30 Minutes of Hydraulic Resistance Training for Max. Energy Expenditure: 30% More Energy Demanding Than Weights, 25% More Than Running. But is it Also Anabolic?

The Surge Performance Training HRS equipment is fancy and the training obviously intense, but will it trigger the adaptations you are looking for?

Before I even start discussing the results of a soon-to-be-published paper from the MusclePharm Sports Science Institute (Falcone. 2014) I want you to be clear that the amount of energy you burn per hour is not what I suggest as the main criteria to select your exercises.

In view of the fact that calories do count, when it comes to burning body fat, it's still worth taking a closer look at what Paul H. Falcone and his colleagues did. Why? Well, first of all they confirm that doing a single session of resistance, aerobic, and combined exercise can burn the same amount of energy, when they're performed with sufficient intensity.

You could also make HRS a part of your periodization program!

30% More on the Big Three: Squat, DL, BP!

Block Periodization Done Right

Linear vs. Undulating Periodizationt

12% Body Fat in 12 Weeks W/ Periodizatoin

Detraining + Periodization - How to?

Intensify Your Training W/ NEMS

Now this alone would not necessary warrant talking about it in a SuppVersity post. And yes, it was not the comparison of a resistance training at 75% of the repetition maximum (1RM) of the nine recreationally active men (25 ± 7 years; 181.6 ± 7.6 cm; 86.6 ± 7.5 kg) who participated in the study, an endurance cycling session that was performed at 70% maximum heart rate (maxHR) and an endurance treadmill session at 70% maxHR.

"HRS training? Never heard of it!?"

What really intrigued me was something the scientists describe as a high-intensity interval training (HIIT) session on a hydraulic resistance system (HRS) that included repeating intervals of 20 seconds at maximum effort followed by 40 seconds of rest.

Figure 1: Average caloric expenditure (kcal/h) in the four trials (Falcone. 2014)

The scientists hypothesized that caloric expenditure, heart rate, and RPE will significantly increase when using the hydraulic system, compared to typical training protocols such as running, biking or lifting weights for a similar amount of time because of the increased intensity.

And in fact, the data in Figure 1 confirms: The caloric expenditure was significantly (p < 0.05) greater when exercising with the HRS (12.62 kcal/min ± 2.36), compared to weights (8.83 kcal/min ± 1.55), treadmill (9.48 kcal/min ± 1.30) and cycling (9.23 kcal/min ±1.25).

With HRS it's one machine for all body parts. Take a look at the training video to get a better understanding of how this thing works | watch video!

So what exactly is HRS? Hydraulic exercise resistance is a different form of resistance that uses hydraulic pistons to provide resistance (instead of weight). If you take a look at the video on the left, you will soon realize that the whole thing looks more like a cardio-machine than a chest press, butterfly machine or what not. Still, with a little creativity you can do many of the things you would usually do in the gym on hydraulic resistance training equipment, as well.

In that, the resistance is created by how (hard or fast) you either (push or pull) the exercise arms which controls oil flow through dual fluid cylinders. In other words: The harder you push the more the resistance increases.

Before we try to interpret this results it may be a good idea to take a closer look at what exactly the subjects had to do in the study:

• The aerobic exercises were performed on a treadmill (Woodway Desmo, Waukesha, WI) and cycle ergometer (Nordic Track, Logan, UT) for 30 minutes at 70% maximum heart rate as determined by the equation 220-Age Moderate as described by ACSM).
  
  Throughout the treadmill session, HR was consistently monitored and treadmill velocity was adjusted accordingly if the subject’s heart rate was+/- 10 beats per minute.

• 

  Suggested read: Do we underestimate the ener- gy expenditure during lifting? Learn more!

  The protocol for the hydraulic resistance system HRS (Surge Performance Training, Austin, TX) was a standard HIIT regimen provided by the device company involving 8 exercises (Chest Press-Push/Pull, Circles inside, Circles outside, 360 Twist, Two-handed Fly’s, Bent over Shoulder Press/Pull, Torso Rotation, Power X) at 4 sets each.
  
  Each exercise was performed for 20 seconds with 40 seconds of rest, thereby resulting in 32 exercises performed for a total of 32 minutes.
• The resistance training consisted of 6 exercises - squat, chest press, leg extension, shoulder press, leg curl, seated row - at 3 sets of 10 repetitions each at 75% 1RM (Vigorous as described by ACSM).
  
  Rest periods between sets lasted for 60 seconds, resulting in a total time of approximately 30 minutes. Subjects were maximally encouraged verbally by a researcher throughout each exercise, ensuring consistency.

If you compare the classic to the HRS training routine, you will realize that the comparison of circle to traditional training is not exactly fair. We know from previous studies that the fast-paced switch between exercises will increase the energy expenditure over the comparatively "lazy" classic resistance training protocols (Wilmore. 1977; DeGroot. 1998; Haltom. 1999). And still, a 30.1% difference in energy expenditure is pretty significant and probably not just due to the decreased rest times between the exercise.

