Intensity or Exercises Switching? What's More Effective to Build Muscle And Strength - Switching Exercises Yields 20% Higher Strength & 5% Higher + Balanced Muscle Gains!

Intensity or exercises switching what's more effective to build muscle and strength - or is it best to do both?

Let's be honest: When was the last time you've switched up your exercise regimen? Kicked out the old boring bench presses and squats and did something totally different? You don't remember? Well, what if I tell you that the latest study from the University of São Paulo, the University of Tampa and Delboni Auriemo Diagnostic Imaging Sector shows that not switching up your exercises is what's keeping you from making the gains you deserve?

Shocker? Well in that case I highly suggest you read the rest of today's article, before you go back to the drawing board and revamp your training regimen.

Learn more about building muscle at www.suppversity.com

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

Alternating Squat & Blood Pressure - Productive?

Pre-Exhaustion Exhausts Your Growth Potential

Full ROM ➯ Full Gains - Form Counts!

Battle the Rope to Get Ripped & Strong

Study Indicates Cut the Volume Make the Gains!

The actual purpose of the study, the results of which are soon going to be published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research was...

"to investigate the effects of different combinations of training intensities and exercises selection, as well as the combination of both, on muscle strength and CSA." (Fonseca. 2014)

Base on the authors previous findings (Lamas. 2012; Laurentino. 2012; Wallerstein. 2012), Fonseca et al. hypothesized that muscle hypertrophy would not be affected by the different loading schemes and exercise variation; however, the differences in motor unit recruitment provided by the exercise variation would produce superior gains in muscle strength.

A secondary purpose of the present study was thus to identify if the loading scheme and exercises variation would produce differences in the hypertrophy response of the quadriceps muscle heads.

Figure 1:  Vastus lateralis (VL), vastus medialis (VM), vastus intermedius (VI), and rectus femoris (RF) cross sectional area (mm²) for the constant exercise-constant intensity (CICE), constant intensity-varied exercise (CIVE), varied intensity-constant exercise (VICE), and varied intensity-varied exercise (VIVE) groups, pre- and post-training (Fonseca. 2014)

Speaking of muscle heads, the two letter acronyms in Figure 1 represent vastus lateralis (VL), vastus medialis (VM), vastus intermedius (VI), and rectus femoris (RF) and as you can see the hypertrophy response was affected by the different loading schemes and exercise variation.

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

Based on the caption of Figure 1 you will already have gathered that the study protocol involved 4 different conditions (+ control; not shown in Figure 1).

Maybe it's not just about the exercises, but also about which exercises you rotate in... This is something you should keep in mind, when you look aat the results of the study at hand. Ok, squats may be the best exercise for legs, but is it surprising that adding in some leg presses and deadlifts will yield even better results? I don't think so - do you?

Table 1: Overview of the Training protocols; CICE= constant intensity and constant exercise, CIVE= constant int. varying exercise, VICE= varying int. and constant ex. VIVE= varying int. and varying ex (Fonseca. 2014).

I would have to waste a thousand words to explain exactly how the exercise regimen differed.

Therefore I decided to simply give you the overview of the 12 training weeks from the original paper in which you can see that there were two parameters Fonseca et al. varied, i.e.

• intensity as in higher reps, lower weight vs. lower reps, higher weight and 
• exercise, i.e. did the subjects to the same stuff all the time or did they switch from one exercise to the next,

And eventually, both of them influenced the training outcome, with varying exercises producing a "more homogeneous muscle hypertrophy response" (Fonseca. 2014). 

In terms of strength gains, it's ~20% less efficient to vary only the intensity on the same exercise (Fonseca. 2014).

Bottom line: As the scientists point out, future studies will have to elucidate,"whether highly trained individuals would be able to handle a high degree of training variations (i.e. intensity and exercises) and achieve greater strength gains when compared to a program that only varies the exercises." (Fonseca. 2014)

In the mean time, the Brazilian / US research team is yet spot on, when they say that "variations in training intensity are not critical to produce strength and muscle hypertrophy gains in the initial phase of a ST program." (Fonseca. 2014).

