The 100% Natural "Hormonal Approach" to Personalize Your Resistance Training Program: Using Saliva Testosterone to Discover Your Own, Personal Optimal Set- & Rep-Range

A pre- vs post-workout salivary testosterone test could hold the clue to the perfect workout.

Most of you are probably aware that my own personal interest in learning something new every day is one of my central motivations to sit down and write an article about the latest and (imho) most interesting studies from the realms of nutrition and exercise science. At first sight it may seem as if it was kind of stupid to waste additional time with writing about it. After all, it would seem as if just reading the study would be enough. From my seminars and lectures I have yet learned that teaching others about things you believe you would "know by heart" does usually improve your own understanding of the matter, significantly. This is similar with blogging, which does however have another often under-appreciated advantage: You get in contact with others who share a similar interest.

People like "Anonymous" (this is what happens if you don't use at least a nickname folks: you miss your chance of becoming "semi-famous" ;-) who recently pointed me towards the results of a 2008 study by Beaven et al. who conducted a pretty intriguing experiment that involved 16 male amateur Rugby players, sweat and a lot of saliva.

Can your T-level help you to find your optimal set- & rep-range?

The scientists who worked at the Waikato Institute of Technology and theHorticulture and
Food Research Institute of New Zealand Ltd. hypothesized that the functional strength gains of an athlete may be further enhanced by a non-traditional periodization regimen that focuses on those set- and rep-ranges that maximize the individual's testosterone response (T-Max) to the given workout.

"But didn't you say?" I know, I have said countless of times: Testosterone does not build muscle! The idea behind Tmax based periodization, however, is not to exploit a causal relationship between higher T-levels and greater gains in a given resistance training regimen (which happens to be something West et al. have disproven in 2012, already). The idea is rather that the individual testosterone response can be used to decide which protocol provides a greater anabolic stimulus.

To this ends, the researchers conducted a cross-over study in the course of which the rugby players trained in groups of N=8. During both phases of the study, eight individuals trained according to their previously determined T-Max set- & rep-range (i.e. the protocol that yielded the maximal testosterone increases in a previously conducted baseline test), while the other eight subjects trained with the protocol that had proved the minimal testosterone (T-Min) response after the baseline test.

After three weeks the groups were "crossed over" and those who had previously trained on their T-Min protocol would not train in their T-Max set- & rep range, while those who had been randomized to the T-Max group for the first three weeks had to spend the 2nd phase of the study training their personal T-Min protocol.

"Hold on, how did that work?"

That sounds too complicated? Well, I guess I will provide you with an example - let's see: During the baseline testing all subjects performed the same standardized workout with the following four set- and rep-schemes:

• A: four sets of 10 reps at 70% 1RM with 2 minutes rest between sets (4x10–70%)
• B: three sets of five reps at 85% 1RM with 3 minutes’ rest (3x5–85%)
• C: five sets of 15 reps at 55% of 1RM with 1 minute’s rest (5x15–55%)
• D: three sets of 5 reps at 40% 1RM with 3 minutes’ rest (3x5–40%)

During these tests it turned out that subject 1 had the maximal testosterone response to protocol "B", where his T-levels increased almost twice as much as on protocol "C" ... I would guess that your initial response to this will be: "Of course, that's after all similar to 5x5; and 5x5 rulez!", but let's face it, if we stick to broscience, it should be protocol "D" that sucks and not protocol "C", right? I mean 3x5 reps at 40%, that's sissy stuff(!) and still, it "sucked" only for two out of sixteen participants, whose corresponding T-max regimen were protocol "C" and protocol "D".

No matter how you look at it, there is no pattern emerging!

How many subjects reacted with maximal T-responses to the individual protocols?

• A → 4 subjects
• B → 7 subjects
• C → 3 subjects
• D → 2 subjects

Interestingly, the re-test after the first three weeks yielded identical results - well, with the obligatory one exception to the rule: subject 14 must have been must have been convinced that 5x5 does in fact rule, because his T-max that has previously been observed in response to protocol "A" shifted to "B" after three weeks on sissy protocol "D".