What are the practical implications, then?

If you re-read the information on HRS training, you will realize that the biomechanics of classic and hydraulic resistance training are very different. With the former, the resistance decreases at the very moment the weight starts moving, with the latter, it increases - a difference of which the authors believe that it has implications for both, average and extraordinary gymrats:

Figure 2: As a SuppVersity reader you're well aware that you must not misinterpret the high fatty acid oxidation during treadmill running as evidence of increased fat loss (Falcone. 2014)

• For untrained men who want to improve their health and/or body composition, the HRS provides a workout that combines the benefits of aerobic and resistance training. An individual can burn more calories performing HRS compared to other typical exercise modalities and intensities. Also, individuals can effectively burn calories performing a typical weightlifting protocol. Finally, if burning fat is desired during exercise, running on the treadmill appears to be a better option than cycling at the same intensity or lifting weights or performing hydraulic-based HIIT training.
• For professional athletes, the maintenance of muscle mass is important as the season progresses, though training in-season is difficult due to time and energy constraints. The HRS could be used in place of 30 minutes of aerobic training which would give the athlete additional resistance training. Since the HRS involves only concentric motion, recovery may be faster due to less muscle damage, which would also be helpful for in-season training. Also, perhaps resistance training could replace some aerobic training, if the purpose is for maintenance of body composition since the caloric expenditures were similar.

Needless to say that especially assumption II requires future research to compare the training methods and durations used in the current investigation over multiple weeks of regular training to determine their impact on strength, athletic performance, and body composition. Overtraining and different effects on protein synthesis and the neural adaptations, for example, may render the HRS protocol useless, or more powerful than classic training - without monitoring these effects in a long(er) term study, we can only speculate what's going to happen if you, Mr Olympia or whoever else switches from classic weight + machine based resistance training to using HRS machines.

If you look at the rater of perceived exertion, it'll be obvious that overtraining could become an issue with HRS (Falcone. 2014)

Bottom Line: Due to the short study duration and the questionable usefulness of comparing the energy expenditure in 30 minutes workouts, the study at hand must be taken as a reminder that there are more than just two ways to train; and that we should remain open minded towards new ways to train and other forms of resistance training - not to be able to spend more energy in the gym, obviously.

Rather to find new ways of changing it up, of periodizing our training differently and of making faster progress towards our individual training goals by combining classic and innovative forms of working out.

Chances that the current HRS gear as it is built by Surge Perfomance will yield superior hypertrophy results compared to a classic resistance training are yet in my humble opinion slim - the biomechanics of the machines simply do not look as if if they were build to trigger strength increases (see for yourselves). As an option to increase your fitness an get ripped and thus as an adjunct to your regular strength training routine and replacement for HIIT or steady state cardio, on the other hand, it looks promising | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• DeGroot, David W., et al. "Circuit weight training in cardiac patients: determining optimal workloads for safety and energy expenditure." Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and Prevention 18.2 (1998): 145-152.
• Falcone et al. "Caloric Expenditure Of Aerobic, Resistance Or Combined High-Intensity Interval Training Using A Hydraulic Resistance System In Healthy Men." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2014). Publish Ahead of Print DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000661.
• Haltom, Ronald W., et al. "Circuit weight training and its effects on excess postexercise oxygen consumption." Medicine and science in sports and exercise 31.11 (1999): 1613-1618.
• Wilmore, Jack H., et al. "Energy cost of circuit weight training." Medicine and science in sports 10.2 (1977): 75-78.

Strength Training Ain't For Women, One Set is Not Enough and Without a 100% Dialed in Diet Lifting Weights is Useless, Anyways - Really!?

Image 1: Minimalist strength training for maximal results? In the long run even a one set strength circuit can elicit astonishing changes, if you train consistently, progressively, heavy and with picture perfect form (image Paramount Fitness).

Unconventional wisdom days at the SuppVersity: After yesterdays "news" (I hope it was not real news for the majority of you) about the superiority of high intensity interval over classic steady state cardio in at the lower end of the "fat burning zone", today's news is going to cause a couple of other set-in stone paradigms to totter:

1. resistance training ain't for women
2. low volume resistance training won't help you lose body fat
3. resistance training requires a high protein diet to work

The respective data comes from a recently published study by R. Washburn and his colleagues from the Center for Physical Activity and Weight Management at the University of Kansas and researchers from the Southern Illinois University and the Birgham Young University (Washburn. 2012).

Minimal effort, maximal adherence, ...

