Build Size & Strength With Isometric Co-Contractions: 4% Increase in Arm Circumference and ~20% More Strength With Less Than 10 Minutes of "Flexing" Per Week

Big guns without weights? True - the question yet remains: "How big?"

I am psyched and the reason is the advanced access publication of the results of the latest study from the Department of Sports and Life Science at the National Institute of Fitness and Sports in Kanoya, Japan (Maeo. 2013b).

Why? Well, it claims to solve two of the most urgent issues that keep our sedentary fellow men (and women ;-) from working out: The lack of equipment and the lack of time, exactly those two factors the average American and European slacker pleads as an excuse for not making the necessary, since potentially life-saving physical investments into "metabolic currency" (this is a term my good friend Carl Lanore uses to refer functional muscle mass).

"Big guns without weights? You're kiddin', bro!"

Actually the idea of using simultaneous voluntary contractions of antagonistic muscle pairs (aka co-contraction) to improve muscle strength in the absence of external apparatuses is not new. The voluntary co-con traction of elbow flexors and extensors you can see in the photo in the red "This is how it's done" box, for example, may look ludacris (imagine doing that at the gym), its efficacy is however backed by previous research and its working principle is as simple as ingenious: Biceps and triceps, i.e. elbow flexor and extensor, produce resistive forces that act against each other (Tyler. 1986), so that one muscle actually "trains" the other.

You can learn more about training biceps & triceps at the SuppVersity

Training the Individual Parts of the Triceps

Find the Best Triceps Exercises (EMG Data)

Explore the Best Biceps Exercises (EMG Data)

Train Bis + Tris on a Single Day & Grow!

Add 0.5 Inch To Your Arms in 5 Minutes

Disproportionate Triceps Growth? Is It Real?

In their initial investigation into the effects of muscular co-contraction, the results of which have been published in the International Journal of Sports Medicine in July 2013 (Maeo. 2013b), the researchers have been able to confirm that the muscular activity that occurs during the voluntary co-contractions is a sufficient training stimulus for improving the strength capability of both muscles (Maeo et al. 2013a).

"In fact, previous studies that adopted co-contraction training for elbow flexors and extensors (Driss et al. 2013; MacKenzie et al. 2010; Maeo et al. 2013) found significant increases in the strength capability, as well as agonist electromyographic (EMG) activity during isometric maximal voluntary contraction (MVV) (MacKenzie et al. 2010; Maeo et al. 2013), of the two muscle groups. the previous findings cited above support the idea that co-contraction can be an effective training modality, which does not require any external apparatus, for increasing muscle strength." (Maeo. 2013b)

So, while we are pretty certain that "standing there and contracting your bis and tris" can increase muscle strength (learn how to build strength), there is a scarcity of evidence that would allow us to make reliable statements about the effects of voluntary muscular cocontractions on muscle size (learn how to build muscle). It is thus only logical that the intention of Sumiaki Maeo's, Yasuhide Yoshitake's, Yohei Takai's, Tetsuo Fukunaga's and Hiroaki Kanehisa's follow up study was "to clarify neuromuscular adaptations following 12-week maximal voluntary co-contraction training" (Maeo. 2013b). In that, the researchers hypothesized that

• 

  If you feel like a shadow of yourself, betaine may help | learn more

  the training modality with maximal voluntary co-contraction would increase both size and strength capability of the exercised muscles, and
• training unsing co-contractions does not change involuntary coactivation level during MVC of the agonist alone

In other words: The researchers wanted to make sure that (a) this form of training builds strength and muscle and (b) that it does not have lasting potentially performance decreasing effects on the co-activation of the triceps / biceps, when you actually want to use only one of them (imagine you want to curl the weight up and your triceps works against you).

The study protocol

To satisfy their research interest, the researchers from the Department of Sports and Life Science at the Japanese National Institute of Fitness and Sports in Kanoya recruited 16 healthy young men.

Don't neglect the proven benefits of periodization: "Six Weeks On + Three Weeks Off" Macrocycle Yields Identical Gains Strength and Size Gains as Continuous Training | more

The guys, who were in their early twenties, lean, healthy and habitually active, but not involved in regular exercise programs with a duration and frequency of more than two 30 minute exercise sessions per week, were then randomly assigned to two groups: A training group (T) with 9 participants and an inactive control group (C) with 7 participants. It goes without saying that all participants had to abstain from additional physical activity over the course of the whole study period during.

In those 12 weeks the subjects in the the subjects in T group participated in a 12-week training program with maximal voluntary co-contraction of the elbow flexors and extensors of the right arm 3 times per week.

Usually this would be the paragraph of this SuppVersity article, where I would give you a concise summary of the exercise protocol. In view of the fact that I doubt that many of you are actually familiar with muscular co-contractions, I decided to use a somewhat abridged quote of  the scientists' lengthy, but comprehensive explanation of the procedure (see red box).

This is how it's done: In a standing position with the feet shoulder width apart, upper arm vertical to the ground, the elbow joint at 90° (full extension = 180°), forearm in a neutral (middle of supinated and pronated) position you will perform a 4-s muscle isometric co-contraction followed by 4-s muscle relaxation (total volume: 10 times per set, 5 sets per session; rest: 2 min between sets). Make sure to perform each voluntary co-contraction as rapidly as possible and sustain maximal effort for full 4s!

Basically what the subjects were doing could be summarize as 10x4s maximal isometric muscle contractions with 4s break between each contraction for one set and 5 of these sets with an interim of 2 minutes between each of them three times per week.

