Training for Size & Strength - Does the Rest Matter? Study Finds 7-9% Greater Increase in Muscle Size With Decreasing Rest Periods.

Image 1: If you want to build Arnold-esque arms you better not sit around too long in-between your sets.

"Short rest periods to burn fat, medium rest periods to build muscle and long rest periods to build strength" - it's actually pretty likely that one of your trainers, gym buddies or fatherly mentors told you something along those lines in the past. In view of the results of a soon to be published international study by Brazilian researchers from the State University of Campinas and the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro and their American colleagues from the Eastern Illinois University, the University of Memphis and the Colorado College (Souza-Junior. 2011), this is probably the next item on list of widely accepted bodybuilding myths that have a spark of truth to them... at least for recreational strength trainees who use some creatine monohydrate to promote their strength and mass gains.

Learn more about muscle builder & fat shredder training at the SuppVersity

Optimizing Rest for Size and Strength Gains

When Rodents Squat, We Can Learn A Lot!

Farmer's Walk or Squat? Is Strong- men T. For You?

Full ROM ➯ Full Gains - Form Counts!

Battle the Rope to Get Ripped & Strong

Up Your Squat by 25% With Sodium Bicarbonate

For their study, the results of which are going to be published in the next issue of the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, Tacito P. Souza-Junior and his colleagues recruited 22 "recreationally trained" men with a minimum of one year resistance training experience at a frequency of 4 sessions a week, who were randomly assigned to one out of two exercise protocols, which differed only in the time the subjects were allowed to rest in-between sets (cf. figure 1).

Figure 1: Identical training protocol for all subjects participating in the study (compiled based on information from Souza-Junior. 2011)

The only difference between the groups was that half of the subjects trained with a constant rest time of 2 minutes between sets over the whole 8 weeks (CI group), while the remaining subjects had to decrease their rest times from week to week (DI group) according to the scheme illustrated in figure 2. The training sessions were supervised and the subjects were " verbally encouraged to perform all sets to voluntary exhaustion". Considering the overall workload and the training frequency, this were probably pretty hard weeks for the 22 trainees.

Figure 2: The rest times decreased according to a standardized protocol by 15 sec each week.

In addition all subjects, who btw. did not follow a standardized diet, consumed the proven creatine + maltodextrin mix (7 day loading phase with 20g/day creatine + 20g maltodextrin followed by a maintenance dose of 5g creatine + 5g maltodextrin taken immediately post workout) that has been used in numerous studies before.

Figure 3: 1RM performance (in kg) for bench press and barbell squat before and after the 8-week training period in subjects with constant and decreasing rest periods (data adapted from Souza-Junior. 2011).

Now, if the initially stated "wisdom" held true, then the 11 subjects with constant rest periods should either have gained more muscle (if you consider 2 minutes a "medium" rest period) or built more strength (if you would say that 2 minutes belong to the realm of "long" rest periods) - yet figures 3 and 4 seem to indicate that neither of that was the case.

Figure 4: Muscle CSA (in cm²) of arm and tigh muscles before and after the 8-week training period (data adapted from Souza-Junior. 2011).

If we have do yet a closer look at the effect sizes, there is yet a notable advantage of the DI protocol in terms of the measured increases in muscle CSA with +14% and +19% in arm and tigh CSA in the constant rest interval group (CI) and +21% and +28% in the decreasing rest interval (DI) group.

SuppVersity Classic: Full ROM = More Growth, More Strength, More Structural Changes & More Sustainable Gains & Fat Loss - Insights from Realistic 8 Weeks Leg Training + 4 Weeks Detraining | more

There is a spark of truth to every myth To give you an idea of how significant - and I am talking about "posing significance" not statistical significance here - this is, I have calculated the respective increases in arm- and tigh-circumference, which would differ by 0.4cm and 0.7cm, respectively. Not really outstanding, but nevertheless an important finding of which the researchers say that it lends support to the notion that

decreasing [rest] interval[s] seems to be more efficient than constant interval to produces [sic!] hypertrophic responses.

It has yet to be stated that the 11 subjects in the decreasing rest interval group paid dearly for this increase in muscular hypertrophy, as their "exercise performance" as measured by the total workload per session decreased profoundly from week 1 to week 8: -35% total volume for barbell squats and -30% for bench presses.

The subjects who used constant rest periods, on the other hand, increased their total volume by +20% for squats and by +30% for bench presses. That being said, all powerlifters out there better stick to their constantly (long) rest periods if they do not want to compromise their game.

Cordyceps Sinensis - Another Supplemental Non-Starter: Human Data Shows No Increase in Testosterone, No Strength Gains, No Improvements in Body Composition.