In their 6-month intervention trial, Washburn and his colleagues set out to evaluate the effect of a minimalist resistance training routine consisting of no more than a single set of 9 different exercises that had to performed three times per week. The sessions were supervised and the participants, overweight young men and women in their early twenties (BMI 27.2kg/m²; age 20.7y; BF% by DEXA 27.6% men, 38.9% women) performed all their exercises on standard gym equipment (Paramount Fitness, not a sponsor of the study!); an adherence of >90% was required and the supervisors made sure that all exercises were performed in the prescribed 3-6RM (85% of 1RM) with a cadence of 2s for the concentric and 4s for the eccentric period of each exercise with picture perfect form:

Tip for advanced beginners You are already training for 4-6 months? Why don't you add in a 2nd circle, 1s concentric, 2-3s eccentric, in the 8-12 rep range. I don't need a scientific study to confirm that this will be able to propel your gains. And with a couple of tweaks to your diet, e.g. 20g of quality protein with every meal and a reduced carbohydrate intake (~25-35% of total energy or 120-250g of carbs) from whole food sources, only, it won't take too long very long to see visible results.
• chest press,
• back extensions,
• lat pull down,
• triceps extensions,
• shoulder press, 
• leg press, 
• calf raise,
• leg curl,
• crunch

Whenever subjects were able to perform more than the required 6 repetitions with good form the resistance was increased by ~2.25kg. In other words the participants followed a stupidly simple linear progression protocol with a clear focus on strength, an ultra-low volume (per muscle group) and picture perfect form.

... results despite unaltered and obviously obesogenic eating habits

Dietary intake before and during the 6-month study period was assessed, I quote, "during one randomly selected period" each month (24hr food recalls on 2 weekdays and one day on the weekend, each) and remained at ~2300kcal. The majority of the daily energy intake came from carbohydrates (51% ~290g) and fats (33% ~95g), while the protein intake (16% ~92g) despite being at the upper level of the RDA would be considered "borderline deficient" from the perspective of most strength trainees.
Note: It stands to reason that a higher protein intake of ~120g+ could have had beneficial effects on strength gains and changes in body composition. Notwithstanding, the results of this study do confirm that not everything that has been shown to facilitate gains is actually necessary and protein intakes in the >3g/kg body weight range, despite not being as bad for your health as the medical orthodoxy would have it, will offer little to no marginal utility and may even turn against you, when you keep upping your protein intake at the expense of more readily available energy sources such as carbohydrates and fats so that the lion's share of your energy has to be derived from dietary protein via glyconeogenesis... add an energetically demanding training program on top of this, call it either adrenal fatigue or central fatigue syndrome and join the other obstinate whiners on the various overtraining, ah... I mean fitness and bodybuilding boards on the Internet.
Without any cardiovascular training, not a single change in their obviously unhealthy dietary habits (why else would these young men and women have become overweight in the first place?) the 37 formerly sedentary twens in the resistance training (RT) training arm of the study derived non-negligible benefits from their weekly workouts:

Figure 1: Changes in BMI, fat free mass (FFM) and fat mass (FM) in male and female study participants in the control and resistance training arm of the 6-months exercise-only single-set circuit training (9 exercises total, 3 training sessions per week) intervention (data based on Washburn. 2012)

I mean, as disappointing as the non-existent weight loss may seem in a society, where the majority of people is so fixated on nondescript figures on a scale, you can hardly argue that

• increasing your muscle mass by +1.5kg,
• decreasing your fat mass (women), or at least 
• ameliorating your fat gains (men) 

would not be better than losing muscle and becoming fatter and fatter as it happened to the subjects in the control arm, right? And that the anti-obesity (as defined by too much body fat, not too much body weight) effects were more pronounced in the 15 women than in their male peers goes to show you that exactly those people (=women ;-) who usually don't lift weights will benefit most from hopping of their steppers, treadmills and recumbent bikes three times a week to do nothing but a single full-body strength circuit.

Training is a nutrient repartitioner, but if the diet does not deliver those the results are suboptimal