Specifically for rapid mass and even more so strength gains beginners and early advanced trainees (instead of trainees who hadn't touched a weight regular for at least 6 months, as it was the case in the study at hand), varying the the exercises and thus the stimulus mode instead of its intensity will yield significant gains and "seems to produce a more  complete  muscle  activation  hypertrophying  all  of  the  heads  of  multi-pennate muscles." (Fonseca. 2014)

References:

• Fonseca, RM, et al. "Changes in exercises are more effective than in loading schemes to improve muscle strength." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2014). Published Ahead of Print.
• Lamas, Leonardo, et al. "Effects of strength and power training on neuromuscular adaptations and jumping movement pattern and performance." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 26.12 (2012): 3335-3344.
• Laurentino, Gilberto Candido, et al. "Strength training with blood flow restriction diminishes myostatin gene expression." Med Sci Sports Exerc 44.3 (2012): 406-412.
• Wallerstein, Lilian França, et al. "Effects of strength and power training on neuromuscular variables in older adults." Journal of aging and physical activity 20.2 (2012): 171-85.

Want to Double Your Gains? Get a Trainer to Kick Your Lazy Ass, Periodize & Personalize Your Workouts & Off Times!

Bad news for lone wolfs.

Don't we all know this? There are those days when you hit the gym, go through your workout routinely, go home and tell yourself: "Well, I've done the best I could, I will try to increase the weight next week!" ... I see, you know what I am talking about ;-)

Just like the subjects in a recent study from the University of California Los Angeles, I suppose. All of them were member of the Exquinox Fitness Club, 30–44 years of age, and had a history of exercising 5–7 days per month at the club over the previous 3 month - archetypical average ambitious Gymrats, so to say.

Looking for the rules to design optimal workouts? Look no further!

Periodize to Get Strong(er)!

Sequential or Alternating?

From 16% to 8% Fat W/ CrossFit

Cardio! Before or After?

12% Less Fat in 12 Weeks?

Determinants of Training Success

After randomly selecting 40 men who met the above criteria, Thomas W. Storer and colleagues randomly assigned the subjects to either

• a nonlinear periodized training program (TRAINED, N=17), or to 
• a self-directed training (SELF, N= 17)

The total training volume and frequency, i.e. three training sessions per week, was identical for both groups. The same goes for the food intake which was not recorded in either of the groups (unquestionably a drawback).
"The templates for the supervised training regimen were developed by senior EFC staff and guidance

from outside experts including exercise physiologists, physical therapists, certified PTrs, and athletic trainers.[...] The training regimen consisted of a 3-cycle, nonlinear program in which acute program variables including exercise selection, volume, and intensity were varied over both the 4-week mesocycles and within the weekly microcycles."

The volume or intensities of each training session were categorized as high (H), moderate (M), or low (L) and applied on a given day during the course of each week of training. That's in stark contrast to the SELF group, the members of which had to log their workouts, but were otherwise totally free to train whatever they thought fit for the compulsory training goal "maximize lean mass!"

Figure 1: Changes in weight, lean body and fat mass, as well as body fat % (left) and corresponding rel. (%) changes in chest press, leg press, leg peak and average power (Storer. 2014)

If you take a look at the data in Figure 1 it's plain to see that "what you see fit", is not exactly the way of training that worked for the average Joes in the study at hand.

Let's not forget the exercise selection! Eventually, the way the trainers picked the optimal exercises for their clients may have been as important as the periodization; and the procedure is intriguing: "[T]he xercise selection for each subjects’ training program was based in part on use of a screening method that highlighted fundamental movement patterns that could be performed without compensation and movements that were dysfunctional; these were subsequently addressed by corrective exercise during the course of the 12 weeks" (Storer. 2014). In other words, the trainees performed only exercises they could master... much in contrast to 90% of the trainees I see squat and deadlift hilarious weights on their self-designed routines at my local gym.

What's interesting, though, is the fact that all of them made progress - at first that sounds great, but without the comparison to the TRAINED group the guys would never have realized that they could have reduced their body fat % twice as much in the same 12 weeks, if they had had a trainer to plan their routines and kick their asses.

