
second session). At least six days separated the first and second familiarization
sessions, and the second familiarization
session from the testing day. Wide grip
was the maximum legal width allowed
for powerlifting (with the pointer fingers
covering the 81cm grip rings), narrow
grip was defined as shoulder-width (biacromial breadth), medium grip was the
midpoint between wide and narrow grip
for each lifter, and incline and decline
bench were performed with wide grips
on benches set to 25-degree angles.
ized order. They took three minutes between each warm-up set, and five minutes between each bench press variation
to minimize the effects of fatigue. The
lifters were not allowed any equipment
that could actually aid in the pressing
(bench shirts and elbow sleeves weren’t
permitted), though wrist wraps, chalk,
and belts were allowed.
The lifters were required to keep their
head, shoulders, and butt in contact with
the bench at all times. Each rep was performed with a soft touch (no pause and
no bouncing) at a self-selected cadence.
If they were unable to hit six reps with
their previous 6RM, the load was reduced; similarly, loads were increased if
they indicated they could lift more than
their previous 6RM.
Muscle activation was assessed using
surface EMG for the biceps, triceps, anterior deltoids, posterior deltoids, lats,
and the sternal and clavicular portions
of the pecs. The researchers used Root
Mean Square (RMS) EMG for assessment over all six reps. I’ll save you the
technical details, but RMS-EMG basically tells you the average power of the
electrical signal from the muscle over the
time period sampled.
Findings
Muscle Activation
On the testing day, the lifters worked Across the board, muscle activation
up to their pre-determined 6RMs for tended to be similar with all pressing
each bench press variation in a random-
76
TABLE 1
Muscle
Wide v Medium
Wide v Narrow
Medium v Narrow
Lower Pec
0.06
0.38
0.34
Upper Pec
0.01
0.17
0.17
Triceps
0.24
0.10
-0.15
Anterior delt
0.19
0.26
0.11
Posterior delt
0.03
-0.21
-0.22
Biceps
0.04
0.33
0.25
Trivial Effect
Lats
0.00
-0.21
-0.21
Small Effect
Muscle
Flat v Incline
Flat v Decline
Incline v Decline
Lower Pec
0.19
-0.01
-0.20
Upper Pec
0.26
0.16
-0.07
Triceps
1.16
-0.07
-1.28
Anterior delt
-0.14
0.37
0.51
Posterior delt
0.83
-0.12
-0.70
Biceps
-0.99
0.32
1.17
Lats
-0.35
-0.54
-0.21
Medium Effect
Large Effect
Between-condition RMS-EMG effect size
*Positive indicates higher RMS-EMG values for the first variation listed, and negative values indicate higher
RMS-EMG values for the second variation listed.
variations. These were the exceptions:
1. Triceps activation was significantly
lower (58.5-62.6%; p<0.05) when
performing incline bench than flat
or decline bench.
2. Biceps activation was significantly
higher (48.3-68.7%; p<0.05) when
performing incline bench than flat
or decline bench.
the incline bench than the decline
bench, but didn’t differ significantly
from the flat bench.
4. Biceps activation was significantly
lower (25.9-30.5%; p<0.05) in the
narrow-grip bench than the medium-grip or wide-grip bench.
Performance
The athletes could bench and decline
3. Anterior deltoid activation was sig- bench significantly more than they could
nificantly higher (25.7%; p<0.05) in incline bench (18.5-21.5% difference).
77
FIGURE 1
6RM LOADS
150
100
50
0
Wide Flat
Bench
Decline (25
degrees)
Medium
Grip
Narrow
Grip
Incline (25
degrees)
6RM loads for the bench variations tested.
Furthermore, they could bench significantly more with a wide grip than either
a medium (5.8% difference) or narrow
grip (11.5% difference), and bench significantly more with a medium grip than
a narrow grip.
Range of Motion
barbell ROM between the incline and
decline bench, and between the wide and
narrow grip bench with longer ROMs
for incline bench and narrow grip bench.