These unquestionably favorable (compared to the sedentary control), yet hardly earth shattering results would certainly have been way more impressive, if the study participants had made appropriate changes to their diets. For most of them, it would probably have been enough to simply switch from fast-, fried- away-from-home- and ready-made foods to self-prepared meals, to double, if not triple their results (cf. Taveras. 2005; Wosje. 2010; see also red box below). With the aforementioned tip to get at least 20g of lean protein with every meal and a progression not just on the weight, but also on the volume side of things (yet to no more than 2-3 circles per training, cf. Van Etten, 1997; Shaibi. 2006; Shaw. 2006), the same simplistic full-body circuit would certainly have had a much greater impact on the chubby physiques of the soon-to-be obese type II diabetics.
Food quality? It is quite interesting that both Taveras and Wosje identify fried foods as especially problematic for children and adolescents (Taveras. 2005; Wosje. 2010). And while those were related to higher body fat levels, another common scapegoat, processed meat, showed a clearcut and unquestionably beneficial relation to high bone mass in the Wosje study (Wosje. 2010). On the other hand, dark-green and deep-yellow vegetables (eg, spinach, romaine lettuce, broccoli, carrots, and sweet potatoes), though not something you will usually see among the favorite dishes of most kids, adolescents and college students, would probably have prevented the twens in the Washburn study from being eligible to participate in the trial, in the first place. Why? Well, the BMI and, more importantly, the body fat levels of the veggie (+meat ;-) eaters would probably have been way below the obesity cut-off for the Washburn study.
If there was a single take home message from this study, one that probably won't apply to you, a seasoned physical culturist and avid trainee, though, but maybe for your sedentary niece or nephew, it would unquestionably be that physical culture does not start at the Olympia level and that doing something is better than surrendering to your "bad genes", the greatest influence of which oftentimes is inherited laziness and the stubborn adherence to a lifestyle of which even young adults should know that it will get them right into the clutches of the pharmocracy.

References:

1. Shaibi GQ, Cruz ML, Ball GD, Weigensberg MJ, Salem GJ, Crespo NC, Goran MI. Effects of resistance training on insulin sensitivity in overweight Latino adolescent males. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006 Jul;38(7):1208-15. 
2. Shaw I, Shaw BS. Consequence of resistance training on body composition and coronary artery disease risk. Cardiovasc J S Afr. 2006 May-Jun;17(3):111-6. 
3. Taveras EM, Berkey CS, Rifas-Shiman SL, Ludwig DS, Rockett HR, Field AE, Colditz GA, Gillman MW. Association of consumption of fried food away from home with body mass index and diet quality in older children and adolescents. Pediatrics. 2005 Oct;116(4):e518-24. 
4. Van Etten LM, Westerterp KR, Verstappen FT, Boon BJ, Saris WH. Effect of an 18-wk weight-training program on energy expenditure and physical activity. J Appl Physiol. 1997 Jan;82(1):298-304.  
5. Washburn RA, Kirk EP, Smith BK, Honas JJ, Lecheminant JD, Bailey BW, Donnelly JE. One set resistance training: effect on body composition in overweight young adults. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2012 Jun;52(3):273.
6. Wosje KS, Khoury PR, Claytor RP, Copeland KA, Hornung RW, Daniels SR, Kalkwarf HJ. Dietary patterns associated with fat and bone mass in young children. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Aug;92(2):294-303. Epub 2010 Jun 2.

Nautilus? Will a Nautilus-Based "Variable" Training Regimen Yield Greater & More Sustained Muscle & Strength Gains?

Arthur Jones shows a beautiful lady, how his latest Nautilus Pull-Over Machine Works... don't you tell resistance training machines and fitness babes were an invention of the late 1990s ;-)

Although I suspect that most of you are too young to remember the hype surrounding the introduction of the Nautilus Training Systems, I am pretty sure that you will have seen similar machines which are using a nautilus- (a mollusk whose shell has the shape of a logarithmic spiral) or otherwise funkily shaped cams in the place of regular circular wheels, in your gym. The (ingenious?) apparatus was an invention of Arthur Jones (see image on the right), himself a devoted physical culturist, who build the first machines using this by now often-copied mechanism in the late 1960s

The idea behind the concept is that the nautilus-shaped cam would vary the lever over the full range of motion in a way that the intensity would peak at a selected point of the full range of motion. Usually this was and still is, when the muscle is fully contracted and the lever is the shortest.

Ah, yeah that machine... what's it good for? 

These days almost every gym has similar devices, but based on my personal experience most of the "bigger guys" use them - if they use them at all - only for dropsets at the end of their workouts... that raises the question, whether they are big and muscular because they rarely use them or rather despite the fact that they are missing out on the benefits of these devices!? I guess, a similar question must have been bothering Simon Walker and his colleagues from the Department of Biology of Physical Activity and Neuromuscular Research Center at the University of Jyväskylä in Finland (Walker. 2013), when they recruited 33 young men and assigned them randomly to the following three groups

• constant group:  training legs using regular equipment (no CAM)
• variable group: training legs using CAM equipment
• control group: not training at all

While the male particpants in their late 20s were recreationally active (endurance or ball games
activity took place no more than three times per week), none of the subjects had previously taken part in systematic strength training at a frequency greater than once per week.

Usually I'd say that this was a major disadvantage, but in this case using previously untrained subjects ensured that all were exposed to completely novel exercise stimuli, after all, the this was exactly what the scientists wanted to show:

"Does the variable training cause a greater stimulus for continued adaptation?"

Another measure to ensure that the scientists would be able to see practically relevant results was the extension of the exercise intervention over two identical 10-week periods. By doing that, the scientists hoped to be able to (a) elucidate the time course of adaptations (Would the cam system of their Nautilus-like machines produce earlier gains?) and/or (b) whether the regular training would lead to a performance plateau (Would training with a variable loads ensure more persistent gains?).