Now for those surprisingly impressive results

If you do the math and add up the actual time under tension for this 12-week experimental intervention, you will get 10 × 4s isometric contractions × 5 sets × 3 / week × 12 weeks = 7200s or 2h. That's not really much considering the fact that it lead to strength and size increases of +15% / +27% and 4% / 4% in the elbow flexors (biceps) and extensors (triceps) of the previously more or less untrained, but no necessarily sedentary subjects.

Figure 1: Pre vs. post measures of muscle thickness, MVC torque and coactivation level (Maeo. 2013b)

As you can read in the small box in Figure 1 the increases in size and strength did not occur rapidly after two or three weeks and were then followed by a plateau.In fact, the researchers recorded statistically significant strength and measurable, but statistically not yet significant size gains after 4 weeks.

Probably effective for increases in dynamic performance, as well

Now, brute strength and a huge muscle mass are by no means what all athletes are striving for. For many athletes improving their dynamic performance and strength, which would have required the measurement of changes in isokinetic torques for elbow flexors and extensors in both eccentric and concentric conditions, is at least as important. It is thus more than noteworthy that data from Maoe et al.'s previous 4-week study (Maeo. 2013a),

"[...]in which untrained individuals conducted 4-week co-contraction training, showed that the co-contraction training significantly increased isokinetic torques for elbow flexors and extensors in both eccentric and concentric conditions." (Maeo. 2013b)

As the researchers rightly point out, we do thus have reason to believe that "contraction training is also effective for improving dynamic performance, at least for untrained individuals" (Maeo. 2013b). With respect to trained athletes, the reaserchers do yet argue that they'd require higher exercise intensities to achieve additional improvement in muscle strength than non-athletes (Alway. 1992; Cormie. 2011). This, as well as the emphasis sports specific training puts on ballistic, plyometric, and weightlifting exercises involving sports-specific and/or multi-joint movements (Cormie. 2011), make it difficult to believe that similar training results could be achieved by performing maximal voluntary co-contraction.

Suggested read: "Advanced Trainees Benefit from Increased Training Volume!" | more

Great! But nothing a trained individual can benefit from? It's obvious that someone with a 50cm biceps is not going to add another 2cm in 12 weeks in the course of which he lies around on the sofy and performs 5 sets of voluntary maximal co-contructions thrice a week.

This does yet not mean that this relatively unknown training stimulus cannot make a valuable addition to his training regimen... and let's be honest, haven't we all had a pro-bodybuilder give us a bro-scientific lecture on how flexing, in and out of itself nothing, but a voluntary maximal contraction (albeit not necessarily with antagonistic co-contractions for every muscle part) is a vital part of any hypertrophy oriented strength training routine?

References:

• Alway, S. E., Grumbt, W. H., Stray-Gundersen, J. & Gonyea, W. J. (1992). Effects of resistance training on elbow flexors of highly competitive bodybuilders. Journal of Applied Physiology, 72(4), 1512-1521.
• Cormie, P., McGuigan, M. R., & Newton, R. U. (2011). Developing maximal neuromuscular power. Sports medicine, 41(1), 17-38.
• Maeo, S., Yoshitake, Y., Takai, Y., Fukunaga, T., & Kanehisa, H. (2013). Neuromuscular adaptations following 12-week maximal voluntary co-contraction training. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 1-11.
• Maeo, S., Yoshitake, Y., Takai, Y., Fukunaga, T., & Kanehisa, H. (2013). Effect of short-term maximal voluntary co-contraction training on neuromuscular function. International journal of sports medicine, (EFirst). 
• Tyler, A. E., & Hutton, R. S. (1986). Was Sherrington right about co-contractions?. Brain research, 370(1), 171-175.

Shoulder Presses Ain't for Delts, Only! Standing, Seated w/ BB or DB, They Also Hammer the Core, Biceps & Triceps

Flex Wheeler doing BB presses in what vcertainly isn't the ideal position for the lower back - imagine him doing that standing *uhoh*

Don't worry, I am not going to repeat my SuppVersity Facebook news post on the activation of the rectus abdominis, the obliques and the lower back muscles many of you 'liked' on Facebook. I am rather going to expand on it by presenting the data from the unofficial follow-up (Saeterbakken. 2012). Before I do that, I will yet give you the usual preview of today's installment of the SuppVersity Science Round Up I am doing every Thursday (1PM EST, live!) with my friend Carl Lanore from Super Human Radio (in case you did not notice, the number of real scientists on the show has risen exponentially within the last weeks, so I highly recommend you download a couple of other podcasts as well).

SuppVersity Science Round Up - Preview

Just like today's blogpost the focus of today's Science Round Up is actually going to be on training and exercise and don't worry, we won't just be whimpering that people get way too less of it.

• Twin study shows: We all age, but exercise determines the consequences on your health
• Hormonally (over-)demanding plyometrics!?
• HIIT, light intensity steady state and the thyroid gland
• NSAIDs: Go or no go for an athlete interested to build muscle?
• Glucose, insulin and their muscle building effects
• Could your own sweat protect you from skin cancer?
• Chinese medicine strikes again: P. Lobata stops liver fibrosis in its tracks
• Non-reactive form of vitamin E could be gold standard for cancer therapy

By now you should know the procedure and will thus be aware that it is unrealistic to assume that Carl and I are going to pack all these, let alone any of the auxiliary items on my list, into one show. My best advise would be to tune in live at 1PM (or downlaod the show ~2h later from the sidebar link, here at the SuppVersity), listen and come back tomorrow, to read about the topics that did not make it into the show in the SuppVersity Science Round Up Seconds.