Image 1: As it turns out it's not necessary you start eating parasites (img nepaliproducts.com)

In view of the public attention adaptogens have gotten, ever since everyone is self-diagnosing him- / herself with "Central Fatigue Syndrom", I assume you will be aware that the parasitic fungus, Cordyceps sinensis (CS) that is found on larvae of Lepidoptera, and has been used for centuries in traditional Chines medicine as a tonic, has lately been marketed as powerful modulator of the hypothalamus-thyroid-pituitary axis (HTPA). Extracts from cordyceps have in fact been shown to have various biological and pharmacological actions on the liver, the kideys, the endocrine and the vascular system. It appears to stimulate erythropeoiesis (production of red blood cells) and haemopoiesis (formation of blood cellular compounds), and it exhibits immunomodulatory and anti-tumor activities.

Within the health and fitness community Cordyceps sinensis has yet been touted as "natural HCG" (human chorionic gonadotropin), because, just like the latter, it stimulates the release of luteinizing hormone and thus testosterone secretion in rodent models (mice and rat; cf. Huang. 2001; HSU. 2003; Huang. 2004). Not long ago, scientists have identified cordycepin as the active ingredient in the parasite extract - an ingredient, which, according to Pan et al., does not only stimulate steriodogenesis, but also exhibits anti-cancer effects by inducing apoptosis in MA-10 mouse Leydig tumor cells (Pan. 2011).

Illustration 1: Training protocol the subjects in the study performed  3x à week for a total of 8 weeks.

With its endocrine and haematopoietic effects, cordyceps looks like the perfect substitute for what you may call the "Tour de France performance package", i.e. the combination of testosterone (e.g. Landis) and erythropoietin (e.g. Riis). Consequently, one should expect that an 8-week (3 training sessions per week)randomized double-blind place-controlled study with sixteen previously not resistance-trained young volunteers (male, age: 19-25; BMI: 24kg/m²; body fat: 14.65%), like the one performed by Hsu et al. at the Graduate Institute of Sports Science at the National Taiwan Sports University, should show at least some measurable effects on strength and muscle gains and/or body composition of the subjects.

Figure 1: Muscle strength as maesured by 1RM after 8 weeks of strength training with (CS) and without (PL) Cordyceps sinensis supplementation (data based on Hsu. 2011).

Figure 1, however, shows no greater strength improvements in the Cordyceps sinensis (6 caps à 400mg of an extract containing 0.33% soluble protein, 5.81% sugars, 5.92µmol/g adenosine derivatives (5.92 µmol/g), 1.23µmol/g cordycepin and 8.81 µmol/g ergosterol) supplemented strength trainees (CS) compared to the subjects in the placebo group (PL). And even the +7% greater increase in 1RM strength on seated rows does not reach statistical significance.

Figure 2: Changes in body composition after 8 weeks of strength training with (CS) and without (PL) Cordyceps sinensis supplementation (data based on Hsu. 2011).

Similarly, the cordyceps supplement had no measurable beneficial effects on the accrual of lean or the loss of fat mass in the course of the 8-week strength training protocol (cf. figure 2). Although statistically non-significant, the subjects who received the CS supplement did in fact lose some lean mass and gain some fat mass... certainly not what you would have expected from the purchase of a "testosterone boosting adaptogen"!?

Figure 3: Testosterone levels after 8 weeks of strength training with (CS) and without (PL) Cordyceps sinensis supplementation (data based on Hsu. 2011).

A pros pos "testosterone boosting", as the data in figure 3 clearly shows, there was a "boost", but the latter was identical between groups and - as the body composition data in figure 2 shows - the placebo group, whose baseline testosterone levels were 7% lower than those of the subjects in the CS group, took greater advantage from this probably exercise-induced and in view of the diurnal fluctuations of serum testosterone statistically non-significant increase.

Figure 4: Changes in serum levels of BUN, Creatinine, ALT and AST after 8 weeks of strength training with (CS) and without (PL) Cordyceps sinensis supplementation (data based on Hsu. 2011).