The above is an illustration of the Strive's Smart Strength technology which works similar to the cam-system in the equipment used in the study at hand. In the latter, resistance increased in line with the force:angle relationship, by ~70 % at 120-180° knee angles in the leg press and by ~30 % at 100-140! at knee angles in the knee extension exercise compared to the constant resistance device at those knee angles, where the scientists installed a simple wheel instead of the CAM.

With the exception of the nautilus-like cam vs. regular wheel in the lower limb machines (leg press,
knee extension, knee flexion), the two workouts per week, which did also involve upper body exercises (bench press, shoulder press, lat pulldown, seated row, bicep curl, triceps push-down, abdominal crunches and back raises) that were conducted on regular resistance equipment, were absolutely identical.

"The subjects performed medium intensity, high volume training con- sisting of two to three sets and 12–14 repetitions (60–70 % 1RM) per exercise (weeks 1–4), then two to three sets and 10–12 repetitions (70–80 % 1RM) per exercise (weeks 5–7) and three to four sets per exercise and 8–10 repetitions (75–85 % 1RM) per exercise (weeks 8–10)." 

After the 10-week period the same set-rep scheme was repeated.In order not to hamper the performance on the tested and thus relevant exercises / body part, the lower limb exercises were performed first in the workout. Moreover, the last set of every* exercise (*my understanding of the FT) was supposed to be performed to failure and the subjects were advised by a nutritional counselor to ingest 20g of protein within <1h after each workout. Furthermore, they were told to make sure that their total daily protein intake had to average 1.5-1.8g protein /kg body mass per day, to optimize the muscle hypertrophy response (the actual intake was controlled only via food logs).

The control group subjects were instructed to maintain their normal physical activity levels and refrain from resistance training throughout the intervention.

"So what were the results, then?"

Actually, a brief glance at the title of the study, "Variable resistance training promotes greater fatigue resistance but not hypertrophy versus constant resistance training", does already provide you with the most important finding of the study - at least if you know that "variable resistance training" refers to using Nautilus-like vs. regular equipment and not, as I initially suspected, a training regimen like the one Adelfo currently favors (check it out), where you incorporate classic high(er) volume and 5x5 workouts into a single routine and spike that up by different RPE schemes.

Now, this would obviously not be the SuppVersity if we did not go beyond what the abstract, let alone the title of the study is telling us. 

So, let's take a closer look at the results, which are - and I can say that without giving away too much in advance, I guess, not exactly earth-shatteringly different. Nevertheless, there is somewhat more to learn, than "just" the fact that the initially mentioned "big guys" are probably not missing any additional muscle stimuli, when they (or you!) stick to free weights (on a side note, I don't know if you ever took into account that for most free weight exercises the resistance decreases, when you contract the muscle?).

Figure 1: Relative changes (compared to baseline) in 1-RM performance, volume load and vastus lateralis CSA (left) and absolute testosterone responses in the variable and constant load groups (right; Walker. 2013)

Despite the fact that it probably does not matter much, the data in figure 1 indicates that even the immediate post-workout testosterone response was marginally more pronounced in the CAM = variable resistance training group. Just like the marginally more pronounced increase in the cross-sectionally area (CSA) of the vastus lateralis (VL), this could yet be a simple function of the higher training volume, which - and this is indicated by the "*" in figure 1 - would be the only advantages of which you could say that they were statistically significant; "significant", because they were statistically significant (pre- vs. post) only in the variable training group. A similar argument may be brought forward in the case of the differential expression of the signaling molecules that control the protein synthetic machinery that's initiated by the muscular contractions during the workout and the subsequent protein ingestion:

"Post-loading phosphorylation of p70 S6K ,rpS6atboth Ser 235/236 and at Ser 240/244 , MAPKAPK-2, and p38 increased following all loadings. Increased phosphorylation of ERK1/2 occurred before training only, and the level of phosphorylation was greater following variable resistance loading compared to constant resistance loading (P<0.05). The level of phosphorylation of p38 was greater following variable resistance loading before training com pared to after training. The phosphorylation of Akt decreased (P<0.05–0.01) following both loadings before training and constant resistance loading after training. There were no statistically significant changes in phosphorylation of mTOR or eEF2 following any loading. There were no changes in total protein or baseline phosphorylation values, apart from increased ERK 1/2 phosphorylation after the training intervention (P<0.05), during loadings." (Walker. 2013)

In the end, we are thus still left with little more than the information that the Nautilus-like came devices that were used in the study at hand offer real advantages only with respect to their ability to induce greater training-induced adaptations in fatigue resistance. This does not exclude superior strength and, what's actually more likely, size gains in the long run - a "run" that would yet obviously have to be longer than 2x10 weeks, though.