Back to where we came from: The shoulder press!

After the obligatory heads up on the potential topics of today's SuppVersity Science Round Up, let's now get back to the shoulder press. Even if you did miss the facebook post on how it activates the abs, the obliques and the lower back, the other day, you should remember from the SuppVersity EMG Series that different forms of the shoulder press (including behind the neck presses, which are not part of the study at hand) will yield differential activation patters in the musculature of the shoulder girdle.

Chest	Biceps	Back	Core	Legs	Triceps	Shoulders
Navigate the SuppVersity EMG Series - Click on the desired body part to see the optimal exercises.

In the follow up to their core activation study from last year, Saeterbakken and Fjmland did once again go one step further than Boeckh-Behrens & Buskies. Instead of measuring just the usual suspects, i.e. muscles you actually want to train when you do shoulder presses, the researchers expanded their existing data on the activation patters by measuring the activity of biceps and under both, seated and standing exercise conditions with a barbell or dumbbells as well as the 1-RM strength on the individual exercises.

With the auxiliary muscles, the body position, the loading modality (measured during sets of 5 reps at 80%)  and the maximal weight the participants were able to press in each of the four 1RM max attempts Saeterbakken and Fjmland's data on the shoulder presses, alone, is therefore about as extensive as Boeckh-Berhens' and Buskies' data on four or five totally different exercises. Plus their subjects, 22y old lifters with on average 5 years of training experience may be a better model for at least some of you.

Figure 1: Activity pattern of the deltoid and auxiliary muscles (* indicated p < 0.05; data based on Saeterbakken. 2012)

Let's get to the results, now. As the data if figure 1 goes to show you, there are a couple of statistically significant differences, which are in some cases (the asterisks on the lowest level, directly above the bar) related to the training equipment (i.e. dumbbell vs. barbell), in other cases, such as the activation of the posterior deltoid, for example due to doing the exercise standing vs. seated (asterisks about the lines connecting the respective bars denote p < 0.05).

For those who missed the original Facebook post on the first Saeterbakken study (Saeterbakken. 2011), here is a brief summary: Using electromyographic activity (EMG) of the superficial core muscles (i.e. rectus abdominis, external oblique and erector spinae) and comparing the data of seated, standing, bilateral and unilateral dumbbell shoulder presses the researchers found that their 15 healthy male study participants had the greatest core activitation, when they performed their five repetitions at 80% of one-repetition maximum... 

• rectus abdominis (abs)
  - standing unilaterally
• external oblique
  - standing unilaterally  
• erector spinae (lower back) - standing unilaterally

For some of the muscles the different positioning does not really matter, but in each and every case the standing unilateral dumbbell press had a slight (if insignificant) edge on the rest of the exercises.

Just as in the unofficial prequel to this 2nd study by Saeterbakken and Fimland I discussed on Facebook earlier this week (see box to the right for a summary, if you don't want Facebook and the world to know the color of the boxer shorts you're wearing, today), the overall pattern that emerges from this very recent follow up study is that ...

"[...] the standing dumbbell press exercise, which was the exercise with the greatest stability requirement (standing + dumbbells), demonstrated the highest neuromuscular activity of the deltoid muscles." (Saeterbakken. 2012)

Now what's particularly intriguing to this result is that the superiority of the complex movements became obvious despite the fact that the subjects moved the least weight during this exercise. In the aforementioned study by Boeckh-Behrens & Buskies, for example, the exercises which allowed the greatest leverages, usually produced the highest muscular activity, as well.

How can we explain this difference?

Aside from the training status of the participants, the first thing that comes to mind is the rep range: While the subjects in the study at hand trained at a 5RM rep range (meaning they failed on rep 5), the sports students in the Boeckh-Behrens & Buskies study performed 10-12 reps and would thus necessarily have to use lighter weights. In conseuqence, every lbs more made a greater difference for the students, than for the 15 even-aged healthy men with an average of five years of strength training experience under their belts (they were no competitive powerlifters or o-lifters, though), who participated in the studies by Saeterbakken & Fjimland.

As far as the other parameter, the body position, was concerned the results are not as obvious as they were for the core muscles in the 2011 study by the same authors:

"Further, standing versus seated execution, and to some extent dumbbells versus barbell, both resulted in increased muscle activation of the deltoid muscles. Standing instead of seated presses raises the centre of the mass, and also provides a  smaller base of support as the contact points decreases from three to two, particularly when using a bench with a back-rest [comment: the back was set to 75°]. When using a pair of dumbbells instead of a barbell, the main difference is that the dumbbells must be controlled independently of each other. Hence, performing shoulder presses standing and with dumbbells should lead to greater instability." ( Saeterbakken. 2012)

Regardless of the intricate differences, though, the whole picture that emerges from the synopsis of both the 2011 and 2012 data Saeterbakken and Fjimland have collected is actually quite clear: Complex exercises and corresponding muscle activation patterns can make a very valuable tool in the arsenal of the experienced strength trainee.

A final word of caution and the real world difference you can expect

Are you looking for more shoulder exercises? Look no further read them up in the SuppVersity EMG Series and the respective part on the 'best' exercises for M. Deltoideus, M. Infraspinatus, Supraspinatus and Teres Minor (more...)