Interpretation
Elbow ROM was larger for the incline This wasn’t the first time that researchbench versus the decline bench, and for ers examined muscle activation in differthe medium and narrow grip bench ver- ent bench press variations, but most prior
studies report larger and more frequent
sus the wide grip bench.
differences than those reported here (3, 4,
There were significant differences in
78
5). Across seven muscles and five bench
press variations, there were only four significant differences in total, and two of
them were differences in the biceps that
are probably completely inconsequential, as biceps are not prime movers in
the bench press and are highly unlikely
to limit or meaningfully affect performance. Furthermore, the between-group
effect sizes tend to only show small or
trivial differences between groups when
looking at the prime movers (pecs, triceps, and anterior deltoids). Why do the
results of this study differ from past research?
The authors propose that muscle activation tended to be similar across the bench
press variations studied here because the
participants were elite benchers. Filling
in the gaps a bit (as they didn’t state this
explicitly), it doesn’t seem like too much
of a leap to assume that since the motor pattern for the flat, wide-grip bench
press was so powerful and well-ingrained
in these subjects, their nervous systems
would attempt to make use of that general motor pattern as much as possible when confronted with similar tasks.
Since the lifters weren’t required to lift
with an extremely narrow grip (just biacromial width) or on an extreme incline
or decline (the incline and decline used
were 25 degrees), none of the bench press
variations used in this study would have
been all that different from the competition bench press the lifters were very accustomed to. I would assume that the key
THE SIMILARITIES IN MUSCLE
ACTIVATION WOULD SEEM TO
SUGGEST THAT ALL FIVE BENCH
VARIATIONS INCLUDED IN
THIS STUDY WOULD BE VIABLE
EXERCISES FOR INCREASING
BENCH PRESS STRENGTH.
factor in this study was experience with
the bench press, rather than the absolute
load lifted; as such, it’s likely more applicable to most MASS readers than the
previous EMG studies comparing different bench press variations.
However, it’s also possible that fatigue
influenced the results since the lifters
worked up to 6RM loads for all five bench
variations on the testing day. It’s possible
that bench press variations converge on
similar muscle activation patterns when
the prime movers are fatigued. However,
I don’t think that’s a likely explanation,
as the lifters were only performing five
hard sets, exercise order was randomized,
and the lifters were given plenty of rest
between attempts and exercises.
The similarities in muscle activation would seem to suggest that all five
bench variations included in this study
79
APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
With few exceptions, muscle activation was quite similar between incline bench, decline
bench, and wide-grip, medium-grip, and narrow-grip flat bench in a cohort of very welltrained powerlifters. Therefore, transfer between those pressing variations is likely quite
high, making them all viable tools in the lifter’s or coach’s toolbox for training the bench
press.
would be viable exercises for increasing
bench press strength. Obviously, competition-style bench press should be at
the heart of your upper body training if
you’re a powerlifter (due to the principle
of specificity), but the other variations
studied here exhibited similar enough
muscle activation that they’d likely transfer well if you want or need more variety
in your pressing. Furthermore, incline or
close-grip bench press may be valuable
for hypertrophy work, as they allow for
longer ranges of motion.
Conversely, this study pushes back
against the notion that bench press variations are required to effectively train all
of the musculature involved in the bench
press. Unless you happen to be benching to train your biceps, the plain old flat
bench press (with any grip width) activated all of the prime movers in the bench
press (including the upper pecs) just effectively as any of the variations did.
may have been similar on average comparing the incline and decline bench, but
maybe pec activation was higher at the
bottom of the press for the incline bench,
and higher through the midrange for the
decline bench), as in a previous study we
reviewed here in MASS. Furthermore,
it would be interesting to compare these
powerlifters to a cohort of bodybuilders
who specifically include different pressing variations to target different muscles.
For example, clavicular (upper) pec activation was similar between incline and
flat bench for the powerlifters in this
study, but bodybuilders who specifically
incline bench to build their upper chest
may demonstrate increased clavicular pec
activation with the incline bench compared to the flat bench.