It would be unfair though to say that the ingestion of 2.4g of Cordyceps sinensis was totally pointless. After all there was a non-negligable decrease in the purported "liver values" ALT and AST. Now, as a diligent reader of the SuppVersity you are among the few chosen ones who outsmart 99% of the general practitioners and know that the enzymes ALanine Transaminase (ALT) and ASpartate Transaminase (AST) are by no means "liver values", i.e. liver-specific. In fact, their elevation in hard training athletes is completely normal and an indicator of muscular, not hepatic, damage, as both, ALT and ALT, are expressed in skeletal muscle, as well (Petterrson. 2007). This does not change that - once again - beneficial effects that have repeatedly been observed in rodent studies did not translate to humans, but it could explain why Quinc, senior member on the Mind and Muscle Forum and a true believer in the potency of cordyceps maintains:

I can't say I have noticed any 1RM gains, but I have noticed a quicker recovery time between sets and more endurance. (Quinc. 2011)

In view of the beneficial effects on the amino acid transferase enzymes, it may well be that the scientists just measured the wrong parameters. If their subjects had participated in the Tour de France, it could well be that the CS group had survived a few kilometers more, before they had had to be picked up by one of the team vehicles ;-)

Detraining and Training Periodization: 6 Months On "Six Weeks On + Three Weeks Off" Macrocycle Yields Identical Gains Strength and Size Gains as Continuous Training

"Is everyone at home taking some time off to recover + prime future muscle growth?"

Human beings are creatures of habit. This is particularly true, when it comes to those things and procedures we either like or enjoy or have found to be highly conducive to our goals, in the past. Just like some people simply won't drop their beloved Twinkies and Ding Dongs, although they know that these sugar bombs are bad for them, and others tend to stick to whatever dietary regimen has allowed them to lose 20lbs of body weight in the past, despite the fact that this "trick" has long ceased working for them, many "recreationally active" individuals (aka gymrats) are totally reluctant to any form of carefully planned deviation of their training regimen.

Six weeks on, three weeks off - for better or for worse!?

If anything, switching gears from a more hypertrophy to a more strength training oriented program, or vice versa, is probably the one modification most trainees could come to terms with. The notion to take one, let alone three weeks off after the completion of a 6 weeks mesocycle, on the other hand, scares the hack out of 99% of the ambitious strength trainees. Unjustly, as a study that's been published less than one week ago in the online edition of the European Journal of Physiology goes to show you (Ogasawara. 2012).

Systematically periodized trainig routines (yet often with only one detraining phase per season) are among the various reasons professional athletes are at a lower risk of developing the athletes' triad than overambitious gymrats.

As surprising as it may sound to the "I will lose my precious muscle" faction, the results of the study Riki Ogasawara and his colleagues from the University of Tokio conducted do actually just confirm what we knew all along:

"[A]fter short-term (>1 month) cessation of training (detraining), muscle adaptation responses may return to their initial levels, and the effects of retraining after short-term cessation on muscle growth are comparable with those observed during the early phase of training." (Ogasawara. 2012)

If we further acknowledge that the loss of protein from the muscle during the detraining phase is much slower than the rapid gain, during the early weeks of (re-)training, it should be obvious that any retraining phase will lead to overall increments in skeletal muscle cross sectional area that will easily overcompensate the small amount of size your muscles will have lost during the comparatively short phase without physical exercise.

Based on the actual results of previous research by Narici et al, Bemben et al. Hakkinen et al. and Hulmi et al., Ogosaware et al. propose the following example to illustrate this effect:

*Why is it problematic that the study participants were untrained? With the initial growth response to weight training being much more pronounced in previously untrained individuals, it is very likely that the same is going to be the case for the similarly pronounced response to "retraining" after a three-week detraining phase. This does not generally speak against the usefulness and maybe even the need for well-planned periodization in advanced trainees, but it renders the concept of a complete three weeks lay-off (=classic detraining) at least questionable. Read my comments towards the end of this post for possibly better-suited alternatives.

"[...] assuming that the decrease in thigh muscle CSA during 3 weeks of detraining is 2.1 % (estimated at 0.10 % per day and 21 days), and the increase in muscle CSA during 6 weeks of retraining is 5.9 % (estimated at 0.14 % per day and 42 days), the increase in muscle CSA during a 3-week detraining/6-week retraining period (estimated at 0.06 % per day during 9 weeks) would be 3.8 %. The estimated value of 0.06 % per day is similar to values obtained in previous studies, where the average increase in thigh muscle CSA was reportedly around 0.05 % per day." (Ogasawara. 2012)

Well, I see this alone can't convince you, right? What about the detailed results of Ogasawara very own study, then? Allegedly, it was done in untrained individuals*, 14 young men (age 25 ± 3 years, standing height 1.72 ± 0.06 m, body mass 65 ± 10 kg), but the results the training regimen the researchers characterize as follows,

"Both groups performed high-intensity, free-weight bench press exercise training 3 days per week. [...] Training intensity was set at 75 % of one repetition (rep) maximum (1-RM), and training volume was set at 3 sets of 10 reps (with 2–3 min rest between sets). To ensure an adequate training load, all training sessions were overseen by a supervisor. Training load was renewed every 3 weeks, and, if subjects could perform 12 reps or more at the 3rd set during training sessions, the training load was increased by about 5 % for the next training session." (Ogasawara. 2012)

speak for themselves and were virtually identical in both groups - regardless of whether the subjects trained for 24-weeks continuously (CTR), or performed their regimen in the form of two cycles of 3-week detraining/6-week retraining periods after an initial 6-week mesocycle.