The lower back and the shoulders itself are however so liable to injury that even somebody with years of training experiences should start out with very light weights and see for 2 or 3 training sessions how his shoulders and lower back react. Against that background it does also appear questionable, whether it is wise to to include a heavily loaded variety (5-8RM) of the standing dumbbell shoulder press in the routine of any beginner or only slightly advanced trainee. The increased injury risk just is not worth it, because the complexity of the movement and the individual (often very) weak links will force a beginner to use very light weights. So light, in fact, that the original target muscle, which is obviously the shoulder, may not receive enough hammering, so that even in the fortunate case that they don't hurt themselves, beginners will probably see way better results with regular seated vs. standing dumbbell presses.
 
References:

• Boeckh-Behrens WU, Buskies W. Fitness-Krafttraining. Rohwolt. 2010.
• Saeterbakken AH, Fimland MS. Muscle activity of the core during bilateral, unilateral, seated and standing resistance exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012 May;112(5):1671-8. Epub 2011 Aug 30.
• Saeterbakken AH, Fimland MS. Effects of body position and loading modality on muscle activity and strength in shoulder presses. J Strength Cond Res. 2012 Oct 23.

Blood Flow Restricted Biceps Growth in Trained Individuals: 4-7% Increase in Sleeve Size in 4 Weeks. Is BFR More Than Just an Alternative for the Injured / Handicapped Athlete?

If the litmus test goes well, I would assume that you will soon see more guys training "strapped up like this" at the gym.

Yes, I am guilty - guilty of complaining about the subject selection in previous studies from the University of Tampa and other institutions, where scientists conducting research on the effects of blood flow restriction on the (resistance) training induced muscular adaptions. MRI-measured thigh muscle cross-sectional area and muscle volume increases of 4–7%, and a 8-10% increase in one repetition max and maximum isometric quadriceps strength as Takashe Abe et al. report in their 2006 paper are unquestionably impressive (Able. 2006). If you asked me, they are even too impressive - too impressive to assume that you would see similar gains from walking on a treadmill in trained individuals.

Is this the litmus test for blood flow restriction?

In view of the impressive results in untrained and older individuals, a study with 20 college-aged (mean age 23±5 years) men with a minumum of 1 year of resistance training experience could in fact be called a litmus test. So, if we take the subject selection as our main criteria, the study at hand is a litmus test..

Figure 1: Exercise selection for the two training sessions; BFR indicated blood flow restriction. All subjects trained twice a week for a total of 8 weeks, 4 weeks with, 4 weeks without cuffs on the biceps exercise (Lowery. 2013)

The young men were randomly assigned to one of the two arms of a crossover protocol, according to which they trained with restricted blood flow to the biceps brachii either during the first 4 weeks (BFR-HI) or the second 4 weeks (HI-BFR) of a standardized 8-week program resistance training program (see Figure 1) with a controlled overall training volume (sets x reps x weights).

Compared to conservative protocols, a "cross over" had the advantage of (a) providing a larger subject base and (b) allowing to control intra-individual variations, i.e. answering the question "What's the best protocol for person A?". The obvious downside wass that the total study duration for BFR and regular training wasonly 4 weeks per person.

As you can see in Figure 1 the only difference between the classic bicep curl that was performed either with or without the sujects' arms being wrapped at a perceived pressure of 6–7 or 0 on a 0-10 scale, respectively, is the sole difference between the two arms - the workload, on the other hand, was identical.

"During the first week of pBFR, subjects performed three sets of thirty repetitions with 30% of their calculated 1 RM. To control for total volume, the non-pBFR subjects performed three sets of curls at one-half of the repetitions and two times the load of their pBFR weeks for each week." (Lowery. 2013)

To explain what this means, Lowery et al. refer to the following example: Person A curls 30 reps at 30% of their individual one rep max (1RM) on the first set during the blood flow restricted session. To ensure that the total workout volume is identical person A must perform 15 repetitions at 60% of his 1RM for his first set in the non-BFR condition as well - even if he could have lifted more or would have been able to pump out additional 5 reps.

Suggested Read: "Training For Size W/ Decreasing Rest Periods" | more

Is this the litmus test? The example Lowery et al. provide makes it quite clear: This is not the litmus test we have been looking for. The volume prescription, as necessary as it may be from a scientific point of view, diminishes the practical value of the results. In practice, it is after all very likely that you could train at a higher volume and or intensity in the non-BFR condition. Assuming that this would not lead to overtraining, the non-BFR condition would probably provide a more pronounced hypertrophy signal and thus superior muscle growth.

Speaking of standardization, it is probably worth mentioning that the subjects had to adhere to a diet consisting of 25% protein, 50% carbohydrates and 25% fat with meal plans that had been tailored to their individual demands. In addition, all 20 of them consumed a 24g bolus of hydrolysed whey protein (Dymatize Iso 100),  after every training session. To ensure the adherence to the dietary protocol a diet log that had been started two weeks before the actual trial to assess the baseline nutrient intake of the participants and had to be maintained over the whole study period.

Impressive or disappointing? That is the question.

In contrast to the initially cited study by Abe et al., the authors of the study at hand, Lowery, Joy, Loenecke Souza, Machado, Dudeck and Wilson, did not use MRI, but ultrasound images to determine the muscle thickness of the biceps at the end of weeks 0, 4 and 8.