---

And what about free weights? Unfortunately, the Manning study shares one major shortcoming with the study at hand: It does not give us any insights into the question that's probably just preying on your minds: "What about machines vs. free weights?" A couple of paragraphs above, I have already alluded to the fact that the way the resistance varies over the movement is actually reversed, when you compare free weight vs. training on Nautilus-like resistance training equipment. On the latter the resistance increases as you approach the contracted position,. With free weights, on the other hand, it's usually decreasing -- in some extreme cases, such as the standing barbel curl, this decrease is in fact so pronounced that there is almost no external resistance at the end of the exercise.

Bottom line: The results of the study at hand stand in line with previous observations by Manning et al. from the early 1990s. Back in the day, the researchers observed "no difference (P greater than 0.05) between the CR [constant] and VR [variable resistance] groups at any angle, and the magnitude of strength gained was similar (P greater than 0.05) among angles for both groups" (Manning. 1990) in a very similar 10-week study involving 22 men and 27 women in their twenties.

So weights, "Nautilus" or regular pulleys? Or better all of them?

Personally, I second the opinion Stone, Plisk and Collins voiced in a 2002 paper in Sports Biomechanics  the journal of the International Society of Biomechanics in Sports who state that "adherence to the concept of specificity of exercise and training can result in a greater transfer of training effect then free weights should produce a more effective training transfer" (Stone. 2002). For someone training to increase his athletic performance - the question free weights or machines, is thus obsolete and for the rest of us, the use as an adjunct especially towards the end of the workout - just as the initially invoked "big guys" do it - is probably the way to go. After all, training is supposed to stimulate adaptation and to achieve that it is imperative that the stimulus your muscles are exposed to display a certain degree of "novelty". So why not skip on doing another 5 sets of squats and finish your leg workout on the leg press instead? If nothing else, it will allow you to go heavier without risking to injure yourself.

References:

• Manning RJ, Graves JE, Carpenter DM, Leggett SH, Pollock ML. Constant vs variable resistance knee extension training. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1990 Jun;22(3):397-401.
• Stone M, Plisk S, Collins D. Training principles: evaluation of modes and methods of resistance training--a coaching perspective. Sports Biomech. 2002 Jan;1(1):79-103. 
• Walker S, Hulmi JJ, Wernbom M, Nyman K, Kraemer WJ, Ahtiainen JP, Häkkinen K. Variable resistance training promotes greater fatigue resistance but not hypertrophy versus constant resistance training. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2013 May 1.

Angle, Grip Width, Free Weight or Machine, Failure & More - What Really Works for Building A Bigger Bench & Pecs

If you don't see any results, changing the angle, grip, etc. is unlikely to bring you from "zero" to "extreme" gains.

I don't need a scientific study to tell that the bench press is among the favorite exercises of all (male) trainees. That being said, the science investigating its effects and how to do it is comparably scarce. Leg extensions are after all the favorite exercise of every researcher, because even sedentary couch potatoes can do them and the results don't depend on your "extension technique" ;-)

That being said, there are a handful of studies dealing with the bench press. Studies that investigate the effects of bench angles, grip width & type, free weight vs. machine training, training to failure or not, etc. a selection of which I will review in today's SuppVersity article.

Learn more about the best muscle building exercise at the SuppVeristy

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

• Is there a place for the incline bench press in your routine? According to data from a 1995 study from the University of Queensland, it would seem the answer is "unlikely". In the corresponding experiment, Barnett et al. investigated the effects of varying bench inclination on the EMG activity of five muscles acting at the shoulder joint.
  
  Six male weight trainers performed presses under four conditions of trunk inclination and two of hand spacing at 80% of their predetermined max. Preamplified surface EMG electrodes were placed over the five muscles in question. The EMG signals during the 2-sec lift indicated some significant effects of trunk inclination and hand spacing (see Figure 3, as well).
  

  

  Figure 1: As you can see, the deltaoid muscles take over, as the angle increases (left), when it decreases significantly, i.e. on the decline bench, on the other hand, the latissimus dorsi (right) is suddenly involved (Barnett. 1995).

  More specifically, the sternocostal head of the pectoralis major, or the "middle part of the pecs" as the bros would say, was more active during the press from a horizontal bench than from a decline bench. Since the clavicular head of the pectoralis major, or the "upper part of the pecs", was no more active during the incline bench press (where the delts "shouldered" much of the exercise) than during the horizontal one, and was less active during the decline bench press, it would appear as if doing incline benches is at best something you can do on top of the regular press.
  