Figure 1: Relative changes 1-RM and maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) + time-course of these changes (left); time-course of relative changes in cross sectional area in triceps bracchii (top, right) and pectoralis major (bottom, right; based on Ogasawara. 2012)

Aside from the already mentioned training status of the study participants there are yet two other things I am missing in this study:

Figure 2: Just in case you've forgotten about that - different muscles react in different ways to modulations in training volume. So why would they react identically to off-times? Moreover if legs benefit most from a higher training volume, wouldn't it be likely that they suffer most from longer periods of detraining?

1. Detailed data on the pre / post body composition. The identical increase in body weight (+2%) is not of interest to me (and probably to only very few of you) and the simple assumption that identical body weight gain + identical CSA gains of triceps brachii (TB) and pectoralis major (PM) would translate into identical changes in total body fatness / muscularity is about is unwarranted (see link in figure 2).
2. A realistic full-body workout routine: The low volume chest only workout regimen is not just unrepresentative of a real workout protocol, it does also raise the question if other body parts as the legs, for example, would not respond very differently to a three week lay-off phase (see figure 2 + respective reference to a previous post on training volume).

As far as the pectoralis and triceps specific gains in muscle size and strengths in strength training newbies are concerned, the results of the study at hand do however add  o the initially mentioned practicability of a simplistic, but effective "6 weeks on, 3 weeks off" approach to periodization, which - and this is a novel finding compared to Ogasawara's study from last year (Ogasawara. 2011) - does still work even in the third mesocycle (take another look at figure 1 the "catch up growth" does not diminish!).

Conclusion + "What about advanced athletes?"

Despite the fact that the last mentioned sustainability of this approach over a pretty long time period (24 weeks, i.e. 3x complete macrocycles) would indicate that a similar approach will work for trained (maybe even elite) athletes as well, I am pretty convinced that a period of three weeks of complete idleness is not the optimal periodization strategy for advanced trainees, because:

Possible alternatives for advanced athletes: Rather than taking a complete 3-week time out from all athletic endeavors, you can to stick to ...

• a maximal complete off-time of 1-week (as in not doing anything), 
• a 2-3 weeks of active off time (as in going on vacation w/ regular non-exhaustive physical activity), or
• the incorporation of a tapering regimen as described in Part VI of the Step By Step Guide to Your Own Workout

Alternatively you can combine / mix one or two of these (you won't go on vacation every 6 weeks, will you?)

• The discrepancy between the accrual of skeletal muscle protein and the loss of the latter in response to total laziness gets lower, if not totally reversed, the bigger you get. Consequently the added bonus of "faster gains" upon recommencing the training will diminish, or even disappear completely.
• Many more or less "professional" trainees follow dietary regimen that are not sustainable, when they are not training. During a complete time-off of three weeks without any alternative "outlet", the chances to gain fat are thus much higher for them, than for the average beginner, who - if anything - guzzles a protein shake after each of his three weekly training sessions.
• Competitive amateur athletes who are training 5x a week or more actually run the risk of both, physical and psychological withdrawl symptoms, when they simply stop training altogether (another argument in favor taper, if you asked me; see infobox on the right).

Regardless of which of the alternatives in the blue infobox next to the three arguments that make a complete 3-week lay off at least questionable for advanced / professional trainees you pick, if you decide against the "No, that's bullocks, I train day-in-day-out till I drop" approach, there is one thing you should keep in mind:

If you are not the one in a million expection from the rule,
you cannot simply "play this by ear"!

Periodization requires planning and planning is done in advance and not in a "well, I feel like I could go for another week" or "damn, I am tired today, let's take three weeks off and see how it goes then" fashion. Alright?