Figure 2: Left, biceps muscle thickness - mean values (in cm) + increase within last weeks (in %) above the bars; right, individual levels in the HI-BFR and BFR-HI group (Lowery. 2013)

It should however go without saying that the use of a different measuring technique does not explain the at first sight probably disappointing difference between the results of the study at hand and the initially cited study by Abe, Kearns and Sato.

Body part specific effects and even the age and training status of the subjects are probably irrelevant, as well - not because things like that would not matter, but because there was a more profound methodological difference: The "control" condition in the study at hand. Despite being curbed by the volume prescription, the non-BFR condition was still "anabolic" enough to induce a respectable increase in muscle size. The latter cannot be said of the non-cuffed treadmill walking in the Abe study. To call the results "disappointing" is thus not warranted. Their real-world significance, however, remains questionable (see red box).

It may make sense to integrate a BFR regimen into an undulating periodi-zation regimen as the one I discussed in "Periodization Techniques Revisited: Improved Strength & Size Gains W/ 12-Week Undulatory vs. Linear Periodization" | read more

So, if that's not disappointing what is it then? The study outcome may not be as mind-boggling as some of you may have hoped for, but it does support the notion that light weights and high reps can produce similar gains in trained individuals as medium weights and reps, even in trained individuals (with low training experience and lean mass | mean weight: ~76kg, LBM: undisclosed), if you train blood-flow restricted.

What the study is not, is the "BFR vs. regular training"-study, we have been waiting for. If we take the scientists example as being representative of the rep x intensity scheme (the full text does not contain the corresponding details), it appears almost certain that a classic hypertrophy training (8-12 reps at 70-85% of 1RM max to voluntary failure) would deflate any cuffs in no time ;-)

References:

• Abe T, Kearns CF, Sato Y. Muscle size and strength are increased following walk training with restricted venous blood flow from the leg muscle, Kaatsu-walk training. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2006 May;100(5):1460-6. Epub 2005 Dec 8.
• Lowery RP, Joy JM, Loenneke JP, de Souza EO, Machado M, Dudeck JE, Wilson JM. Practical blood flow restriction training increases muscle hypertrophy during a periodized resistance training programme. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2013 Nov 4.

Adelfo Cerame - Road to The Wheelchair Nationals '12: Eggs, Chocolate Milk and Wheelchair Bodybuilding

Image 1: It's just a Halloween costume, but one that is absolutely fitting - in every sense.

I am honestly not sure on what note to introduce this week's installment of Adelfo's increasingly popular contest prep log - a funny or rather a dead serious one? I mean, even in the introduction to his very first post I have pointed out how inspiring not only his work ethic, but also his whole constructive attitude is. I mean look at him in his Halloween costume, what may look somewhat hilarious at first sight, is in fact dead serious (and you will realize that at least after reading the current installment of the contest prep series) - if you asked me, I would not be able to name someone else who would be more suited for the role of Thor, the hammer-wielding god associated with thunder, lightning, storms, oak trees, strength and the protection of mankind... and the fact that my Thor is sitting in a wheelchair, does just add to the freaky awesomeness of someone, I am proud to be call a friend.

Short-Term Protein Shortage and Other Obstacles

Wow it’s already November, Thor is back from Valhalla (cf. image 1) and the second months of my contest preperation for the 2012 Wheelchair Nationals begins. Things have gone quite well so Contrary to what you would expect, my strength and performance been increasing - I have been increasing my lifts by 5-10 pounds every week. The switch to escalating density training (cf. "Things Start to Escalate") is already paying off. I am getting stronger which each cycle - each week, a rep or two or a few pounds more on all major moves. 

Video 1: Click on the image to view Adelfo pump out an intense biceps + triceps EDT cycle (video by Adelfo Cerame, 2011)

EDT - a strong argument against superfluous body fat

While my strength is exploding, my waist is doing the exact opposite: It seems like I’m leaning out real fast - current waist circumference 30". Jeans which usually only fit, when I was way more into previous contest preps fit like a glove - now, more than 3 months out! I know that this would scare the hell out of many of my "colleagues" who would probably be afraid that they were losing too much muscle, but form me, it's a good thing. I don't feel that my arms, chest or back got flat (quite the opposite) and with Thanksgiving and Christmas just around the corner, being leaner will actually benefit me when I use those holidays for my designated cheat/carb load days. It’s always fun to have cheat and re-feed days when you’re lean and mean, because you can feel and moreover see (at least when you are back at the gym) how those carbs replenish your muscle ... but I’ll talk more on that on another segment when I do get leaner and actually start carb loading again.

A note by Dr. Andro: It is when you are "lean and mean", as Adelfo artistically put it, when you benefit (and even need) refeeds the most. With your insulin sensitivity maxed out and your adipose tissues almost empty, little aromatase converting your valuable testosterone into estrogen etc. this is the best time for an intermittent (high carb) overfeed that will set the anti-catabolic + protein synthetic machinery into overdrive and convince your body that he can, with a clear conscious, spend those last few triglycerides he has still held back for "the real bad times" in the course of your next intermittent fasts ;-)

Thor is back in the gym - not doing Hammer curls, though ;-)

Since pictures, and even more videos, usually say more than a thousand words and because I suppose that you are curious what exactly I am doing at the gym that produces these outstanding changes, I shot another video tonight (cf. video 1). It's a biceps + triceps EDT block [comment Dr. Andro: You can find the best exercises for biceps, triceps and all other body parts in the SuppVersity EMG Series]. The same fundamental concept as with the other body parts: You have 20 minutes, in the course of which you have to complete as many cycles of two given exercises as you can. Personally, I usually do 2-3 EDT block exercises every training session; and mostly, I end my workouts on a biceps and triceps block… well, you know, this is just my favorite ;-)

