Partial Reps, Full Strength? For Squats, Combining Both via Block Periodization Yields Greater Strength Gains During the Early Phase of the Movement in Trained Gymrats

Not full or partial, but full and partial squats will yield maximal performance increases in trained athletes.

In a recent study from the East Tennessee State and the California Lutheran University researchers were able to show the common wisdom that only full reps would guarantee full development is true, but not the be-all and end-all of strength training wisdom.

When it comes to strength gains on squats, incorporating partial lifts - something that is common practice among strength trainers, anyway (Harris. 2000; Stone. 2000; Clark. 2008 & 2011), is in fact an effective training method for improving maximal strength and early force-time curve characteristics in men with previous strength training experience.

Learn more about building muscle and strength at www.suppversity.com

Tri- or Multi-Set Training for Body Recomp.?

Alternating Squat & Blood Pressure - Productive?

Pre-Exhaustion Exhausts Your Growth Potential

Exercise not Intensity Variation for Max. Gains

Battle the Rope to Get Ripped & Strong

Study Indicates Cut the Volume Make the Gains!

Speaking of men with previous strength training experience, the subjects of the study that was conducted by Caleb Bazyler, Kimitake Sato, Craig Wassinger, Hugh Lamont, and Michael Stone, were 18 recreationally trained college aged males with at least 1 year of resistance training experience on the squat (>=1.3 body mass).

"Throughout the study, subjects were instructed to cease any supplementation use, refrain from lower-body resistance training outside of the study, and they were instructed not to participate in physical activity 24 hours before testing or training sessions. Subjects also completed a dietary log 24 hours before both preintervention testing sessions and were instructed to replicate the log for postintervention testing." (Bazyler. 2014)

The subjects trained according to a classic block-periodized model to control for volume and intensity manipulation (28,33). In that, the scientists included heavy and light days with weights that differed by 10-15% "to manage fatigue and avoid training to failure" (Bazyler. 2014). The load for the squat and partial squat was calculated using percentage of preintervention 1RM.

Table 1: Overview of the strength training program. *RM = repetition maximum. †F (full ROM) performed 6 3 5 on squats; FP (full plus partial ROM) performed 3 3 5 on squats and partial squats. zF performed 6–7 3 3 on squats; FP performed 3 3 3 on squats and partial squats (Bazyler. 2014).

Each training session began with a dynamic warm-up followed by warm-up sets on squat. The F group performed full squats only, whereas the FP group performed full squats followed by partial squats (from 100° knee angle to lockout position).

• All training sessions were supervised to ensure correct technique and safety. 
• Each training session began with a dynamic warm-up followed by warm-up sets on squat. 
• The F group performed full squats only. 
• The FP group performed full squats followed by partial squats (from 100° knee angle to lockout position). 

To assess the effects of the training manipulation, the researchers assessed anthropometrics, 1RM squat, 1RM partial squat, dynamic and isometric strength at the beginning of weeks 4 and 12 dynamic testing sessions.

Figure 1: Changes in 1RM squat and 1RM partial squat (left) and changes in isometric squat peak force (IPFa) at 90 and 120° of knee flexion. 180° is full extension (Bazyler. 2014).

As you can see in Figure 1 the researchers did measure significant differences with respect to the increase in 1RM on both the full squat (FP), only, and the full + partial squat group - albeit without significant inter-group differences. Inter-group differences were obvious, however, for the  allometrically scaled isometric squat peak performance, where the specificity of the exercise is reflected in the difference between the peak performance at different positions, with

• Tip: Partials work with back exercises, as well! Doing partials in the contracted position at the end of almost every back / pulling movement is going to increase the activation of the target muscle | learn more in the SuppVersityEMG Series.
  the full squat increasing the peak performance at a knee-angle of 90° (lower portion of the squat) to a significantly greater extend, and
• the full + partial squat increasing the peak performance at a knee-angle of 120° (upper portion of the squat) to a significantly greater extend,

an observation that would not exactly warrant the scientists conclusion that "[p]ractically, partial squats may be beneficial for strength and power athletes during a strength-speed mesocycle while peaking for competition" (Bazyler. 2014).

