Power Up Your Bench With Maximal Velocity on the Bench: Almost 2x Greater Strength Gains Compared to 50%

Bench press bros, listen up! You better push that weigh up fast, if you want to make maximal strength gains - O-lifting says "Hello" ;-)

Do you train deliberately slow? If so, you may be limiting your strength gains. A recently published paper in the European Journal of Sports Science shows: "Movement velocity can be considered a fundamental component of RT intensity, since, for a given %1RM, the velocity at which loads are lifted largely determines the resulting training effect" (Gonzalez-Badillo. 2014).

Before we take a closer look at how "large" the effect of training the training velocity actually is, I would like to invite you to take a closer look at the design of the corresponding experiment that was conducted at the Pablo de Olivade University in Seville, Spain.

Squatting will always remain the most versatile muscle builder & fat shredder

Optimizing Rest for Size and Strength Gains

Alternate Squats & BP for GAINS!

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

The experiment was designed in an attempt to clarify the influence of repetition velocity on the gains in strength consequent to isoinertial resistance training. To this ends, the scientists conducted two separate studies:

• Study I compared the effect of two distinct RT interventions on strength gains using movement velocity as the independent variable. Two groups that only differed in actual repetition velocity (and consequently in time under tension, TUT): maximal intended velocity (MaxV) vs. half-maximal velocity (HalfV) trained three times per week for 6 weeks using the bench press (BP) exercise, while the remaining programme variables (number of sets and repetitions, inter-set rests and loading magnitude) were kept identical.
• Study II was a complementary study that aimed to analyze whether the acute metabolic (blood lactate and ammonia) and mechanical response (velocity loss) was different between the type of MaxV and HalfV protocols previously used in Study I

Of the 24 men who volunteered to participate in Study I, only 20 successfully completed the entire study (mean ± s: age 21.9 ± 2.9 years, height 1.77 ± 0.08 m, body mass 70.9 ± 8.0 kg). Therefore, the scientists recruited 10 additional participants (25.3 ± 3.4 years, 1.77 ± 0.08 m, body mass 75.2 ± 8.7 kg) for the follow up study (Study II).

High speed training works, as long as you maintain maximal velocities: F. Pareja-Blanco and his colleagues from the Pablo de Olavide University and the Instituto Navarro de Deporte y Juventud (INDJ) in Spain report in another recently published paper that doing squats with maximal velocity concentrics lead to significantly greater improvements in maximum strength and that "[m]ovement velocity seemed to be of greater importance than time under tension for inducing strength adaptations" (Pareja-Blanco. 2014). Similar results had been observed by biceps curls (9.7% with fast, no gains with slower concentric contractions | Ingebrigtsen. 2009). In studies with untrained subjects, on the other hand, similar benefits have not been observed (Pereira. 2007) - a difference that may be explained by the inability of someone who has never bench pressed or squatted before to actually push the bar at maximal velocity while, at the same time, keeping proper form. Another factor that may explain the existing differences between pertinent studies may be related to whether the exercise was performed to failure. In that case, the prescribed velocity cannot be maintained for all reps, so that the differences between the high speed and the regular / slow speed groups vanish.

The participants were physically active sport science students with 2–4 years of recreational RT experience in the bench press exercise - a fact that may be important if you take into consideration what I wrote about the Pereira study in the red box above.

Figure 1: Schematic timeline of study design (Gonzales-Badillo. 2014)

"Based upon pre-test 1RM strength performance, participants were allocated to one of the two groups following an ABBA counterbalancing sequence: MaxV (n = 9) or HalfV (n = 11) [the non-random allocation to the two groups ensured that there was no significant strength difference between the two groups at the beginning of the study].

The only difference in the RT programme between groups was the actual velocity at which loads were lifted: maximal intended concentric velocity for MaxV vs. an intentional half-maximal concentric velocity for HalfV [note the difference between doing each rep at maximal velocity and trying to do so!]."