The calorie spiral starts turning

As I mentioned last week, this is going to be my first week with a slight caloric deficit. For the first month I stayed within my caloric maintenance just to see if my body would lean out or make any improvements. This month I’m going to drop down to 1900 calories/day, which would equal a 350 kcal deficit, which isn’t that much but things are going to well, currently that anything more than that would be plainout stupid. After all, I have repeatedly hinted at the advantage of being able to gradually drop your calories, whenever it becomes necessary in my previous blogposts... my whole contest prep is built around this idea - start early lean down gradually, but consistently and avoid the flattening crash at the end of the prep that cost so many aspiring bodybuilders their procard.

Recipe of the Week: Yet to be named Porky Potato Post Workout Meal: As you see, I have not forgotten last week's promise to have a recipe of the week in each and every of the upcoming installments of my contest prep log. This week's recipe is actually so brand new that I have yet to come up with a catchy name for it. It's easy to prepare and for me it is a post workout meal.

Image 2: Yet to be named Porky Potato Post Workout Meal

Ingredients:

• 2 lean pork loin chops (about 4 oz each)
• 4 oz sweet potato
• 6 baby carrots
• ½ cup cottage cheese
• 1 medium banana (about 3 oz)
• 1 tbs. honey

Macros: 48g protein/ 65g carbs/ 17g fat

A quick tip: Pork is naturally salty, so I don’t even season it with salt; I just use garlic, pepper and spices. And the banana and honey over the cottage cheese makes for a great dessert after the meal!

When you drastically cut calories, be that at the beginning or the end of your prep, this is like... juicing, when you are still a complete beginner... or like premature ejaculation, if you like that comparison, better. Drop your calories too low and you are done. There is nothing you can do anymore, when your body stops responding. So I'm going to drop as much body fat as I can with my 1900 calories and when I realize I'm hitting a wall, it will be time to drop down to 1800. And so on…

"If being able to buy a month worth supply of eggs for $25 ain't an argument for not investing another $60 into protein powder, what then? "

What is every bodybuilder's worst nightmare? Correct! Running out of protein. And guess what happened to me this very week? Correct! I ran out of protein. And since I don’t get paid till’ this Friday, this wasn't going to change for the rest of the week. I usually use protein to fortify my foods and include it as a drink with my whole food meals to help me reach my daily macros for protein. As I was browsing around through my local grocery store thinking about what other sources of protein I could possibly use - one that has a decent amino acid profile and is yet economical and won't turn me into an eunuch (so no soy, obviously ;-), my eyes fell on a five dozen eggs (for all mathematical geniuses out there, five dozen = 5x12 = 60) for $8 and some change! What better way to get your protein than from eggs? So instead of using a protein shake, I just popped a couple of these bad boys throughout my feeding hours to help me reach my macros for protein (I just take out the yolk if I would be missing my fat macros, otherwise)… that did actually work so well, that I am considering to to this in the future, as well. After all, the 5-dozen eggs lasted a little over a week.

Image 3: 5 dozen eggs for $8? And a gallon of chocolate milk for $4? Bodybuilder what else can you ask for? The protein supplements will have to take a back seat, for now.

I also started using low fat chocolate milk as my post workout shake (low fat, to avoid the slowing effect of the fat on protein & carb digestion). I was reading an article that Dr. Andro posted a while back (cf. table 2) about how chocolate milk was just as good a PWO shake as any other, so I figured" why not?" - I ran out of protein anyway.

And since we’re on the topic of budgeting and being economical, I decided to cut most of the raw meats out of my diet and stick to conventional cuts for the majority of my prep. In order to eat raw, the sources have to be the best quality such as grass-fed or cage-free, and along with quality (unfortunately) comes an expensive price. To me, who was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth, it just makes sense to spend $7 on 7 pieces of chicken breast, rather than $7 on 1 piece of grass-fed NY steak. I will still do raw milk and cheeses (and raw eggs from time to time) though. Fortunately, the place where I get my raw milk and cheeses hooks me up. And in case you are now thinking to yourselves: "Man that goes completely against his quality over quantity mantra", let me tell you this: Yes, I am downgrading the quality of my meats, but I still eat whole “nutrient dense” foods, I train everyday, and keep my calories and macronutrients in check, and right now that’s all that matters.

Competitive Wheelchair Bodybuilding

Image 4: Jason Greer took 2nd at the 1st 2011 IFBB Pro Wheelchair Championchips. Be honest, guys. If there is anything freaky about Jason, that it is his freakin' awesome physique and I am happy that RX Muscle covered the show pretty extensively and would love to see Dave Palumbo and the rest of the team vocer the NPC Wheelchair Nationals, as well (note: this is my = Dr. Andro's comment).

Now let's get to a much less depressing topic: Wheelchair Bodybuilding! For those of you that may not know, there is a small and growing community of bodybuilders that are in wheelchairs. We train and diet just as hard as our able body counter parts... well, I guess minus the legs ;-). We don’t roll on stage for pity claps, most of us train and diet hard and put our bodies through the grind of training and dieting year round. We look at ourselves as serious athletes in a sport we love to compete in.