References:

• Bemben DA, Fetters NL, Bemben MG, Nabavi N, Koh ET. Musculoskeletal responses to high- and low-intensity resistance training in early postmenopausal women. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000: 32:1949–1957
• Hakkinen K, Newton RU, Gordon SE, McCormick M, Volek JS, Nindl BC, Gotshalk LA, Campbell WW, Evans WJ, Hakkinen A, Humphries BJ, Kraemer WJ. Changes in muscle morphology, electromyographic activity, and force production characteristics during progressive strength training in young and older men. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1998; 53:B415–B423
• Hakkinen K, Alen M, Kallinen M, Newton RU, Kraemer WJ. Neuromuscular adaptation during prolonged strength training, detraining and re-strength-training in middle-aged and elderly
  people. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2000; 83:51–62.
• Hakkinen K, Alen M, Kraemer WJ, Gorostiaga E, Izquierdo M, Rusko H, Mikkola J, Hakkinen A, Valkeinen H, Kaarakainen E, Romu S, Erola V, Ahtiainen J, Paavolainen L. Neuromuscular adaptations during concurrent strength and endurance training versus strength training. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2003; 89:42–52
• Hulmi JJ, Kovanen V, Selanne H, Kraemer WJ, Hakkinen K, Mero AA. Acute and long-term effects of resistance exercise with or without protein ingestion on muscle hypertrophy and gene expression. Amino Acids. 2009; 37:297–308.
• Narici MV, Hoppeler H, Kayser B, Landoni L, Claassen H, Gavardi C, Conti M, Cerretelli P. Human quadriceps crosssectional area, torque and neural activation during 6 months strength training. Acta Physiol Scand. 1996; 157:175–186
• Ogasawara R, Yasuda T, Sakamaki M, Ozaki H, Abe T. Effects of periodic and continued resistance training on muscle CSA and strength in previously untrained men. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2011 Sep;31(5):399-404.
• Ogasawara R, Yasuda T, Ishii N, Abe T. Comparison of muscle hypertrophy following 6-month of continuous and periodic strength training. Eur J Appl Physiol. Oct 06, 2012. 

True or False: Older Men Have a Much Harder Time Building Strength, Building Muscle Borders the Impossible!

Are you training for nothing, if you are "too old" (whatever that may be)? Find out in today's SuppVersity Article!

"The older we get, the weaker we are." That's something most normal men accept as a given truth - according to the latest science, it does yet appear as if it was more of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Researchers from the Department of Biology of Physical Activity and Neuromuscular research Center at the University of Jyväskylä in Finland have recently conducted a study to verify the common sense assumption that older men are having a much harder time to to maintain / increase their muscle strength than young ones.

To find out, whether this would also be true for those, who are willing to succumb to a high volume, medium load “hypertrophic” resistance training, the Häkkinen et al. recruited young (28 ± 5 yr, 179 ± 6 cm, 77 ± 12 kg, 21 ± 8 percent fat) and older (65 ± 4 yr, 177 ± 6 cm, 80 ± 10 kg, 23 ± 6 percent fat) men via an advertisement in a local newspaper.

Especially for older guys the anti-catabolic effects of HMB could be of interest!

HMB + Over- reaching = WIN

HMB, ATP, Gylcogen

HMB Pre- or Post-Workout

Does HMB Block Fat Loss?

Don't Waste Money on Aminos

HMB Blocks Muscle Damage

The experimental groups consisted of 23 young and 26 older men (training groups) and the non training control groups consisted of 10 young and 11 older men. The goal was to achieve maximum strength, muscle mass and muscle activation of the lower limbs in both groups.

Table 1:  Resistance training program of the young and older experimental groups (performed with resistance machines)

To this ends, both groups performed 10 weeks of whole-body resistance training twice per week with the emphasis on lower limb exercises. The training program consisted of high volume, medium intensity exercise with short inter-set rest intervals, as it is typically performed by bodybuilders (i.e. 2-5 sets of 8-14 repetitions, 1-2 min rest).

Lower limb exercises, i.e. leg press, knee extension and knee flexion, were performed before upper body exercises. At least 48 h rest was required between training sessions. Maximum dynamic and isometric neuromuscular performance, as well as lean leg and muscle mass were examined before and after the training period. The changes in body composition were assessed 3-4 d and neuromuscular measurements were performed 7 d after the last training session.

Before participating in the study at hand, the "subjects were physically active but unaccustomed to resistance training for the previous 6 months." Training and testing took place throughout the day (9am-7pm), but young and older subjects were pair-matched to avoid any time-of-day effects on neuromuscular performance measurements. All subjects were given nutritional advice in an attempt to maximize muscle hypertrophy, however, no direct nutritional intervention was performed in the present study.