Both groups trained three times per week, on non-consecutive days, for a period of 6 weeks using doing nothing but bench presses on each of the workout days. In that, Study I and II were performed 3 weeks apart using a different sample of participant.

Figure 2: Changes in bench press 1-RM over the course of Study I. The relative changes are 16% increase in the maximal 9% increase in the 50% velocity group (Gonzales-Badillo. 2014)

As you can see in Figure 2 the scientists are right, when they say that it seems as if "[m]ovement velocity can be considered a fundamental component of RT intensity, since, for a given %1RM, the velocity at which loads are lifted largely determines the resulting training effect" (Gonzalez-Badillo. 2014). A corresponding difference in lactate production during the workouts was yet detected only if the exercise was performed at low intensities and high speed, i.e. 3 × 8 with 0.79 m/s at ∼60% of the 1RM and with 3 × 6 with 0.62 m/s a ∼70% of the 1RM.

Figure 3: Root-mean-square amplitude (RMS amp.) before (initial) and after fatigue under varying speed-controlled conditions (slow, medium, and fast) and intensities (40–80% 1RM) for pectoralis major (a), anterior deltoid (b) and triceps medial head (c). Results show mean ± standard deviation for 13 subjects (Sakamoto. 2012).

Bottom line: It appears unlikely that the small changes in lactate production are what's responsible for the superiority of maximal (intended) velocity contractions as strength builders. Rather than that it would appear logical to assume that the muscle fiber recruitements between fast and slow contractions differ. An assumption that is in line with the results of a 2012 study by Sakamoto et al.

In said study, the Japanese researchers determined the muscle activations of the pectoralis major at varying lifting speeds and intensities during bench presses and found the maximal velocity to be highly superior during the initial phase of the training. When the fatigue set in and the subjects were no longer able to perform at a maximal velocity, the benefits vanished (see Figure 3) - an observation that is in line with my previous elaborations on the differences between the existing comparisons of the effectiveness of working out at different velocities in the red box. Accordingly, the results of the study at hand may not be applicable for those of you who like to peg out under the bar and/or crawl out of the gym after a workout that was long and intense enough to trigger a near-death experience | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• González-Badillo, Juan José, et al. "Maximal intended velocity training induces greater gains in bench press performance than deliberately slower half-velocity training." European journal of sport science ahead-of-print (2014): 1-10.
• Ingebrigtsen, Jørgen, Andreas Holtermann, and Karin Roeleveld. "Effects of load and contraction velocity during three-week biceps curls training on isometric and isokinetic performance." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 23.6 (2009): 1670-1676.
• Pareja-Blanco, F., et al. "Effect of Movement Velocity during Resistance Training on Neuromuscular Performance." International Journal of Sports Medicine EFirst (2014).
• Pereira, Marta Inez Rodrigues, and Paulo Sergio Chagas Gomes. "Effects of isotonic resistance training at two movement velocities on strength gains." Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Esporte 13.2 (2007): 91-96.
• Sakamoto, Akihiro, and Peter James Sinclair. "Muscle activations under varying lifting speeds and intensities during bench press." European journal of applied physiology 112.3 (2012): 1015-1025.

Ripped & Buffed vs. Skinny and Sinewy: Training Velocity, not Load, Appears to be Sole Determinant of Exercise Induced Shifts from Slow- to Fast-Twitch Muscle Fibers.

Image 1: Who would you like to be?
And how do you train to achieve
his physique?

Sprinter or marathon runner? Ripped and buffed or skinny and sinewy? Although this is, after all, a question of muscle vs. fat, bone and tissue mass, it is upon closer examination as much a qualitative question, as it is a quantitative one - a question that may well be influenced by the way you train!

Unlike our adipose tissue which has almost unlimited capacity to grow, the size of our muscles appears to limited by a number of factors, among which the individual fiber-make-up, i.e. the ratio of slow-oxidative endurance-type fibers (type I) to fast-twitch type IIA (fast-oxidative glycolytic), and fast twitch IIX (fast glycolytic) seems to play an important role, when it comes to getting big and buffed or skinny and sinewy.