Next Steps
I’d have liked to see muscle activation
in each of the bench variations subdivided by range of motion (i.e. pec activation
80
References
1. Saeterbakken AH, Mo D, Scott S, Andersen V. The Effects of Bench Press Variations in Competitive Athletes on Muscle Activity and Performance. Journal of Human Kinetics volume 57/2017,
61-71 DOI: 10.1515/hukin-2017-0047
2. Stastny P, Gołaś A, Blazek D, Maszczyk A, Wilk M, Pietraszewski P, Petr M, Uhlir P, Zając A. A
systematic review of surface electromyography analyses of the bench press movement task. PLoS
One. 2017 Feb 7;12(2):e0171632. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171632.
3. Barnett C, Kippers V,; Turner P. Effects of Variations of the Bench Press Exercise on the EMG
Activity of Five Shoulder Muscles. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research: November 1995
4. Glass SC, Armstrong T. Electromyographical Activity of the Pectoralis Muscle During Incline and
Decline Bench Presses. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research: August 1997
5. Trebs AA, Brandenburg JP, Pitney WA. An electromyography analysis of 3 muscles surrounding the
shoulder joint during the performance of a chest press exercise at several angles. J Strength Cond
Res. 2010 Jul;24(7):1925-30. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181ddfae7.
█
81
VIDEO: Comprehensive
Program Design, Part 1
Click to watch Michael's presentation
82
References
1. Buford TW, Rossi SJ, Smith DB, Warren AJ. A comparison of periodization models during nine
weeks with equated volume and intensity for strength. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2007 Nov 1;21(4):1245.
2. Fleck SJ. Periodized strength training: a critical review. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research. 1999 Feb 1;13(1):82-9.
3. Rhea MR, Alderman BL. A meta-analysis of periodized versus nonperiodized strength and power
training programs. Research quarterly for exercise and sport. 2004 Dec 1;75(4):413-22.
4. Williams TD, Tolusso DV, Fedewa MV, Esco MR. Comparison of Periodized and Non-Periodized
Resistance Training on Maximal Strength: A Meta-Analysis. Sports Medicine. 2017 May 12:1-8.
5. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Dose-response relationship between weekly resistance training volume and increases in muscle mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of sports
sciences. 2017 Jun 3;35(11):1073-82.
6. Stone MH, O'Bryant HS, Garhammer J, McMillan, J, Rozenek, R. A Theoretical Model of Strength
Training. NSCA Journal. 1982 August-September.
7. Zourdos MC, Jo E, Khamoui AV, Lee SR, Park BS, Ormsbee MJ, Panton LB, Contreras RJ, Kim
JS. Modified daily undulating periodization model produces greater performance than a traditional configuration in powerlifters. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2016 Mar
1;30(3):784-91.
8. Rhea MR, Ball SD, Phillips WT, Burkett LN. A comparison of linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume and intensity for strength. The Journal of strength & conditioning research. 2002 May 1;16(2):250-5.
9. Zourdos MC, Klemp A, Dolan C, Quiles JM, Schau KA, Jo E, Helms E, Esgro B, Duncan S, Merino SG, Blanco R. Novel resistance training–specific rating of perceived exertion scale measuring
repetitions in reserve. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2016 Jan 1;30(1):267-75.
10. Zourdos MC, Henning PC, Jo E, Khamoui AV, Lee SR, Park YM, Naimo M, Panton LB, Nosaka
K, Kim JS. Repeated bout effect in muscle-specific exercise variations. The Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research. 2015 Aug 1;29(8):2270-6.
█
83
VIDEO: The Nuts and
Bolts of Diet Periodization
Click to watch Eric's presentation
84
References
1. Helms, E., A. Aragon, and P. Fitschen, Evidence-based recommendations for natural bodybuilding
contest preparation: nutrition and supplementation. J Int Soc Sports Nutr, 2014. 11(1): p. 20.
2. Mero, A.A., et al., Moderate energy restriction with high protein diet results in healthier outcome in
women. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 2010. 7(1): p. 4.
3. Garthe, I., et al., Effect of two different weight-loss rates on body composition and strength and
power-related performance in elite athletes. International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise
Metabolism, 2011. 21(2): p. 97-104.