It's a pity that the diet wasn't controlled for. In view of our main interest, i.e. the question "Are old guys at a disadvantage", on the other hand, it's actually quite interesting, because we usually assume that older guys would have to ingest extreme amounts of protein to keep up with their younger competitors. In the study at hand, they were only told to consume ~20 g of protein within 1 hour of training and in total ~1.5–1.8 g of protein per kg body mass per day, to optimize the muscle hypertrophy response. If you add the "30g of quality (=high EAA) protein with every meal rule that's pretty much the "SuppVersity Suggested" protein intake ;-)

The resistance training program consisted of . Briefly, leg exercises (bilateral leg press, knee extension, and knee flexion) were performad before upper body and torso exercises; bench press, pulldown, shoulder press, seated row, triceps pushdown, biceps curl, abdominal crunches and back raises.

"The subjects performed medium intensity, high volume training consisting of 2–3 sets and 12–14 reps (60–70% 1RM) per exercise (weeks 1–4), then 2–3 sets and 10–12 reps (70–80% 1RM) per exercise (weeks 5–7), and 3–4 sets per exercise and 8–10 reps (75–85% 1RM) per exercise (weeks 8–10). One min rest was given between sets during weeks 1–4, and then 2 min rest was given between sets during the remaining weeks 5–10. One set was performed to failure during each training session." (Häkinnen. 2014)

As you've probably recognized by now this is a more or less classic linear periodization; a very conservative periodization technique with a lot of back up that it works (learn more about periodization).

Figure 1: Pre- and post values for 1RM and isometric leg strength (Häkkinen. 2014)

If you look at the results, you'll see that this protocol led to significant increases in one repetition maximum (1RM) leg press performance in both training groups (young: 13 ± 7 %, P < 0.001; older: 14 ± 9 %, P < 0.001).

Interestingly, said performance improvements were accompanied by increased muscle activation, assessed by voluntary activation level (29 ± 51%, P < 0.05) and electromyography amplitude (35 ± 51 %, P < 0.01) in older men only. Unfortunately, only the young men showed significantly increased lower limb lean mass (2.4 ± 2.5 %, P < 0.01), which were furthermore significantly related to the strength increments (r = 0.524, P = 0.01, n = 23).

Figure 2: The rel. changes in total lean leg mass and vastus lateralis cross sectional area leave no doubt, you can gain muscle at the age of 65+ (Häkkinen. 2014)

Bottom line - true or false? The notion that you can't get stronger if you're past the 60-year mark is flawed. The common understanding that you'll have a significantly harder time to actually increase your total muscle mass and not "just" your strength, on the other hand, appears to be accurate. The signficant local increase in vastus lateralis CSA (Figure 2) does yet indicate that it's not impossible to grow even at the age of 65+ years (keep in mind, though, the subjects were previously more or less untrained!).

Nevertheless, in general, the study appears to suggest that young men are more likely to literally "grow stronger", while older men tend to draw on improvement in the mind-muscle connection, when it comes to lifting higher weights.

References:

• Häkinnen, et al. "Similar increases in strength after short-term resistance training due to different neuromuscular adaptations in young and older men." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2014). Publish Ahead of Print.

Fast Paced High-Resistant Explosive Circuit Training Burns More Fat and Builds More Muscle Than Classical Weight Training. Trainees Dropped 1.5% Body Fat and Gained 3 Pounds of Lean Mass in 8 Weeks.

Figure 1: Outline of the HRC protocol
used by in the study.

The beneficial effects of fast-paced (indicating short / no rest periods between exercises) circuit training on fat loss have long been established. With the original intention being the addition of an aerobic component to traditional strength training routines, the loads (weights) that are usually used in these types of exercise regimens are often to low to elicit significant strength or muscle gains. This, however, was different in the study protocol Pedro E. Alcaraz and his collegues from Spain and Australia used in their most recent study (Alcarez. 2011).

Alcarez et al. recruited 33 healthy men, who "had been regularly performing resistance training (RT) in a gymnasium (e.g., ca. 6–12 repetitions per set, 3 sets per exercise, 2–4 d/week" (in other words recreational weight lifters) and assigned them to one of two training regimens:

• High resistance circuit training (HRC): 2x 3-6 circuits à three exercises with 5 minutes rest between circuit I and circuit II. There was a bi-weekly progression from 1 to 2 to 3 rounds on each of the two circuits. This means that in their 3 workouts per week (at least one rest-day in-between) the subjects performed 18-36 sets per workout of 6 repetitions at 85%-90% of their individual 1RM_max [1RM_max = maximal weight a person can perform a single repetition with adequate form with] with roughly 35 seconds 'rest' between exercises (this was the time it took them to move from one exercise to the next). Notwithstanding the high workload, each of these workouts took them only 55min-78min to complete.
• Traditional strength training (TS): For the same exercises that were used in circuit I and II in the HRC group (cf. figure 1), the subjects in the TS group performed 2x warm-up sets at 10 and 8 repetitions of the 6% max (1 minute rest in-between) followed by 3 sets of 6 repetitions at 85%-90% of their individual 1RM_max. Due to the one minute rest between individual sets, as well as the 5-minute pause in between exercises 1-3 and exercises 4-6, the supervised workouts of the TS group were on average 125min long.