Figure 2: Changes in impulse scaled at 90° and 120° knee-angle (Bazyler. 2014).

Against that background it is actually quite surprising that the changes in the scaled impulse at 90° and 120° was significantly larger in the full + partial squat (FP) group for both angles. In physics the impulse is the integral of a force with respect to time, which implies that the overall force the trainees in the FP group were able to apply to the bar over a certain time period was larger at both 90° and 120°, in spite of the fact that the isometric peak force was lower at 90°.

"That's not 90°, yet. Go deeper, if you want to see results!"

Bear in mind: We are not comparing full ROM to partial ROM training. This comparison has been done by McMahon et al. one year ago and as you, as a loyal SuppVersity reader know, the results of their realistic 8 weeks leg training + 4 weeks detraining program shows that "Full ROM = More Growth, More Strength, More Structural Changes & More Sustainable Gains & Fat Loss" | learn more.

A very similar result that is even more closely relate to the study at hand was presented in another study I wrote about. A study by Blomquist et al. in their 2012 study which clearly proves that full squats are better strength builders than partial squats (only!).

Practically speaking this is a significant advantage, because the guys in the FP group would be less likely to "die" at the dead point of the squat exercise at 90° - it's after all not the isometric peak force, but a "constant" force that is applied for an extended period of time that's required to move the bar up (the peak force would matter for exercises like jump squats).

Figure 3: changes in force-time curve with training (Bazyler. 2014)

I guess this advantage will become even more obvious if you take a look at the changes in force-time curve with training in Figure 3, where the orange curve represents the full squat, only, and the orange curves the full + partial (FP) squat groups.

As you can see the overall increase in force development over the 250s periods the researchers assessed increased to a slightly greater extent in the FP vs. F group.

An advantage that should pay off during any event in terms of increased maximal loads, at the latest, when it comes to doing squats for reps.

No changes in body comp - at least none that were different between groups. As Bazyler et al. point out, "[t]here was no statistical difference between groups during pre- and posttesting for any of the anthropometric variables. A time effect was found for body fat percentage (p <= 0.05). Body fat percentage decreased statistically by 10.3 ± 12.4%, d = 0.27 (p = 0.027) in the F group; however, the decrease did not reach statistical significance in the FP group, 5.3 ± 11.1%, d = 0.12 (p = 0.102)" (Bazyler. 2014)

Whether or to which extend the previously discussed advantages of the full + partial squat regimen were related to the overall increase in intensity and volume (see Figure 4) is difficult to tell - the significant correlation Bazyler et al. found between the overall relative training intensity and the pre- to post 1RM squat change (r = 0.64, p = 0.003) would certainly suggest that there is a close relationship between training intensity and strength gains.

Figure 4: Microcycle volume load (left) and relative training intensity (Bazyler. 2014)

Similarly, the researchers observed strong correlations between 1RM squat and IPFa at a knee-angle of 90° (r = 0.72, p < 0.001), and moderate correlation at the higher position of 120° (r = 0.45, p = 0.005), as well as a moderate correlation between the change in IPFa 90° pre- to postintervention and full ROM squat and the total work load (r = 0.42, p = 0.048).

Suggested read: "You Want Maximal Performance & Size Gains + Complete Thigh Development? Then Full Squats are For You!" | learn more.

Bottom Line: Overall the results of the study at hand do suggest that the addition, not the replacement of full with partial squats may offer significant benefits to previously strength trained individuals, if their goal is not solely to increase their 1-RM, where the difference of 1.6% did not reach statistical significance in the course of the 7-week resistance training intervention.

As the authors point out, though, "the larger relative training intensities accomplished by the FP group during the final 3 weeks of training suggests superior adaptations" (Bazyler. 2014). In conjunction with the previously discussed advantages with respect to the overall rate of force development, the findings do thus "support previous claims that partial plus full ROM training is an effective strategy for improving maximal strength in subjects with previous strength training experience" (Bazyler. 2014) | Comment on FB.