Figure 1: Slow- and fast-twitch faber composition in athletes and non-athletes (data based on Carrol. 1998; Widrick. 2002)

As the data in figure 1 goes to show, athletes, unlike untrained individuals, who have about the same amount of fast and slow-twitch fibers, exhibit discipline specific adaptations in muscle fiber composition, with sprinters having the lowest and middle distance runners the highest ratio of slow to fast twitch muscle fibers. According to data from Aagard and Andersen, Bergh et al. and Fry et al. (Berg. 1978; Aaagard. 1998; Fry. 2003), the range of slow to fast twitch fiber ratios extends from ultra-endurance runners with a 90:10 slow to fast twitch ratio down to weight lifters and sprinters with a minimum of 20:80 slow to fast twitch fiber ratio.

Muscle fiber type and weight loss: Contrary to what you may have guessed, or read elsewhere, obese patients with a higher amount of oxidative slow-twitch fibers have been shown to lose weight easier than their "heavier muscled" peers. In a 2002 study Tanner et al. report (Tanner. 2002):

With weight loss intervention, there was a positive relationship (r = 0.72,P < 0.005) between the percentage of excess weight loss and the percentage of type I fibers in morbidly obese patients. These findings indicate that there is a relationship between muscle fiber type and obesity.

Image 2: For someone who already got morbidly obese, a higher ratio of type II fibers may well be counter-productive if his/her overall goal is weight loss.

Another result of the same study, which could easily be misinterpreted as politically incorrect is the genetically determined higher raio of type II muscle fibers within the African American part of the female study population, which made it increasingly harder for these women to burn the fat. And just in case, you still wonder why a type I fiber, something obviously only skinny people have in excess would help with losing fat, just think about the term "oxidative muscle fiber" for a moment, then add to that the experimental observation that type I fibers have greater mitochondria volume densities than type II fibers (Sullivan. 1978) and you will realize that a highly oxidative muscle fiber is more valuable when it comes to burning fat than a glycolitic one, reagardless of whether or not the latter may "look" better ;-)

In a recent review of the literature Wilson et al. provide the following biological explanation for the differences that exist between endurance and strength athletes (Wilson. 2011):

[...], type I fibers have been observed to have both greater mitochondria volume densities as well as capillary-fiber contact length when compared to type II fibers.  In addition, mitochondria volume density was highly correlated (r = 0.99) with O2 diffusion coefficients across three different muscle groups (retractor, sartorius, soleus) suggesting greater aerobic capacity in type I fibers.

While type I muscle fibers will thus figuratively carry their owners in 80 days around the world, type IIX and IIA fibers exhibit a 10x and 6x greater peak power and a 4x and 3.3x greater contractile velocity than their oxygen-hungry slow twitch cousins.

Figure 2: Relative peak power and contractile velocity of fast twitch fibers vs. slow twitch fibers (data based on Wilson. 2011)

The reason that the two guys from image 1 do not only perform but also look completely differently, lies yet in the greater capacity of type II fibers for exercise-induced hypertrophy (Schoenfeld. 2000). The relative number of type II to type I fibers is thus of paramount importance, if you want to look like a sprinter - not like a marathon runner and if you want to lift heavy weights instead of running cross-country. Fry et al., for example found strong correlations (r = 0.94; almost "causative") between the percentage of type IIA fibers and 1 repetition max snatch performance in national caliber Olympic athletes (Fry. 2003). Now the obvious question is: "How can I influence my individual fiber composition, or is this simply genetically determined?"

It stands to reason that genetics is a major determinant of fiber composition, but, hardgainer or not, with appropriate training and nutrition everyone can - at least to a certain degree - shift his muscle fiber make-up from a slow-twitch oxidative to a fast-twitch glycolytic type, even without the use of clenbuterol and other beta-2 agonists which hav been shown to trigger respective shifts from type I to type II muscle fibers in a rodent model (Zeeman. 1988).