One specifically important and oftentimes under-appreciated parameter, both groups had in common, was the lifting tempo:

The eccentric phase of each exercise was performed for approximately 3 seconds, whereas the concentric phase was performed at maximum velocity. This sequence was standardized in the first training week and eccentric phase duration was regularly timed as feedback for the subjects.

In that, what the subjects did was fundamentally different from what I am (unfortunately) forced to look at day in and day out in my gym: people just moving weights instead of training muscles for strength or hypertrophy. With an emphasis on the explosiveness of the concentric part (where push / pulling the weight) of the movement and an accentuation of the deceleration in the course of the 3 second eccentric part (where lowering of the weight) of the exercise, you do just that - you train your muscle for strength and hypertrophy. The data in figure 2 underlines that this strategy works, regardless of whether you stick to the classical strength training protocol with longer rest periods (TS) or if you innovate your training by integrating some explosive strength circles.

Figure 2: Bench press concentric peak power [in W] increase measured for different loads (45%, 60% and 80% of 1RM_max) after 8 weeks on a traditional or a high resistance circuit training program (data adapted from Alcarez. 2011)

Obviously the classical strength training, where the three sets of bench presses were performed one after another and with more than adequate rest of 3 minutes produced greater increases in peak bench press performance with the most significant advantages for the traditional training routine (TS) in the range of 60% of the individual one-repetition maximum (1RM_max). So, if you are all about strength and can afford to invest 120 minutes three times à week into your training and like what you have been doing, you can stick to what worked for generations of lifters. If, however, you still don't have your summer-six-pack ready, have only 60 minutes to train, or - as almost 90% of the gym-goers claim - "just want to look good naked", or even just try something new, you should give the explosive strength circuits a try.

Figure 3: Changes in fat and lean body mass [in kg] after 8 weeks on a traditional vs. a high resistance circuit strength training protocol (data adapted from Alcarez. 2011)

Although the advantages of high resistance circuit training over traditional strength training in terms of on body composition (cf. figure 3) appear to be less significant than those TS has over HRC in the strength department (cf. figure 2), the significance of the data must be relativized in view of the large standard deviations which are as high as ~70%-110% of the improvements of both strength and body composition.

Note: I think I do not have to tell you, the educated readership of the SuppVersity, that it goes without saying that it is very likely (yet still warrants scientific validation) that high resistance circuit training will also produce better results in terms of body (re-)composition (less fat, more muscle) than cardio training (cf. Exercise! Beneficial Effects of Resistance Training on Variables of General Health) or dieting (cf. Calorie Restriction vs. Exercise for Optimal Body Composition?), alone.

Consequently, the conclusions of the authors, that the gains in strength and body composition in the HCR group "are identical to those obtained with traditional, heavy strength training" is spot on: In the end, it is probably all about your personal training-philosophy, -style and -preference what will work better for you as an individual. One thing you should keep in mind though is to explode on the way up and slow down on the way down; or, in other words, Add high resistance circuit training to your repertoire, if you will, but don't forget: Train the muscle, don't just move the weight!

Squat 8% More For Your 1-RM, NOW! And Generate 200% More Power After 7 Weeks of Training With Band-Aids. Plus: Method Works For Bench Presses (+100% Power), As Well

This is how it should look like, when you are doing variable resistance warm-ups or even complete workouts.

Sometimes it's the little things that can make all the difference. Little things such as resistance bands you'd use in addition to the barbell on your back during your warm-ups to generate 35% of the tension (e.g. 32.5kg from weights, 17.5kg from bands).

In a recent study from the University of Derby the increasing resistance the bands generate on the way up from the bottom position of the squat had a statistically significant beneficial effect on the maximal 1-RM weight the subjects, sixteen physically active men (age mean = 26.0 ± 7.8 yr, range 18 to 44 yr, height = 1.7 ± 0.2 m; mass = 82.6 ± 12.7 kg) with more than three years of serious weight training experience under their belts squatted in a subsequent 1-RM max effort.

You can learn more about squatting at the SuppVersity

Optimizing Rest for Size and Strength Gains

When Rodents Squat, We Can Learn A Lot!

Farmer's Walk or Squat? Is Strong- men T. For You?

Full ROM ➯ Full Gains - Form Counts!