References:

• Bazyler, Caleb D., et al. "The Efficacy of Incorporating Partial Squats in Maximal Strength Training." Journal of strength and conditioning research/National Strength & Conditioning Association (2014). 
• Clark, Ross A., Adam L. Bryant, and Brendan Humphries. "An examination of strength and concentric work ratios during variable range of motion training." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 22.5 (2008): 1716-1719. 
• Clark, Ross A., et al. "The influence of variable range of motion training on neuromuscular performance and control of external loads." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 25.3 (2011): 704-711.
• Harris, Glenn R., et al. "Short-term performance effects of high power, high force, or combined weight-training methods." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 14.1 (2000): 14-20.
• Stone, Michael H., et al. "Comparison of the effects of three different weight-training programs on the one repetition maximum squat." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 14.3 (2000): 332-337.

Block Periodization - Impressive Performance Gains in Pro-Athletes: Revolutionary Training Concept, Or Just a Good Way to Eventually Break Out of the Comfort Zone?

Block Periodization - Training revolution or simple trick? This is what we have to ask ourselves in view of these results.

With all the news and discussion about nutrition and dietary supplements, it's easy to lose sight of the significant impact even minor tweaks to your training routine may have on your results. The results of a recent study from the Lillehammer University College in Norway, for example, remind us all of the importance to periodize our training regimen. Now you could obviously randomly divide a year into cycles with different workout frequencies, intensities, volume, etc. It does yet go without saying that this is probably not the most promising approach to periodization.

What are good ways to periodize your training?

As B. R. Rønnestad, J. Hansen, S. Ellefsen point out in the introduction to their latest paper in the Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, there is yet a "paucity of studies" that would allow us to decide which of the myriad of possible periodization strategies works best.

You can learn more about periodization at the SuppVersity

Are You Protein Wheysting?

Cod protein for recovery

Protein requ. of athletes

High EAA protein for fat loss

Fast vs. slow protein

Too much ado about protein?

There is, for example, preliminary evidence that would suggest that block periodization is more effective than traditional periodization in improving performance (García-Pallarés. 2010), but this evidence is far from being conclusive and thus reason enough for the Norwegian scientists to conduct their own study to investigate

"the effects of a 1-week block of five HIT sessions, followed by a 3-week period of one HIT session per week and a naturally high volume of lowintensity training in trained cyclists." (Rønnestad. 2014)

And compare the results to those of a group of cyclists who employ a more traditional two HIT sessions per week organization while simultaneously performing a relatively high volume of low intensity training.

Mixed or exclusive periodization?

If you think in strength training terms you could probably say that we're comparing the nasty classic HST regimen with it's fixed strength-endurance, hypertrophy, strength blocks to a mixed mode regimen without a clear distinction between strength-endurance-, hypertrophy-, and strength-phases.

Different rules apply for increases in size and strength | learn more

Don't extrapolate data from trained cyclists to noobs and/or other athletes: At this point it's probably advisable to remind ourselves that we cannot extrapolate the results of this study to your own strength training regimen and/or cycling rookies who may achieve similar performance gains with either the classic mixed mode vs. blocked periodization regimen.

If your goals are strength and size, I highly suggest not to discard mixing things up, as it is done in undulating periodization regimen (learn more)

Much contrary to what we've seen in Spinetti's resistance training study from 2013 (learn more), the cyclists in the study at hand did capitalize on the strict separation of HIIT and steady state HIT and LISS training as it is depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Weekly distribution of training in the different intensity zones during the intervention period for the block periodization group (BP) and the traditional group (TRAD; upper panel). The relative distribution of the training in the different intensity zones during the intervention period in the two intervention groups (lower panel; Rønnestad. 2014)

If you take into consideration that the "zones" represent the three heart rate (HR) zones: (1) 60–82%; (2) 83–87%; and (3) 88–100% of maximal HR. A brief glimpse at Figure 1 should suffice to see that the main difference between the two groups is the high intensity focus in week one in the blocked periodization (BP) group and the subsequent reduction of intensive training to an absolute minimum in weeks 2-4.

During these HIT sessions the participants in both groups alternated between 6x5 and 5x6 min in the intensity zone 3 (➲ all cyclists were instructed to perform each HIT session with the aim to produce the highest possible mean power output across intervals). The intervals were separated by 2.5- or 3-min recovery, respectively. This makes the actual mean power output of each HIT session an indicator of performance level.