The disabilities of the competitors range from multiple sclerosis over cerebral palsy, spina bifida to spinal cord injuries such as paraplegics and quadriplegics. The type of disability and level of injury eventually determine wheelchair bodybuilder's mobility and function: For wheelchair bodybuilders, who were injured above the waistline, for example, it is particularly hard to build their abdominal muscles. Other wheelchair bodybuilders have limited function on all four limbs, so they have to work twice as hard just to train and build muscle. Some can do certain exercises, others can’t. It just all depends on the disability and injury level. For those of who want to know more about us, I've compiled a few links:

• Biographic information on many of the currently competing wheelchair bodybuilders
• Weelchair Bodybuilding on Facebook
• Natural Wheelchair Bodybuilding on Facebook

For those of you that may be reading this and are in chairs and curious about competing or those of you who are interested in going to a show, here are the three major wheelchair bodybuilding competitions I know of...

• the NPC Wheelchair Nationals in Florida - taking place every march,
• the NPC USA’s in New Orleans - taking place in June, and
• the INBF Natural Buckeye in Ohio, which just started a wheelchair division last year. 

There are other shows and organizations that have wheelchair classes, but most of the time the competition is slim or - even worse ! - competition is just you against yourself and that’s no fun! In my first competition I was the only competitor and I hated the fact that I took first place by default! Lol. I’d rather lose to someone than take a 1st place trophy because I was the only competitor... but hey you know, neither of this is going to happen at the Nationals in Florida and if you want to know why, come back next week ;-)

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.

Arms Don't Grow Faster With Leg Training: Stuart M. Phillips Busts Ronnestad's "Hormonal Ghosts"

Image 1: Although Tom Platz had massive
arms, as well, there is little conclusive scientific
evidence that this was a result of leg training.

Usually I am offering you my thoughts and comments on the results of the studies I am presenting here at the SuppVersity. In this case however, I am going to rely on the insightful analysis of Stuart M. Phillips, head of the Department of Kinesiology, Exercise Metabolism Research Group at the McMaster University, who spotted some interesting inconsistencies in a recently published paper by Ronnestad et al. who had reported that (contrary to conclusive findings from dozens of study by Phillips and others) endogenous hormone release from leg training had a major impact on the anabolic response in the arm flexors (cf. news from March, 2nd / I plead guilty of not having seen these inconsistencies, though I must say in mitigation that back in March I only reported, not commented on studies).

As Phillips points out, Ronnestad's conclusion that training legs+arms results in bigger guns or, rather, that without training legs, your arms won't grow at all is funded in

selective reporting (considering only the site of the largest CSA), incomplete statistical analysis (not comparing the changes (in CSA between arms), and questionable MR practices (Phillips. 2011)

In his analysis of the Ronnestad study, Phillips shows conclusively that, according to Ronnestad's own figures (Phillips refers to figure 6 of the paper, in particular), the authors' statement that

only L + A [leg plus arm training—a high ‘anabolic’ hormonal exposure condition] achieved increase in the CSA at the part of the arm flexors with the largest cross-sectional area (p \ 0.001), while no changes occurred in A [arm only training—a low ‘anabolic’ hormonal exposure condition]. (Ronnestad. 2011)

is not sustainable, since "examination of Fig. 6 in their paper reveals that significant hypertrophy did occur at two sites (of 4 measured) in the A arm", i.e. the non-leg-trained arm. By means as simple as drawing a few vertical lines (cf. figure 1) Phillips is able to show that the hypertrophic response to the training stimulus was in fact identical in three out of the four measured cross sections.

Figure 1: Four horizontal lines are all it took Phillips to show that there must be something wrong with Ronnestad's data; after all, it is unlikely that section 8 of the biceps had atrophied in the course of the stud (illustration taken from Phillip's letter to the editor of the European Journal of Applied Physiology)

Phillips makes a point that, unless one assumes that - for whatever reasons - there has been a strictly localized atrophy in section 8 of the arm (cf. mismatch of pre-values in left and right graph of figure 1), the most likely explanation for the mismatch would be that "the pre- and post-training scans were not aligned at the same point along the arm". Smart-witted as Phillips is, he also observed that with the purportedly greater changes in muscle cross-sectional-area in the leg+arm condition it is strictly impossible for the muscle volume to be identical, unless "the authors believe that the A arm got longer". I would assume that you agree with me that even with eccentric muscle training this would be a rather surprising event. Consequently, this is another argument in favor of the obvious absence of measurable effects of an overall more anabolic milieu in the "arm + leg training"-condition on the hypertrophy response to strength training - or, in short, we still have no conclusive evidence that training legs before arms would make the latter grow faster.

Image 2: Make your biceps grow with the SuppVersity EMG series!

Now, if the hypertophy response was identical, it is even more surprising that the "leg+arm" group exhibited "through some inexplicable mechanism" (Phillips. 2011) an overall greater 1RM strength than the control group. Phillips, who does not refrain from pointing out that "this [was] a surprising observation that was not even alluded to in the paper", argues that this result stands in stark contrast to the "central fatigue" hypothesis Ronnestad et al. cite as an explanation for the "dampened" (Ronnestad. 2011) training loads in the "leg+arm" training group. Phillips, on the other hand, speculates that it could be a direct result of a "a superior neuromuscular adaptation" (Phillips. 2011, my emphasis), which would be the exact opposite of what Ronnestad et al. had in mind.