This circumstance provides further evidence for the often heard hypothesis that the "optimal workout" looks different for everyone and that the perfect match between trainee and routine is stable, maybe fixed by genetics or certain physiological characteristics of the individual.

Much contrary to what you would expect there was thus no clear pattern emerging here. If anything you may be able to make out a couple of trends, with the most significant trend saying that the 3x5 @85% regimen could be the one that yielded (on average) the greatest benefits. That's however not very useful if you are subject 2, 10 or 16, because this would mean that workout "B" would be totally worthless for you.

If we simply overgeneralize these results and prescribe the same workout for all, this would have 19% of the subjects train on the worst possible and ~37% of the trainees on a suboptimal routine.

That sucks, right? Of course it does, but it's getting even worse! Up to now you could still sooth yourself by assuming that "Testosterone does not matter anyway!"

Figure 1: Effects of training on T-max protocol vs. T-min protocol on strength gains (Beaven. 2008)

Unfortunately, the results of the study at hand suggest that this is not the case, if you take the T-response as a guide, instead of doing an ex-post correlation to "prove" that testosterone was anabolic, the study at hand clearly suggest that not training in your individual "optimal" set- & rep-range will lead to stagnation and even strength declines.

Warning: The booze induced testosterone boost could mess with your training planning. So no Bloody Marys after your workouts (learn more)!

Bottom line: As of now, the technology to do larg(er) scale  cheap pre- / vs. post-workout saliva testosterone testing is not yet available. If there were follow up studies to support the usefulness of the "test testosterone first, plan your workout routine second"-approach to training optimization, I am pretty sure the demand, is going to rise and some clever engineer is going to develop a device every larger high-school football team and/or commercial gym could afford.

In view of the fact that even program "D" can be optimal for certain subjects, the introduction of this device could maybe even put an end to the "hardgainer" misery.

Reference:

• Beaven CM, Cook CJ, Gill ND. Significant strength gains observed in rugby players after specific resistance exercise protocols based on individual salivary testosterone responses. J Strength Cond Res. 2008 Mar;22(2):419-25.
• West DW, Phillips SM. Associations of exercise-induced hormone profiles and gains in strength and hypertrophy in a large cohort after weight training. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012 Jul;112(7):2693-702. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adelfo Cerame: Wendler 5, 3, 1 for Wheelchair Bodybuilders, Eating for Size, 6lbs More + Photos '11 vs. '12 Off-Season

Image 1: A major problem with all comparison shots is that lighting and tanning make it difficult to judge appropriately even if you strike your poses as perfectly as Adelfo does...check out image 2 & 3 as well and judge for yourself - where have those 6lbs gone?

It's Thursday, my friends, and today neither Adelfo nor I have been slacking or busy, which means that it's about time for another thursdaily guest lecture from "your's truly", as he would probably write, Adelfo Cerame Jr. whose latest "6lbs heavier than during my last prep"-pictures look - as usual - pretty amazing...; and that despite the fact that he has got to turn around so that you can see where he has put those three kilograms of lean mass. I guess, you will remember that in one of his latest posts he wrote he always hated training his back - now, he can't train his legs, but I know most of you can, so be honest: Do you like training your legs? No!? Well do it anyway, when you feel them and see them grow you will love it! ... just like Adelfo learned to love training his back... but enough of the wise-assing for today, let's see what Adelfo has in stock for us :-)

Jim Wendler’s 5/3/1 + bulking update

As much as I love my 5x5 training, I’m getting a bit bored - which is causing me to be complacent with my training, plus it’s time that I give my body something different. I already made some changes to my hypertrophy split by adding supersets to some core exercise, so now I need to make some new changes for my strength training split.

In light of the fact that I am still willing to get involved in powerlifting this coming fall, I decided to take the opportunity and experiment with Jim Wendler’s 5/3/1 strength training protocol. I’ve heard a lot of positive things about the protocol, especially for rather physique-/bodybuilding oriented powerlifting rookies like taking aim at the biggest weights insteod of the biggest muscles.

5/3/1? What's that supposed to be? The rep scheme?