Cut the Weight, Add the Vibe - Vibration Plates

Up Your Squat by 25% With Sodium Bicarbonate

As you can see in Figure 1 the use of the bands did yet not affect the EMG activity, which is often used as a measure for muscle activation. What did improve, though, was the form - or I should say the execution velocity; I mean, if you've squatted before you know how squatting your 1-RM max 20% slower than usual will hurt, right?

Figure 1: Mean EMG activity (difference n.s.), velocity and 1-RM during eccentric and concentric classic 1-RM squat after warming up with weight only (Classic) and with weight and resistance bands (+Band) in strength training veterans (Mina. 2014)

Unfortunately, the underyling reason of the performance boosting effects of this type of "dynamic" variable resistance workout have not yet been elucidated.

It is generally assumed that effects like the observed strength increases are a result of post-activation potentiation (PAP) which will increase the number of motor units and thus allow you to lift more weight.

Figure 2: Changes in 1RM max after 7 weeks of classic vs. band-aided training (Baker. 2009)

In the long(er) term this is assumed to induce superior increases in muscular strength and power. An effect, which appears to be substantiated by Anderson et al., Baker et al. (Anderson. 2008; Baker. 2009 | see Figure 2).

"Compared with C [control], improvement for E [elastic tension] was nearly three times greater for back squat (16.47 ± 5.67 vs. 6.84 ± 4.42 kg increase), two times greater for bench press (6.68 ± 3.41 vs. 3.34 ± 2.67 kg increase), and nearly three times greater for average power (68.55 ± 84.35 vs. 23.66 ± 40.56 watt increase)." (Baker. 2009)

Based on three times more pronounced strength gains, Baker et al. rightly conclude that "[t]raining with [combined elastic and free weight resistance] may be better than [classic free weight resistance training] alone for developing lower and upper body strength" (Baker. 2009).

Photo from the original publication (Mina. 2014)

This is something you, as an advanced trainee should try! What is particularly noteworthy is the fact that most of the studies, including the ones by Mina et al. (2014) and Baker et al. (2009), were conducted with resistance trained individuals. Men and women like yourself who are way past the weekly 10% increase in 1-RM max of a beginner.

The short and long term success the researchers observed should thus be reason enough for you to break out of your weekly routine, and get some "band-aid" in the literal sense to finally bust that damn bench press or squat plateau you've been struggling with for weeks, now. And let's be honest: What on earth do you have to lose?

References:

• Anderson, Corey E., Gary A. Sforzo, and John A. Sigg. "The effects of combining elastic and free weight resistance on strength and power in athletes." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 22.2 (2008): 567-574.
• Baker, Daniel G., and Robert U. Newton. "Effect of kinetically altering a repetition via the use of chain resistance on velocity during the bench press." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 23.7 (2009): 1941-1946.
• Mina et al. "The Influence Of Variable Resistance Loading On Subsequent Free Weight Maximal Back Squat Performance." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Publish Ahead of Print. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000471

TARFU: LaBrada Nutrition Financed Study Finds no Effect of Super Charge Xtreme N.O. on Training Induced Increases in Muscle Size. Minor Effects on 1RM Max.

As mentioned in previous blogposts, I highly credit all supplement companies which - instead of just putting out untenable claims about the "steroid-like" effects of their products - spend a few bucks of their immense marketing budgets on research on how fantastic their products actually are. In the case of LaBrada Nutrition's Super Charge Xtreme N.O. it does yet seem that it would have been wiser to do some research before formulating their new "NO booster".

Other than the guys over at LaBrada Nutrition probably have hoped or even expected, the study (JSCR. 2011) that was published in the March issue of the well-known Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research found no "significant improvements in LBM over the placebo drink" and only minor increases in bench press 1RM and squat power, which may well be attributed to CNS stimulation due to the hefty 450mg load of caffeine each serving of Super Charge Xtreme N.O. contains.

Other than that, the "15 physically active, resistance trained, college age (19.5 +/- 0.269 yr) males" in the placebo group attained the same changes in body weight, body [as measured via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA)] and maximal strength in the rest of the 8 different exercises of their 3-day/week exercise regimen:

A main effect for time was identified for each of the 1RM strength measures tested (p<0.05) except biceps curls (p = 0.34). [....] Significant main effects were found for lean body mass (F1/22 = 20.32, p<0.001), but there were no significant group x time interactions for changes in LBM (F1/22 = 0.142 p = 0.710).

But let's be honest. Did you still believe an NO booster will improve your gains? I, for my part, take them for the feeling of being pumped up. And although I have not yet had the chance to test this particular product, I am inclined to believe that it will provide similar results as the classics like NO Xplode & Co - that kind of cosmetic pump you either love or hate.