4. Harvie, M., et al., The effect of intermittent energy and carbohydrate restriction v. daily energy restriction on weight loss and metabolic disease risk markers in overweight women. British Journal of
Nutrition, 2013. 110(8): p. 1534-47.
5. Harvie, M.N., et al., The effects of intermittent or continuous energy restriction on weight loss and
metabolic disease risk markers: a randomized trial in young overweight women. Int J Obes (Lond),
2011. 35(5): p. 714-27.
6. Varady, K.A., Intermittent versus daily calorie restriction: which diet regimen is more effective for
weight loss? Obes Rev, 2011. 12(7): p. e593-601.
7. Smith, C.F., et al., Flexible vs. Rigid dieting strategies: relationship with adverse behavioral outcomes. Appetite, 1999. 32(3): p. 295-305.
8. Stewart, T.M., D.A. Williamson, and M.A. White, Rigid vs. flexible dieting: association with eating
disorder symptoms in nonobese women. Appetite, 2002. 38(1): p. 39-44.
9. Westenhoefer, J., et al., Cognitive and weight-related correlates of flexible and rigid restrained eating
behaviour. Eating Behaviors, 2013. 14(1): p. 69-72.
10. Westenhoefer, J., A.J. Stunkard, and V. Pudel, Validation of the flexible and rigid control dimensions
of dietary restraint. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 1999. 26(1): p. 53-64.
11. Loria-Kohen, V., et al., Evaluation of the usefulness of a low-calorie diet with or without bread in
the treatment of overweight/obesity. Clinical Nutrition, 2012. 31(4): p. 455-461.
12. Calton, J., Prevalence of micronutrient deficiency in popular diet plans. Journal of the International
Society of Sports Nutrition, 2010. 7(1): p. 24.
13. Walberg-Rankin, J., C.E. Edmonds, and F.C. Gwazdauskas, Diet and weight changes of female
bodybuilders before and after competition. Int J Sport Nutr, 1993. 3(1): p. 87-102.
14. Sandoval, W.M. and V.H. Heyward, Food selection patterns of bodybuilders. Int J Sport Nutr, 1991.
1(1): p. 61-8.
15. Sandoval, W.M., V.H. Heyward, and T.M. Lyons, Comparison of body composition, exercise and
nutritional profiles of female and male body builders at competition. J Sports Med Phys Fitness,
1989. 29(1): p. 63-70.
16. Kleiner, S.M., T.L. Bazzarre, and B.E. Ainsworth, Nutritional status of nationally ranked elite bodybuilders. International Journal of Sport Nutrition, 1994. 4(1): p. 54-69.
17. Garthe, I., et al., Effect of nutritional intervention on body composition and performance in elite
athletes. European journal of sport science, 2013. 13(3): p. 295-303.
85
18. Wing, R.R. and R.W. Jeffery, Prescribed "breaks" as a means to disrupt weight control efforts. Obesity Research, 2003. 11(2): p. 287-291.
19. Coelho do Vale, R., R. Pieters, and M. Zeelenberg, The benefits of behaving badly on occasion: Successful regulation by planned hedonic deviations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2016. 26(1): p.
17-28.
20. Olson, B.R., et al., Short-term fasting affects luteinizing hormone secretory dynamics but not reproductive function in normal-weight sedentary women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 1995. 80(4): p.
1187-93.
21. Loucks, A.B. and M. Verdun, Slow restoration of LH pulsatility by refeeding in energetically disrupted women. Am J Physiol, 1998. 275(4 Pt 2): p. R1218-26.
22. Dirlewanger, M., et al., Effects of short-term carbohydrate or fat overfeeding on energy expenditure
and plasma leptin concentrations in healthy female subjects. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord, 2000.
24(11): p. 1413-8.
23. Bussau, V.A., et al., Carbohydrate loading in human muscle: an improved 1 day protocol. Eur J Appl
Physiol, 2002. 87(3): p. 290-5.
█
86
Thanks for
reading MASS.
The next issue will be released to
subscribers on September 1.
Graphics and layout design by Lyndsey Nuckols.
87