Tip! Go to StrStd.com to calculate & generate your own 5, 3, 1 routinr

The 5/3/1 protocol is based on core lifts such as bench, squats, deads, and military presses – all the main compound lifts you would need in a strength routine, so to say. Other than classic O-lifting regimen, however, the 5/3/1 protocol has a decent amount of assistance exercises to perform after your core lifts – the assistance exercises are optional but is recommended to add a hypertrophy style element to the protocol (and this does not just make sense if you want to get bigger, but also if you want to get stronger, 'cause let's be honest: without more muscle your strength will  necessarily plateau sooner or later / just as vice-versa, by the way - so no "I just want to get a decent pump" workouts any longer, folks ;-).

As usual all, sets and reps are prescribed as percentages of your 1-RM on the core lifts. You use 90% of your 1RM as the base of your calculations, for me who obviously cannot do deads or squats these are

• Bench presses max: 295lbs

• Military press (hammer strength) max: 360lbs

If you take those and plug them into a plan with appropriate periodization (see table 1), which consists of a 4-week cycle n the course of which you add 10lbs to your 1RM (note the "+" means that you got to try to set a PR and do as many reps as you can after the mandatory reps).

Table 1: Standard periodization scheme for my interpretation of the Jim Wendler 3,2,1 regimen (* denotes a deload week)

As you can see in table 1, I will be building up the weights slowly max out and do a deload week. In order to give you a better idea of how this will look like in practice, here is my written out plan for the first week:

Monday/ Bench press day (core + assistance exercise) Core Exercise Bench press - warm up: 3 sets of 5 reps (5 x 106, 133, 159) Bench press - working sets: 3 sets of 5 reps (5 x 172, 199, 225+) Assistance Exercise Pull – hammer strength rows: 5x10-15 Push – DB incline press: 5x10-15 Pull – lat pulls: 5x10-15 Push – dips: 5x20 Tuesday: Rest	Friday/ hypertrophy day – Chest + Shoulders + Triceps DB flat press (superset) + BB flat press - 4 x 12/ 6-8 DB incline press (superset) + BB incline press: 4 x 12/ 6-8 Decline press (hammer str.): 4 x 12 Pec deck flys: 3 x 12 -15 DB shoulder press (superset) + DB lateral raise: 4 x 12/ 8-12 DB front raise: 4 x 12 Champagne tilts: 3 x failure Triceps pull down: 3 x 12
Wednesday/ Military press day (core + assistance exercise) Core Exercise Hammer Strength Military press warm up: 3 sets of 5 reps (5 x 130, 162, 194) Hammer Strength working sets: 3 sets of 5 reps (5 x 211, 243, 275+) Assistance Exercise Pull - Chin-ups: 5x10 Push - DB shoulder press: 5x10 Pull - DB curls: 5x10 Push – dips: 5x20	Saturday/ hypertrophy day  Back + Rear delts + Biceps Seated rows (hammer str.): 4 x 12 High rows (hammer strength)/ or DB rows: 4 x 8-12 Seated deadlifts: 4 x 8-12 Lat pulls: 4 x 8-12 Lat pulls (close neutr. grip): 4 x 8-12 Shrugs: 4 x 12 Straight-arm overh. rope lifts: 3x15 Face pulls: 3x15 DB curls: 4 x 8-10
Thursday: Rest	Sunday: Rest

Monday/ Bench press day
(core + assistance exercise)

Core Exercise
Bench press - warm up: 3 sets of 5 reps
(5 x 106, 133, 159)
Bench press - working sets: 3 sets of 5 reps
(5 x 172, 199, 225+)

Assistance Exercise
Pull – hammer strength rows: 5x10-15
Push – DB incline press: 5x10-15
Pull – lat pulls: 5x10-15
Push – dips: 5x20

Tuesday: Rest

Friday/ hypertrophy day –
Chest + Shoulders + Triceps

DB flat press (superset)
+ BB flat press - 4 x 12/ 6-8
DB incline press (superset)
+ BB incline press: 4 x 12/ 6-8

Decline press (hammer str.): 4 x 12
Pec deck flys: 3 x 12 -15

DB shoulder press (superset)
+ DB lateral raise: 4 x 12/ 8-12

DB front raise: 4 x 12
Champagne tilts: 3 x failure
Triceps pull down: 3 x 12

Wednesday/ Military press day
(core + assistance exercise)