Figure 2: The lean body mass (LBM) gains in the self-directed training group did not gain any muscle on average. One guy even lost ~4kg of lean mass in 12 weeks - in spite of being told to train for maximal hypertrophy (Storer. 2014)

If you take a closer look at the data in Figure 2 you will also see that for some, the self-selected training regimen - although designed to deliver maximal muscle growth - led to significant decreases in lean muscle mass - in one of the subjects almost 4kg of lean muscle mass in 12 weeks in the course of which he was told to "maximize muscle growth".

Although I can only speculate about the reason for his misery, I suspect he was overtraining. Doing more instead of less, when the gains he was expecting as a reward didn't come.

"Are You Overtraining? Two Scientifically Proven Methods to Test Yourself - Method 2: The ABEL Sport Test. Plus: 54 Item Questionnaire + 8 Additional Clues to Identify Overtraining" | learn more

Bottom Line: In the end, I am not telling you that you have to pay a trainer to be successful. It's well possible that the direct influence of the trainer is negligible. What's not possible, though, is to ignore the importance of periodization, exercise selection and variable and personalized training planning. It was after all probably not the missing kick in the ass which is to blame for the loss of 4kg lean mass in 12 weeks (see Figure 2). It's way more likely that a kind, but determined "you got to take more rest" was what the poor wretch who set out to "maximize" his muscle mass was missing.

So, if you don't want to or simply cannot afford a trainer, use what you('ve) learn(ed) here at the SuppVersity and don't succumb to either your own laziness or ambition.

What this means practically? Well, "don't skip workouts" and "don't avoid increasing your training weights", but also "don't add another workout to an overcrowded weekly schedule" and "don't punish yourself for not making results by training even more frequently".

References:

• Storer, Thomas W.; Dolezal, Brett A.; Berenc, Matthew N.; Timmins, John E.; Cooper, Christopher B. "Effect of Supervised, Periodized Exercise Training vs. Self-Directed Training on Lean Body Mass and Other Fitness Variables in Health Club Members." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2014). Ahead of Print.

Romanian Deadlift is Hamstring Exercise #1: Glute-Ham Raises Not Bad Either, Leg Curl Less Efficient Than Thought

Study leaves no doubt: For the biceps femoris, Romanian deadlifts rule.

I am not quite sure if some of the guys at my gym even know what the hamstrings, are... I guess if I told them that they're also started biceps femoris, they were more likely to train it, instead of telling me that they play soccer and thus wouldn't have to train legs (I have honestly never heard something that stupid - I mean, it's like, I don't train jumping, because I am a high jumper ;-).

Now, if we assume for the moment that my arguments are convincing enough to include a single hamstring exercise on their every-day-international-chest-and-biceps-day, what should it be, then?

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

If you look back at the SuppVersity EMG Series, it would be the lying leg curl with tighs raised from the pad or hamstring exercises on the hip pendulum. If, on the other hand, you take a look at the data Matt J. McAllister & colleagues are about to publish in the next issue of the venerable Journal of Strength and Conditioning Researchers, one of the few places, where editors actually care about the interests of muscle-headz like us, the answer would be different.

Figure 1: EMG activity of biceps femoris and semitendinosus durinc ecccentric (light) and concentric (dark) phase of the romanian deadlift, the prone leg curl, good mornings and glute-ham raises in 12 subjects w/ 9y+ training exp. (McAllister)

What? You want to know where this difference comes from? Well, the reason should be obvious, Boeckh-Behrens & Buskies who conducted the study the EMG Series is based on did not test the weighed Romanian deadlift w/ maximum weight for "security reasons".

The leg curl, on the other hand, was significantly less effective when it was done with the tighs lying on the pad (as it was done in the study at hand) - exercise selection and execution did thus both contribute to the surprisingly different study outcomes, which do yet have one thing in common: The insight that activities of similar kinematics, don't necessarily produce similar muscle activation. As McAllister et al. poin out, this revelation may...