Even if one neglects the questionable measuring practice of Ronnestad et al., in the course of which the "scanned arm [was] stretched behind the head and centered in the middle of the machine" (Ronnestad. 2011), the absence of an "estimate of variability of the procedure they used in their lab" and the questionable reference to "similarities" to magneto resonance scans (note that Ronnestad et al. used CT scans ;-) carried out by Moss et al. (Moss. 1997), the Ronnestad study is a particularly good example for the way research hypotheses can interfere with the "objective results" of scientific studies by establishing a (often unconscious) bias towards "desired" results. Selective reporting, incomplete statistical analysis and ad-hoc explanations for differences to the findings of previous studies are the undesirable, yet completely human manifestations of this phenomenon, I want everyone of you to be aware of - even if this means that my own thoughts and conclusions, which are almost always produced under time-pressure, are about to get more critical comments in the future ;-)

"10x3 = 3x10 < 20x3"? The Mathematics of Optimal Set and Rep Ranges for Maximal Increases in Sleeve Size

Image 1: Going for the pump was Arnold's way
to biceps peak and size, but is that "optimal"?

How many sets do you do, when you are at the gym? How many repetitions (reps) each? And are you sure that this is the "right" way to train? No? Well I guess then you will be interested in the results of a study from the School of Exercise, Biomedical and Health Sciences at the Edith Cowan University in Joondalup, Western Australia ( Chan. 2011), for which Roy Yang Han Chan (I hope I did not mix up name and surname, here ;-) recruited 10 non-resistance trained men to investigate the effects of different set/rep schemes on muscle strength, range of motion  (ROM),  muscle  cross  sectional  area  (CSA),  muscle  soreness  and  plasma  creatine kinase  (CK)  activity after two bouts of eccentric biceps curls (see illustration 1 for exact study setup).

Illustration 1: Setup of the 4 training bouts the 10 subjects of the study participated in (according to Chan. 2011)

Now, "non-resistance trained" subjects (mean ± SD age: 26.1 ± 4.1 y, height: 173.1 ± 6.1 cm, body weight: 72.4 ± 9.1 kg)  and training on just two occasions, are not exactly constituents of a highly significant study protocol. In view of the scarcity of data on what some trainers consider the holy grail of training theory, the finding that

Maximal  voluntary  contraction  strength,  ROM,  biceps  brachii  CSA [cross sectional area],  muscle soreness and plasma CK [creatine kinase - leakage of this enzyme from the muscle is a measure of muscle damage] activity changed significantly after the first bouts without significant differences  between  3x10  and  10x3,  and  changes  in  the  measures  following  20x3  were similar  between  arms.  No  significant  differences  in  the  changes  of  the  criterion  measures were  evident  between  bouts.the  set-repetition  configuration  had little effect on muscle damage, which was likely to be due to similar peak torques produced during  exercise  between  the  3x10  and  10x3  bouts.

The question we have to answer now, is "How representative is this data?" In the previous paragraph I already mentioned the first fundamental flaw of the study: the subject selection. "Why on earth", you may be asking yourself rightly, "Why did this Australian exclude resistance trained subjects from his study and chose subjects with 4.5inch arms? Isn't it obvious that these bonsai-guns will grow no-matter what those guys would do in the gym?" And, yes that is exactly the case and, at the same time though, also the reason why, time-and-again, we see those studies done with "resistance training virgins" - due to the completely novel stimulus their muscle simply grow like crazy, no matter how short your study period, how flawed your exercise program or how useless your supplement may be - and that, in turn, reduces your costs and the threat of observing a null-result dramatically. You better keep these general objections in mind, especially if you look at absolute values of studies like this one.

Figure 1: Relative increase in biceps cross sectional area [CSA] of 3 sets a 10 reps (3x10) and 10 sets a 3 reps (10x3) compared to 20 sets of 3 reps (data calculated based on Chan. 2011)

With the afore-made objections in mind, the relative results depicted in figure 1, do still provide some insight into the differential time-course of the effects of a high intensity training with 10 sets a 3 reps (10x3) and a classic hypertrophy regimen with 3 sets a 10 reps. The greater increase in muscle CSA on the first day (both are expressed relative to the 20x3 regimen that both group A and group B performed) in what I would like to call the hypertrophy group (3x10), as well as the delayed response in the high intensity 10x3 group appear to support the commonly cited hypothesis that due to the greater myofibrilar damage the high intensity 10x3 protocol would inflict, it takes longer for the muscles to recover and thus grow.

Figure 2: Relative elevation of creatine kinase over baseline in group A (3x10 vs. 20x3) and group B (10x3 vs. 20x3) 4 days after eccentric biceps training (data calculated based on Chan. 2011)

The creatine kinase [CK values are generally accepted as markers of muscular damage] values in figure 2 suggest another conclusion, though. While the CK values in what I labeled the hypertrophy group were still +60% elevated over baseline, they had returned to normal (+8%) in the HIT group already. While this would go against the idea that a 10x3 training regimen requires longer recuperation times than a rather hypertrophy oriented regimen of 3x10 sets, these results would obviously warrant longer term studies in well-trained athletes to be of reasonable significance for any bodybuilder or fitness athlete - especially in view of the marginal and statistical non-significant difference in overall strength and size gains I already cited at the beginning of this post.

For the time being you could however try to switch things up for a week or two and see whether and how a rather unorthodox 10x3 regimen impacts your sleeve size, since even if it may not be the "optimal" training regimen, changing the training stimulus from time to time is always a good idea... ah, and if you wake up four days later with an +2inch increase in your biceps size, please let me know ;-)