Core Exercise
Hammer Strength Military press
warm up: 3 sets of 5 reps
(5 x 130, 162, 194)

Hammer Strength
working sets: 3 sets of 5 reps
(5 x 211, 243, 275+)

Assistance Exercise
Pull - Chin-ups: 5x10
Push - DB shoulder press: 5x10
Pull - DB curls: 5x10
Push – dips: 5x20

Saturday/ hypertrophy day 
Back + Rear delts + Biceps

Seated rows (hammer str.): 4 x 12
High rows (hammer strength)/
or DB rows: 4 x 8-12

Seated deadlifts: 4 x 8-12
Lat pulls: 4 x 8-12
Lat pulls (close neutr. grip): 4 x 8-12

Shrugs: 4 x 12
Straight-arm overh. rope lifts: 3x15
Face pulls: 3x15
DB curls: 4 x 8-10

Thursday: Rest

Sunday: Rest

Table 2: Complete program of the first week - call it "based on" or "inspired by Jim Wendler", if you will ;-)

So far, I like the fact that the sets and reps for the core lifts are based on percentages. That takes the guesswork out of figuring out the weight you should lif,t when you are gradually trying to increase your strength. It makes things so nicely calculable and by simply plotting the respective graphs in Excel or whichever other application you like, you can immediately see if you are still on track or already lagging behind. With the less stringent programming of 5x5, where you’re just adding and deducting or "guestimating" how much your lifts should increase from week to week. You got a road-map right from the start and if you won't arrive at where you planned to be, four weeks before you know that you messed up ;-)

Latest bulking update: Comparison last vs. this year off-season

It’s been a while since I weighed myself. The last time I remember I weighed in at 138 lb. in March at the WC Nationals and at the WC Championships in New Orleans they didn’t even weigh us! They just assumed I was 140 lb. So the only accurate weight reading I’ve had was back in October before I started my prep, where I weighed 149 lb. and then 138 lb. in March and now 155 lbs., when I weighed myself a couple days ago.

Image 2: Comparison between last years off season Vs. This year’s off-season, with 1 more solid month still left to go before I start my prep again in October (front shot)

As you can see from the small date + weight overlays I added to the pictures, I put on 6 pounds from last years off-season, but can't honestly say that I see any significant difference between the two comparison picture other than my tan, but what I do notice is that I do look a lot leaner than last years picture, but I weigh more!?

Image 3: Image 2: Comparison between last years off season Vs. This year’s off-season, with 1 more solid month still left to go before I start my prep again in October (back shot)

When I emailed Adel aka Dr. Andro the initial comparison photos (which were the two from the front), he could not differentiate either or notice where that extra 6 pounds went, so I decided to compare my back pictures, and I guess you can say that’s where the 6 pounds went. I feel that I do look a lot meatier from the back. My lower trunk is a lot thicker and my lats look a tad wider… Hmmm… So I guess that’s what happens when you don't just prioritize, but actually start enjoying your back days!

Eating for size does not equal overeating until you achieve waist size XXXL

While I originally set out to go for the 3,000kcal mark, I am currently hovering around at 2,500-2,600kcal per day and am not just happy with the way I feel, look and train, but also with the number on the scale, I saw the other day. Overall, I figure I’m making pretty decent progress. I’m managing not to put on too much body fat, so why not just stick to it, I really don’t see the point to try to push to hit 3,000kcal -  especially with only a month left, until I will begin cutting back again.

That said my energy intake tends to be higher on the weekends, anyway. I use do go eat out and socialize, so that it probably balances out pretty well for the time that's still left to the start of my slow cut in October... I know that Dr. Andro and probably one or another of you will say:

"WTF, Adelfo, you will shed that little additional fat anyway, try adding in another 200kcal this and if that does not harm you, which it is guarantee not to do, go further up, as you planned to..."  

Hitherto, my gut tells me it will be better to stay where I am now, but I am always open for good arguments, so feel free to let me know your thoughts and who knows, maybe I'll be singing a different tune next week, already! Lol. I suppose you will just have to come back next Thursday and check ;-)

Fast Paced High-Resistant Explosive Circuit Training Burns More Fat and Builds More Muscle Than Classical Weight Training. Trainees Dropped 1.5% Body Fat and Gained 3 Pounds of Lean Mass in 8 Weeks.