"[...] also indicate that the kinematics are not as similar as they appear to be, especially when you consider possible variance of internal and external rotation. For instance, the ST [semitendinosus] and SM  [semimembranosus] insert at the upper medial surface of the tibia, and the BF inserts at the head of the fibula. The greater amount of activity from ST may be related to the fact that ST contributes to the internal rotation of the knee, whereas BF contributes to the external rotation of the knee. Although the potential impact is unclear, the absence of control for hip rotation (internal or external) may have obviated the identification of specific patterns of muscle recruitment. Foot position was not standardized in this study because the investigators felt that the subjects’ experience would allow foot position to be habitual and consistent. This delimitation must be considered when interpreting our results." (McAllister. 2014)

In contrast to the semitendinosus & semimembranosus, the EMG activity for the biceps femoris (BF) was similar for the concentric prone leg curl and concentric romanian deadlift. As McAllister et al. point out, "[t]hese results are consistent with a previous investigation that reported no significant difference in activity from the concentric actions of the BF between the leg curl and stiff-leg deadlift." The authors of the corresponidn study did also find that the biceps femoris was significantly more active during the eccentric portion of the leg curl in comparison with the stiff-leg deadlift - the exact opposite of the findings McAllister et al. present in the study at hand, which showed significantly greater activity from the BF during the eccentric RDL as compared with the eccentric prone leg curl.

EMG activity (concentric) of erector spinae muscle during romanian deadlifts, leg curls, good mornings and glute-ham raises (McAllister)

Bottom line - Are concentrics the key? In the end, the results of the study at hand speak in favor of classic movements with a greater body involvement vs. isolation exercises such as the prone leg curl. In view of the large inter-individual difference indicated by the long error bars in Figures 1 & 2. The overall take-away message of the study at hand is not to put too much faith into electromygraphically measured mucle activities of someone else ;-)

Start with the Romanian deadlift and the glute-ham raise (see videos), learn how to execute the exercise correctly and keep perfect form; and if that does not "feel right" switch to another exercise.

Dumbbell Chest & Shoulder Training Shoot Out: New EMG Data from Experienced and Novice Female Lifters

Does a woman's pectoralis react the same way to dumbbell bench, incline and shoulder presses as the one of their male training partners? Does it make a difference whether you are a novice or an advanced trainee? What about light vs. heavy weights - any effect on the activation patterns of pectoralis, delts, trapezius & co? Learn the answers to these & other questions in today's SuppVersity article (photo bodybuilding.com)

The SuppVersity EMG Series is still one of the the most popular article series, here at the SuppVersity and that despite the fact that I guess most of you will already know the results by heart. Therefore I am happy to present you some additional data from a recently conducted study from the Biodynamics and Human Performance Center at the Armstrong Atlantic State University in Abercorn. The study that was published in the Journal of Sports Medicine a couple of days ago is - according to the authors - the first to investigate, whether the previously observed differences in muscular activation patterns in response to modified trunk inclination angle on muscle activation using barbells and Smith machines in men would occur in women, as well.

Another distinctive feature of the experimental protocol, Joshua Luczak, Andy Bosak, and Bryan L. Riemann devised is the use of both experienced and novice trainees and the separate analysis of the eccentric and concentric potion of the dumbbell bench press, incline bench press and shoulder press.

Who? What? How?

The researchers recruited 24 healthy college-aged (mean age 22.5 years) recreational female athletes as subjects and divided them into two groups, twelve per group, based on their experience with upper body weight training.

"One group was identified as experienced resistance trained exercisers by regularly participating in upper body resistance exercise at least 1–3 times per week for the last six months. The second group was comprised of novice resistance trained females who did not regularly participate in upper body resistance training exercises but instead were physically active in cardiovascular exercise at least 1–3 times per week." (Lukczak. 2013)

Within the 2-way repeated measures design of the study the exercise protocols were administered in a
between-subjects counterbalanced order, to ...

"[...] measure muscle activity in the anterior deltoid, pectoralis major (clavicular and sternal portions), and upper trapezius muscles by way of surface  electromyography data collection during flat bench (0° trunk inclination), incline bench (45°), and shoulder (85°) presses and then compare the muscle activation data between the novice and experienced groups as well as between the different exercises during the concentric and eccentric phases." (Lukczak. 2013)

After being familiarized with the correct execution of the exercises, the participants completed one set of five repetitions of each of the exercises with pretty light (4.5 kg) dumbbells. The order of the exercises was completed according to the counterbalanced protocol that each subject was assigned. Initiation of each set of repetitions was self-initiated and three minutes of rest were given between sets.