  On the other hand, we are - once more - lacking data on the long-term effects of benching on a flat vs. incline bench, which is why I cannot guarantee that changing things up from time to time is not eventually going to give you the best results. Or, as Barnett et al. point out: "Any benefits of varying the bench inclination for the pectoralis major are more likely due to psychological or biological factors (other than the quantity of EMG activation)" (Barnett. 1995).
• Is benching with a slightly wider than shoulder wide grip still the way to go? The purpose of this study from the University of Southwestern Louisiana was to determine the effect of grip width on myoelectric activity of the pectoralis major, anterior deltoid, triceps brachii, and biceps brachii during a 1-RM bench press. Put simply, Clemons et al. wanted to know if using different grip widths would have the triceps, biceps or deltoid do more and the pecs less work.
  
  

  

  Figure 2: Like most people this guy benches with ~125% of the biacromial breadth (distance from the outer part of the shoulder on the left to the outer part of the shoulder on the right).

  Grip widths of 100,130,165, and 190% (G1, 2, 3, 4, respectively) of biacromial breadth were used in the study. Mean integrated myoelectric activity for each muscle and at each grip width was determined for the concentric portion of each 1-RM and normalized to percentages of max volitional isometric contractions (%MVIC). Data analysis employed a one-factor (grip width) univariate repeated measures ANOVA.

Supination or pronation? Next to the grip width it's also heavily debated which grip one should use. Lehmann et al. found in their 2005 study that a supinated grip during the bench press increases the recorded myoelectric signal of the biceps without adversely affecting the muscle recruitment of the prime movers. As Lehmann et al. point out, this "increased myoelectric activity may translate to an increased force production of the biceps muscle, which can act to stabilize and flex the shoulder joint" /Lehmann. 2005). Accordingly, forearm supination during the bench press may be an important component in the functional retraining of injured shoulders. Supinating the forearm does also appear to inhibit this myoelectric activity decrease in the sternoclavicular portion of the pectoralis major without adversely affecting the increases in triceps activity on narrower grips.

• The results of the study indicate that (a) the grip width you select will have significant main effects on muscle activity (3%, 5% and 8% increased maximal volutional isometric contractions with 30%, 65% and 90% increased grip width vs. should width) and that (b) that this difference was particularly pronounced (surprise ;-) when comparing 190% to 100% and 100%. More specifically, the involvement of the triceps increased, as the grip narrowed. Simlarly, a study by Barnett et al. (1995) indicates that the middle of the pecs major was more active with a narrower hand spacing.
  

  

  Figure 3: As a study by Barnett et al. indicates the effects of grip width on the absolute activity of the sternocostal head (middle pecs) is negligible (Barnett. 1995).

  Since EMG measures don't necessary translate to gains, these observations do not mean, though, that the wide bench press was the best chest builder (read all SuppVersity EMG Articles). To confirm that we'd need long-term studies on the actual growth effect, which are unfortunately lacking.
• Are free weights always the better choice? Common wisdom has it that nothing compare to free weight training. A claim that is supported, but not fully confirmed by a 1994 study from the Illinois State University which shows that greater muscle activity is in fact achieved during the free-weight bench press, especially at the 60% 1-RM load.

  

  Figure 4: Comparison of the muscle activity during free weight and machine guided bench presses - please not that the differences reached significant only for the low = 60% 1RM weight (McCaw. 1996).

  What is quite noteworthy, though, is that (a) few people bench at only 60% of their 1-RM which would allow them to do at least 15 reps if not more and (b) that there were notable differences among the patterns of individual subjects.
  
  It is thus questionable that (1) the free-weight bench press is vastly superior to benching on a guided machine and that (2) this is the case for everyone - specifically in rookies, I could imagine that they get more out of the benching on a machine... One should keep in mind, however, that if you never bench with free weights, how will hardly learn how to do it properly to eventually benefit from the increased muscle activation.
  

  

  Figure 4: Free weight bench presses have the edge over the smith machine, in terms of avg. pec activity, but the differences are highly variable individual and don't reach statistical significance (Schick. 2010).

  In view of the fact that a similar study by Schick et al., which otherwise confirms the results of the study at hand observing increased activity of the stabilizer and measurable, but non-significantly increased pectoralis activity on free weight vs. machine bench presses (see Figure 5), indicates that the advantage of free weight vs. guided smith machine bench presses increases in experienced vs. rookie weight lifters, that'd be a bummer.
• Going to failure on the bench - is that useful or bogus? According to the results of a 2005 study from the ACT in Cranberra, bench press training that leads to repetition failure induces greater strength gains than nonfailure training in the bench press exercise for elite junior team sport athletes.
  
  As you can see in Figure 5, the differences that were observed in response to thrice weekly bench press training for 6 weeks using equal volume programs (24 reps, 80-105% 6RM in 13 minutes 20 seconds) in 26 elite junior male basketball and soccer players with a history of greater than 6 months’ strength training were significant, but not exuberant.
  

  

  Figure 5: Effects of training to failure on bench throw (left) and bench press 6RM (right) in soccer and basketball players (Drinkwater. 2005).