Figure 1: Outline of the HRC protocol
used by in the study.

The beneficial effects of fast-paced (indicating short / no rest periods between exercises) circuit training on fat loss have long been established. With the original intention being the addition of an aerobic component to traditional strength training routines, the loads (weights) that are usually used in these types of exercise regimens are often to low to elicit significant strength or muscle gains. This, however, was different in the study protocol Pedro E. Alcaraz and his collegues from Spain and Australia used in their most recent study (Alcarez. 2011).

Alcarez et al. recruited 33 healthy men, who "had been regularly performing resistance training (RT) in a gymnasium (e.g., ca. 6–12 repetitions per set, 3 sets per exercise, 2–4 d/week" (in other words recreational weight lifters) and assigned them to one of two training regimens:

• High resistance circuit training (HRC): 2x 3-6 circuits à three exercises with 5 minutes rest between circuit I and circuit II. There was a bi-weekly progression from 1 to 2 to 3 rounds on each of the two circuits. This means that in their 3 workouts per week (at least one rest-day in-between) the subjects performed 18-36 sets per workout of 6 repetitions at 85%-90% of their individual 1RM_max [1RM_max = maximal weight a person can perform a single repetition with adequate form with] with roughly 35 seconds 'rest' between exercises (this was the time it took them to move from one exercise to the next). Notwithstanding the high workload, each of these workouts took them only 55min-78min to complete.
• Traditional strength training (TS): For the same exercises that were used in circuit I and II in the HRC group (cf. figure 1), the subjects in the TS group performed 2x warm-up sets at 10 and 8 repetitions of the 6% max (1 minute rest in-between) followed by 3 sets of 6 repetitions at 85%-90% of their individual 1RM_max. Due to the one minute rest between individual sets, as well as the 5-minute pause in between exercises 1-3 and exercises 4-6, the supervised workouts of the TS group were on average 125min long.

One specifically important and oftentimes under-appreciated parameter, both groups had in common, was the lifting tempo:

The eccentric phase of each exercise was performed for approximately 3 seconds, whereas the concentric phase was performed at maximum velocity. This sequence was standardized in the first training week and eccentric phase duration was regularly timed as feedback for the subjects.

In that, what the subjects did was fundamentally different from what I am (unfortunately) forced to look at day in and day out in my gym: people just moving weights instead of training muscles for strength or hypertrophy. With an emphasis on the explosiveness of the concentric part (where push / pulling the weight) of the movement and an accentuation of the deceleration in the course of the 3 second eccentric part (where lowering of the weight) of the exercise, you do just that - you train your muscle for strength and hypertrophy. The data in figure 2 underlines that this strategy works, regardless of whether you stick to the classical strength training protocol with longer rest periods (TS) or if you innovate your training by integrating some explosive strength circles.

Figure 2: Bench press concentric peak power [in W] increase measured for different loads (45%, 60% and 80% of 1RM_max) after 8 weeks on a traditional or a high resistance circuit training program (data adapted from Alcarez. 2011)

Obviously the classical strength training, where the three sets of bench presses were performed one after another and with more than adequate rest of 3 minutes produced greater increases in peak bench press performance with the most significant advantages for the traditional training routine (TS) in the range of 60% of the individual one-repetition maximum (1RM_max). So, if you are all about strength and can afford to invest 120 minutes three times à week into your training and like what you have been doing, you can stick to what worked for generations of lifters. If, however, you still don't have your summer-six-pack ready, have only 60 minutes to train, or - as almost 90% of the gym-goers claim - "just want to look good naked", or even just try something new, you should give the explosive strength circuits a try.

Figure 3: Changes in fat and lean body mass [in kg] after 8 weeks on a traditional vs. a high resistance circuit strength training protocol (data adapted from Alcarez. 2011)

Although the advantages of high resistance circuit training over traditional strength training in terms of on body composition (cf. figure 3) appear to be less significant than those TS has over HRC in the strength department (cf. figure 2), the significance of the data must be relativized in view of the large standard deviations which are as high as ~70%-110% of the improvements of both strength and body composition.