Training for shifts in fiber composition

From Wilson et al.'s review of the literature it becomes quite obvious that standard exercise regimen, like jump squats at either 30% or 80% do not provide satisfactory results for someone looking to increase the number, not the size of his glycolytic muscle fibers (Wilson. 2011). In a study by Liu et al. (Liu. 2008), a 5x3RM bench press protocol, performed 3 times per week for 6 weeks, on the other hand, triggered a shift within the type II fibers. It increased the percentage of type IIA fibers from 44.9% to 66.7%, but decreased the type IIX fibers from 33.4% to 19.5%, thus leaving the percentage of slow twitch type I fibers unchanged. A second group from the same study who used a more versatile routine, with the same 5x3 regimen on Mondays, 10x concentric-repetition bench press throws at 30% of their 1RM on Wednesday and 10 stretch-shortening type push-ups on Friday for 5 sets, each, were able to increase the number of type IIA muscle fibers (from 47.7% to 62.7%) without decreases in the number of type IIX fibers, but a profound -50% reduction of slow-twitch oxidative fibers (from 18.2% to 9.2%). Wilson et al. go on and cite several other studies that were able to show the modulatory (increase in type II, decrease in type I) effects of high-velocity contractions on muscle fiber composition (Wilson. 2011) and corroborate that results with findings from other studies which corroborate these results with ...

[...] findings that the percentage of type I fibers may be increased with various types of aerobic training protocols such as endurance cycle training (+12% Type 1) and long distance running (+17% Type 1), [where, on the other hand] studies indicate that sprint training may facilitate the change of slow twitch fibers to fast twitch fibers.

Interestingly, Hortobagyi et al. were able to show that laziness taken to the extreme, i.e. 3 weeks of knee immobilization, also reduced the amount of type I fibers (-9%) and increased the number of type IIX fibers (+11%) in 48 recreationally active men and women (Hortobagyi. 2000). These results should yet be treated with appropriate caution and I would strongly advice against lying on the couch to increase your propensity for muscle growth by decreasing the number of slow twitch and increasing the number of fast twitch muscle fibers, because "recreational activity", for most people, consists of aerobic type of exercises, playing soccer, tennis or whatever - all sports that by and out of themselves would trigger shifts towards a more oxidative (predominant type I) muscle composition. It is thus not surprising that refraining from such activities for 3 weeks would reverse those changes.

So how should you train, then?

In view of the paramount importance of speed, not load in the few experiments which challenge the hitherto established paradigm that muscle fiber composition was largely determined by genetics and transformation was possible only within type II fibers, i.e. from type IIA to type IIX and vice versa, the incorporation of respective training techniques, e.g. concentric-repetition bench press throws at 30% of your1RM, as they were used in the study by Liu et al. (Liu. 2008), into a more versatile hypertrophy-specific routine which would

1. trigger a hypertrophy response, on "classic" strength training days (like 3x5 or 3x8-10), and
2. increase propensity for growth, on "speed-rep" days with exercises like plyometric push-ups, concentric-repetition bench press throws at 30% 1RM, etc.

would appear to be the most reasonable way to train for anyone out there, who does not belong to the "genetic elite" of born sprinters.

Slow Down to Build Up? 4x Higher Growth Hormone After Slow (4s) Eccentric Biceps Curls, But What's It Worth?

Fast or slow for eccentric biceps curls? Is that a question of faith or can science provide us with an adequate answer?

"What the ****? Training slow is for pussies!" Ok, admittedly the subjects in the study today's SuppVersity article is going to deal with were ladies (obviously no pussies), but I do not need a study, to tell you that the "pussy" training can hurt significantly more than the "bro" version that usually ends in ballistic movements that are meant to impress the male and female "pussies" at the gym and will yield astonishing increases in trap-size from "bicep curls". Now, I am digressing from the topic at hand, which is: Does it just hurt or does it also work? What? Ah, yeah... I am talking about training at a slow velocity. Eccentric training to be specific. Exactly the kind of training researchers from the ), State University of Campinas have investigated in their latest experiment (Libardi. 2013).