  The results of previous studies on training to failure are ambigous, by the way. Rooney et al. (1994), for example demonstrated that when a 6RM load is lifted repeatedly 6 times without resting between repetitions, the strength gains are significantly greater than when the same load is lifted an equal number of times with a 30-second interval between each lift to avoid fatigue. He suggested that when the athlete is fatigued, additional motor units are recruited in an attempt to continue the muscular activity, and this is thought to provide an additional stimulus for strength gains and hypertrophy.
  
  Other studies have shown, on the contrary, that training to failure may not be necessary for optimal gains, but they were not controlled for volume and intensity (Kramer. 1997; Stowers. 1983). In his 2010 review Schoenfeld argues that the possible increase in strength and size gains is also paid for with an increase in overtraining and injury risk. It is thus still not clear, whether training to failure is necessarily beneficial for all or should be used only by certain athletes and/or training phases.
• Do exaggerated eccentrics increase your strength gains on the bench? "Yes, it does!" - that's an answer researchers from the Ball State University would probably give to the question. In their 2002 study, the scientists examined the effects of additional eccentric loading on subsequent concentric strength.
  
  

  

  Figure 6: The data in the graph on the top indicates that the patented weight-release devices provide additional eccentric loading and are released at the bottom of the bench press before the concentric phase (Doan. 2002)

  Eight subjects with some experience in weight training volunteered to perform maximal attempts in the barbell bench press using detaching hooks that allowed them to lower 105% of their concentric 1 repetition maximum (RM) and raise 100%. The detaching hooks allowed attachment of extra weight to the bar and would release from the bar at the bottom of the lift, reducing the weight lifted during the concentric phase of the lift. After determining their 1RM for the bench press, the subjects attempted to increase their performance by using a heavier eccentric load with the detaching hooks.
  
  All 8 subjects who completed the study increased their 1RMs by 5 to 15 pounds; and as the data in Figure 8 indicates, the use of additional eccentric loading significantly (p 5 0.008) increased the weight that could be lifted on the subsequent concentric phase and therefore 1RM performance. As the researchers point out "[t]his phenomenon was a result of the enhancement of stretch-shortening cycle performance by the increased eccentric load" (Doan. 2002).
  
  Athletes who are interested in developing 1RM strength in the bench press may thus as the study and hand indicates benefit from the use of additional eccentric loading.

Power Up With Bands | Learn how it works in a previous SV article! 

What? You knew all that already? I am sorry, but the number of new studies on the effects of different angles, grip widths and grips, free weight vs. machine or advanced training techniques on the strength and size gains on the bench are limited. Maybe you can start a petition for new studies... no? Well in that case, I suggest you go to the gym and try to find out what works for you. This, i.e. the individual response to certain types of exercise and/or intensity techniques is something no study can investigate for you, anyways | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Barnett, Chris, Vaughan Kippers, and Peter Turner. "Effects of Variations of the Bench Press Exercise on the EMG Activity of Five Shoulder Muscles." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 9.4 (1995): 222-227.
• Clemons, James M., and Chantelle Aaron. "Effect of Grip Width on the Myoelectric Activity of the Prime Movers in the Bench Press." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 11.2 (1997): 82-87.
• Doan, Brandon K., et al. "Effects of increased eccentric loading on bench press 1RM." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 16.1 (2002): 9-13.
• Drinkwater, Eric J., et al. "Training leading to repetition failure enhances bench press strength gains in elite junior athletes." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 19.2 (2005): 382-388.
• Keogh, Justin WL, Greg J. Wilson, and Robert E. Weatherby. "A Cross-Sectional Comparison of Different Resistance Training Techniques in the Bench Press." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 13.3 (1999): 247-258.
• Kramer, James B., et al. "Effects of single vs. multiple sets of weight training: Impact of volume, intensity, and variation." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 11.3 (1997): 143-147.
• Lehman, Gregory J. "The influence of grip width and forearm pronation/supination on upper-body myoelectric activity during the flat bench press." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 19.3 (2005): 587-591.
• McCaw, Steven T., and Jeffrey J. Friday. "A Comparison of Muscle Activity Between a Free Weight and Machine Bench Press." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 8.4 (1994): 259-264.
• Rooney, Kieran J., Robert D. Herbert, and Ronald J. Balnave. "Fatigue contributes to the strength training stimulus." Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 26 (1994): 1160-4.
• Schick, Evan E., et al. "A comparison of muscle activation between a Smith machine and free weight bench press." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 24.3 (2010): 779-784.
• Schoenfeld, Brad J. "The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their application to resistance training." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 24.10 (2010): 2857-2872.
• Stowers, Tim, et al. "The Short-Term Effects of Three Different Strength-Power Training Methods." Strength & Conditioning Journal 5.3 (1983): 24-27.