Figure 2: Perceived well-being in the legs during the intervention period (Rønnestad. 2014) .

"In order to monitor the power output during HIT sessions, seven cyclists in the BP group and six cyclists in the TRAD group were equipped with a PowerTap SL 2.4 (CycleOps, Madison, WI, USA) mounted on the rear wheel. The PowerTap device is a valid and reliable power meter (Bertucci. 2005). Furthermore, in order to quantify how the training weeks affected the perceived well-being in the legs, the cyclists reported their perceived feelings on a 9-point scale, going fromvery very good to very very heavy after each training week (Fig. 2)." (Rønnestad. 2014)

Needless to say that the initial week took it's toll on the legs of the 21 trained male cyclists with 6 ± 4 years of competitive cycling experience in the cycling shorts (data from two dropouts due to illness was excluded).

Figure 3: Maximal power, maximal oxygen uptake and average power output of the cyclists after the intervention expressed relative to baseline (Rønnestad. 2014)

Is it all about breaking out of the comfort zone? Likewise neeedless (?), but probably still worth mentioning is that they had to break out of their comfort zone during these initial 7 days of intense training, which were so different to their previous  9 ± 3 h per week of low-intensity endurance training, with no HIIT component in it. Against that background we must ask ourselves if the impressive performance gains you see in Figure 3 are a simple result of a novel training stimulus, or the consequence of this specific (i.e. blocked periodization) trainning stimulus.

So, is what we see in the study at hand the effect of the adaptation to the unconditioned stress initial HIIT week or is it a result of clever periodization?

If you asked me, it's the former - a result of one week of high intensity interval training. A result as it was observed by Lindsay et al. (1996), Westgarth-Taylor et al. (1997), Laursen et al. (2002), Swart et al. (2009) or Driller et al. (2009) in cyclists and other highly trained athletes. The take home message is thus not that mixing things up sucks, but the simple truth that you got to push beyond what your body is used to to trigger adaptation.

Reference:

• Bertucci, William, et al. "Validity and reliability of the PowerTap mobile cycling powermeter when compared with the SRM device." International journal of sports medicine 26.10 (2005): 868-873.
• García-Pallarés, Jesús, et al. "Performance changes in world-class kayakers following two different training periodization models." European journal of applied physiology 110.1 (2010): 99-107.
• Laursen, Paul B., Michelle A. Blanchard, and David G. Jenkins. "Acute high-intensity interval training improves Tvent and peak power output in highly trained males." Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology 27.4 (2002): 336-348.
• Lindsyay, Fiona H., et al. "Improved athletic performance in highly trained cyclists after interval training." Medicine and science in sports and exercise 28.11 (1996): 1427-1434. 
• Rønnestad, B. R., J. Hansen, and S. Ellefsen. "Block periodization of high‐intensity aerobic intervals provides superior training effects in trained cyclists." Scand J Med Sci Sports 24 (2014): 34–42.
• Spinetti J, et al. Comparison Between Different Periodization Models On Muscular Strength And Thickness In A Muscle Group Increasing Sequence. Rev Bras Med Esporte. 2013; 19(4)
• Swart, Jeroen, et al. "Effects of high-intensity training by heart rate or power in well-trained cyclists." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 23.2 (2009): 619-625..  
• Westgarth-Taylor, Christopher, et al. "Metabolic and performance adaptations to interval training in endurance-trained cyclists." European journal of applied physiology and occupational physiology 75.4 (1997): 298-304.

Block Periodization for Resistance Trainees: 3x Higher Strength Gains on the Bench vs. Zero Benefits for Legs

The deadlift probably won't benefit from blocked periodization either... at least if you do it only once a week anyway.

I hope you all remember my recent article about the beneficial effects of block periodization on the training outcome of trained cyclists (if you don't I'd suggest you read up on it: "Block Periodization - Impressive Performance Gains in Pro-Athletes") and the hypothesis that the mechanism behind the beneficial effects Rønnestad et al. report in the corresponding paper are not actually a consequence of this specific periodization scheme. Rather than that, the benefits the researchers have observed may well have been a mere consequences of the "change", of "breaking out of the rut" and the provision of a new challenge that's absolutely essential to induce what everyone, from housewife to Olympian athlete is training for: adaptation.