Fast or slow, what's the way to go?

What did the workout look like? Subjects performed five sets of six maximal eccentric contractions of the elbows flexors with the non-dominant arm on an isokinetic dynamometer (Model 4; Biodex Medical Systems Inc.) at two different angular velocities, 30°/s (SV) and 210°/s (FV)  After each eccentric action, the lever arm of the isokinetic dynamometer returned passively to its original position, at the specific velocity of each group, that is, 30°/s for SV and 210°/s for FV (1:1 work-to-rest ratio). The rest interval between sets was 60 s for both groups.

The intention of the scientists was to elucidate, whether there is an influence of the velocity at which previously untrained young women in their early 20s on the workout-induced systemic growth hormone, corstisol, free and testosterone response.  To shit ends the 17 subjects were randomly assigned to two groups

• the slow velocity group (SV), which performed their machine biceps curls at a velocity of 30°/s
• the fast velocity group (FV), which performed the identical exercise at a velovity of 210°/s and thus 7x faster

The range of motion was from 125° to 5° of elbow flexion for both groups. The workouts were performed on an isokinetic dynamometer (Model 4; Biodex Medical Systems Inc., New York, NY, USA) at the given velocity. The decision to use eccentric exercises was taken based on previous results by Farthing & Chilibeck, which indicate that isolation exercises will yield greater adaptations such as higher muscle hypertrophy and muscle strength gains compared to concentric actions (Farthing. 2003).

All participants were "encouraged" by the investigator equally, and "visual feedback was provided via Biodex monitor to maximize torque output for each repetition" (Libardi. 2013). Total work and mean peak torque developed in the eccentric exercise were recorded for further analysis and pre-and post.

The slower you go the more you grow?

The Blood samples (20 ml) which were drawn at baseline (Pre), immediately postexercise (IP), and 5, 15 and 30 min following the training session, would in fact suggest that the subheading "the slower you go, the more you grow" wasn't to way off the truth.

Figure 1: Total work, mean peak torque and growth hormone levels immediately, 5 min, 15 min and 30 min after the workout; data expressed relative to arithmetric mean at the given timepoints (Libardi. 2013)

After all, the only significant difference was the post-workout elevation in growth hormone, which was 3.7x, 4.1x and 3.5x higher immediately, 5 min and 15 min after the eccentric biceps curls.

How did this come about? Well the data in figure 1 would suggest that it's neither the total workload or the peak power, but it does not take a physicist to tell that the way the "total workload" is measured has absolutely nothing to do with the associated physiological energy expenditure. "Way times force" may theoretically yield Newton meters and is as such often used as the unit of energy (un-)fortunately the human body is a little more complex than that and I do honestly not know of any way that can accurately calculate the energy expenditure during a workout based on standard equations like these. The same goes for the nondescript term "exercise intensity", so that both - a higher energy expenditure and higher "intensity" are both candidates that could explain the increase in GH (the former would by the way suggest that they are irrelevant for the growth response and and are mainly meant to tap into the energy stores to fuel the workout / post workout glycogen replenishment).

---

So what does that mean, practically? Similar differences (or trends) were not observed for either free, or total testosterone or the corstiol response to the workout. This is yet not the only reason why the real world significance of the increase in the allegedly growth promoting eponymous hormone remain highly questionable.

Figure 2: The real world speaks a different language - Biceps muscle CSA in young men before and after 8 weeks of fast or slow eccentric biceps training in a previous study (Shepstone. 2005)

• Firstly, we still don't really know to which extend the immediate changes in the expression of theoretically growth promoting hormones in the vicinity of a workout can actually induce or at least promote the adaptive response to exercise. It may, for example, well be that there is a certain threshold level beyond which additional increases in GH, teststosterone & co don't make a significant difference.
• And secondly, and more importantly, it is not impossible that the results would be very different for (a) a different group of subjects, (b) complete reps (=concentric + eccentric reps), (c) other muscle groups like classic "push" muscles as the pecs or the legs, etc. 