Figure 1: Normalized EMG activity for all subjects (no inter-group differences measured) during the dumbbell bench, inlcine and shoulder press (Lukczak. 2013)

Due to the use of the light weights I had to normalize the EMG data on a per muscle base before plotting it in figure 1. What you are seeing here are thus not the absolute values, but the EMG activity expressed relative to the mean activation pattern for a given muscle group on the concentric / eccentric potion of the exercise.... hah? I guess, I better give you an example:

• the absolute EMG value for the upper trapezius activity during the concentric phase of the bench, the incline and the shoulder press were 103.5, 374.0 and 1,164.7, respectively

It goes without saying that plotting these values would have made it very difficult to read the diagram, so I calculated the mean of these three values and plotted the ratio of the actually measured EMG value to this very mean - got it?

But didn't we know most of that already?

What we knew already: According to the study the SuppVersity EMG Series is based on, the best exercises for the pectoralis major using standard equipment are:

1. BB Bench Press
2. Cable Cross*
3. DB Bench Press
4. Pec Deck
5. DB Flys
6. DB Pullovers

* the cable cross exercise should be performed actually crossing one's arms low before your body (learn more)

Basically the way the data is displayed does not really change anything about what it's telling you and that's more or less what both previous studies and bro-science have told you as well:

"The results of this study largely confirm previous research related to performing these exercises with barbells. Specifically, the bench and incline presses produced the greatest activation for the two portions of the pectoralis major muscle, while the shoulder press elicited the greatest activation for the anterior deltoid and upper trapezius muscles." (Lukczak. 2013)

Moroever, the hypothesis that the activation patterns of novice and advanced trainees would differ was not confirmed. When the form is picture perfect and the weight light enough to keep this picture perfect form over the whole set, the activation patterns are identical. In that, it's actually important to point out that the same results have been observed in previous studies using different weights (in % of 1RM) for rookies and pros (Lagally. 2004; Schick. 2010) - so this is not a consequence of using "too little weight", guys ;-)

Ah, and lastly, the observed increased activation of the muscle during the concentric phase of pressing movements are likely related to the light weights, used in the study at hand, which did, as the scientists point out, not require "for as much stabilization of the weight during the descent" compared to what is required during the completion of the same exercise with higher weights.This hypothesis is supported by previous studies by Goodman et al. (2008) and Uribe et al. (2010), in which the subjects had to bench close to their 1RM or with still submaximal  but heavy weights and where no differences in the activation patterns between the eccentric and concentric phase were observed.

---

Bottom line: I am sorry to say that, but the study at hand does not really bring anything new to the table. You want more shoulder involvement? Increase the angle! ... ah, and don't forget that the eccentric potion of the exercise has it's merits as well - specifically, when you are using practically relevant loads in the 70% 1-RM range. Now get back to the gym and rock the weights!

References:

• Goodman CA, Pearce AJ, Nicholes CJ, Gatt BM, Fairweather IH. No difference in 1RM strength and muscle activation during the barbell chest press on a stable and unstable surface. J Strength Cond Res. 2008 Jan;22(1):88-94.
• Lagally KM, McCaw ST, Young GT, Medema HC, Thomas DQ. Ratings of perceived exertion and muscle activity during the bench press exercise in recreational and novice lifters. J Strength Cond Res. 2004 May;18(2):359-64.
• Luczak L, Bosak A, Riemann BL. Shoulder Muscle Activation of Novice and Resistance Trained Women during Variations of Dumbbell Press Exercises. Journal of Sports Medicine. 2013; article ID 612650.
• Schick EE, Coburn JW, Brown LE, Judelson DA, Khamoui AV, Tran TT, Uribe BP. A comparison of muscle activation between a Smith machine and free weight bench press. J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Mar;24(3):779-84.
• Uribe BP, Coburn JW, Brown LE, Judelson DA, Khamoui AV, Nguyen D. Muscle activation when performing the chest press and shoulder press on a stable bench vs. a Swiss ball. J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Apr;24(4):1028-33.