Let's discard the mechanism for a moment, though and let's rather focus on the hard facts - hard facts that are complemented by the results of a soon-to-be-published paper by researchers from the University of Bologna and the University of Central Florida.

What's so interesting about this paper is ...

....that it looks at the effects of block periodization in trained strength athletes and could thus help us answer a question that may have been preying on your mind, ever since I published the previously cited article about the beneficial effects of block periodization in endurance athletes: "Do Different Rules Apply for Strength vs. Endurance Athletes?" Or, put simply: Would a weight lifter benefit to a similar extend from block periodizing his training regimen as a cyclist - irrespective of what the underlying mechanisms may be?

Figure 1: The subjects trained 4x per week - identical training plans in both groups (Bartolomei. 2014)

The answer is "yes and no" - Yes, if we are talking about the upper body, no - and that's interesting because cycling obviously involves the same muscle groups - when we are looking at the lower body performance gains in Figure 2:

Figure 2: Changes in max. strength (1RM in kg), mean power (in % of baseline) and jump height (in cm) in the 24 study particpants in response to traditional linear or block periodization (Bartolomei. 2014)

As you can see, the gains in lower body power was identical - irrespective of the type of periodization (see overview in Figure 1). For the upper body, on the other hand, the subjects who did not simply ramp up the intensity continuously from 5 sets of 8-10 reps at 65-75% of  1RM  with  less  than  2  minutes  of  recovery  between  sets to 5 sets of 3 - 4 reps at 85 -95% of 1RM with 3 minutes of recovery from week 1 to week 12 (TP group), the ...

"[p]articipants  in  BP  were  more  likely  (79.8%)  to increase the area under the force-power curve than TP. Participants in BP also demonstrated a likely positive (92.76%) decrease in the load corresponding to maximal power at the bench  press compared to TP group, and a possible improvement (~ 60%) in maximal strength and power in the bench press." (Bartolomei. 2014)

Whether that's muscle-specific reaction to the three 5-week mesocycles, instead of one 15-week mesocycle is yet highly questionable - or do you think the legs respond less to the periodization program that's depicted in Figure 3, than chest, back, arms & co?

Figure 3: Illustration of the interplay between intensity and volume of the n=14 24-year-old male, resistance trained (>3 years, >3 sessions per week) subjects in the block periodization group (Bartolomei. 2014)

Personally, I would rather come back to the "novelty approach". It goes without saying that we can assume that the abrupt changes on a blocked periodization regimen favor "growth promoting overloads". In the case of the musculature of the lower body, the simple fact that it was trained just once a week may yet have provided a similarly "novel" or at least less accustomed stimulus on every leg-day.

"Periodize Appropriately and Cut 12% Body Fat in 12 Weeks!" | more

Bottom line: Again, it's difficult to tell, whether there is any special magic in block periodization. What can be said, though, is that we can again (see "Block Periodization - Impressive Performance Gains in Pro-Athletes: Revolutionary Training Concept, Or Just a Good Way to Eventually Break Out of the Comfort Zone?" | read more) make an argument for the "breaking out of the rut" hypothesis... in this case, however, in an ostensibly muscle-specific manner that's eventually not "muscle-", but actually "training-frequency-specific".

In the end, it does not matter, if my ad-hoc explanation is or isn't accurate. For you as a practicioner who is probably training the muscles of his upper body thrice a week, the results of this study are significant - no matter what the underlying mechanisms are. In other words: The results of the A classic HST-oriented training program that is eventually "block periodized" will yield better training results than one, where you train in the same rep ranger 365 days a year. But let's be honest: That's not surprising, is it?

References

• Bartolomei, Sandro, et al. "A Comparison of Traditional And Block Periodized Strength Training Programs in Trained Athletes." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2014). [ahead of print]
• Rønnestad, B. R., J. Hansen, and S. Ellefsen. "Block periodization of high‐intensity aerobic intervals provides superior training effects in trained cyclists." Scand J Med Sci Sports 24 (2014): 34–42.