Moroever, the results of practically relevant 8-week studies such as Shepstone et al. (2005; see figure 2) do actually speak a very different language and support those researchers who doubt the physiological relevance of improvements in the acute anabolic milieu after a workout.

Suggested reads: 

• 

  The expression of local GH & IGF splice variants may be of much greater importance than their systemic values (read more)

  Does the testosterone and overall hormonal response to workouts even count, or are we still chasing a hormonal ghost? In the Short News from Saturday, March 2, 2013

• IGF-1 and its Splice Variants MGF, IGF-IEa & Co - Master Regulators or a Bunch of Cogs in the Wheel of Muscle Hypertrophy?  In the Intermittent Thoughts in Dec. 2011 

• Differences in Growth Hormone, Insulin and IGF-1 Response in Trained and Untrained Resistance Trainees - Further Evidence That GH Builds Neither Muscle Nor Strength (read more)

---

References:

• Farthing JP, Chilibeck PD. The effects of eccentric and concentric training at different velocities on muscle hypertrophy. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2003 Aug;89(6):578-86.
• Libardi CA, Nogueira FR, Vechin FC, Conceição MS, Bonganha V, Chacon-Mikahil MP. Acute hormonal responses following different velocities of eccentric exercise. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2013 May 15.
• Shepstone TN, Tang JE, Dallaire S, Schuenke MD, Staron RS, Phillips SM. Short-term high- vs. low-velocity isokinetic lengthening training results in greater hypertrophy of the elbow flexors in young men. J Appl Physiol. 2005 May;98(5):1768-76.

Exercise Velocity Does not Determine Hypertrophy Signaling in Eccentric Exercises: Akt, mTOR, P70s6k Protein Phosphorylation Identical for Fast and Slow Movements

Finally, a study (Roschel. 2011) related not only to nutrition and supplementation for exercise, but to exercise itself! The respective paper was published in the Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism on April, 13th, and reports the results of a study on the effects of exercise velocity on markers of muscle hypertrophy, specifically, Akt/mTOR/p70^s6k.

Figure 1: Schematic illustration of the mTOR signaling cascade (Betz, Charles. Wikipedia)

Roschel, et al. had 20 subjects, "not enrolled in any form of strength training for at least 6 months prior to the
study and without any history of musculoskeletal disorders" perform 5 sets of 8 repetitions of an eccentric knee extension exercise at either a slow (20°·s^–1; ES) or fast execution speed (210°·s^–1; EF). After the workout, biopsies were taken from vastus lateralis at three timepoints: baseline (B), immediately after (T1), and 2 h after (T2). The results did not confirm the scientists' working hypothesis that execution velocity (and thus muscle tension) would have a direct influence on Akt, mTOR, and p70^S6K expression in the trained muscles:

Akt, mTOR, and p70^S6K total protein were similar between groups, and did not change postintervention. Further, Akt and p70^S6K protein phosphorylation were higher at T2 than at B for ES and EF. MGF messenger RNA was similar between groups, and only significantly higher at T2 than at B in ES.

So, with respect to the measured variables and in the confounding case of eccentric exercises, it does not matter whether you whack your reps out at maximum speed (assuming you still maintain adequate form) or try to slow the movement down deliberately. I guess this, aside from their (ab-)use certain "supplements", is why Coleman and Co. grew monstrous muscles despite training with the worst form you could probably think of.

Remember though, the results could be completely different for concentric exercises, like pressing movements or for equal times under tension, meaning 10x more repetitions in the EF group to make up for the total time difference. Results from previous studies, such as Farthing and Chilibeck (2003) and Shepstone et al., for example suggest that compared to slow training a faster (yet still controlled) exercise execution is linked to greater hypertrophy of the elbow flexor, in general, and the biceps' type IIa (+16%) and type IIx (+18%), in particular. I guess future studies will further elucidate the exact mechanisms and guess what: the SuppVersity is where you will read about them, first!