Note: I think I do not have to tell you, the educated readership of the SuppVersity, that it goes without saying that it is very likely (yet still warrants scientific validation) that high resistance circuit training will also produce better results in terms of body (re-)composition (less fat, more muscle) than cardio training (cf. Exercise! Beneficial Effects of Resistance Training on Variables of General Health) or dieting (cf. Calorie Restriction vs. Exercise for Optimal Body Composition?), alone.

Consequently, the conclusions of the authors, that the gains in strength and body composition in the HCR group "are identical to those obtained with traditional, heavy strength training" is spot on: In the end, it is probably all about your personal training-philosophy, -style and -preference what will work better for you as an individual. One thing you should keep in mind though is to explode on the way up and slow down on the way down; or, in other words, Add high resistance circuit training to your repertoire, if you will, but don't forget: Train the muscle, don't just move the weight!

Adelfo Cerame Road to Wheelchair Championships: Total Exhaustion Never Felt so Good! Plus: Huge Video Special!

Image 1: This physique was built on medium volume, high intensity workouts. So, how will it react to ultra high volume, medium intensity training? Go ahead and read how Myotropics Physique Athlete Adelfo Cerame Jr felt after the first three workouts of his "Overkill Training Program"

I have been wondering: Are workout regimen, or styles, fads, or however you may call them infectious? I had just posted Adelfo's MOTP (My Overkill Training Program) workout plan last week, when I saw that my Super Human (Radio ;-) friend, Carl Lanore, was just about to perform an even more megalomaniacal arm workout designed to deliver no less than +1"  in arm size after "only" one 6h+ mammoth session of curls, curls, and did I mention curls? I don't know all the details, but from the pictures and measures he posted the severe trauma and subsequent inflammation must have delivered roughly 50% of the promised results - not too bad, if you just want to pose around the next day, I would say. In the end, Adelfo is yet spot on when he, in the following analysis of his own overkill split workout hints at the fact that these programs are more "primer" than actual growth promoters. It's like making "tabula rasa", i.e. making a clean sweep, and forcing the muscle to restructure - restructure, to prime future growth... but before I repeat all the stuff, I have already written down in the Intermittent Thoughts (cf. "Growing Beyond Temporary Borders"), I myself am going to make a clean sweep and let Adelfo take over - after all, it's Thursday!

Project "overkill" = overtly successful

As some of you know from reading last Thursday’s blog, I have come up with a novel grueling high volume program to torture myself *lol* This absolutely ingenious idea of mine was inspired by one of Dr. Andro’s articles about “Doing 100 reps”, i.e. picking one exercise and performing 100 reps. I guess that just didn’t seem challenging enough to me, so I took it a step further, and decided to create a program for myself that would keep the basic idea of doing many sets and many reps of one exercise, but took that to another level by extending it to 8 exercises of which I then did "only" 50 reps each.

Video Special: Adelfo Cerame Jr interview and posing routine at the 2012 NPC Wheelchair Nationals
(click on image to watch)

With eight exercises and 5 sets of 10 reps, each I did thus easily surpass the original idea of doing (just ;-) 100; and it was... awesome, believe it, or not! So awesome in fact that I just have to share this experience with you in what you may call my "overkill training" log comprising the goals for the day and a brief summary of how it went:

Table 1: Monday training log - Chest + Shoulders (front & side delts)

Primary goal: complete every set and every rep (finish the workout to a “T”), no more no less! Secondary goal: lift as heavy as I can handle throughout the whole workout Other: pace myself throughout the workout, so I do not shoot my load too early.* *pick adequate intensity, weight, rest

Workout summary: Overall it was a great workout! I really got to test myself, and feel my muscles work pushing past the threshold of volume that it is used to. At the end of the workout, my muscles were really tight and pumped. It wasn’t as bad as I imagined though; as I had expected to have to crawl out the gym - I was a bit more fatigued and sore than usual but otherwise I was fine... something I cannot say about my training partners, though. The next morning one of them texted me this “I feel like I got hit by a car…” (see image attached to table 1) - Mission accomplished! *lol*

---

Table 2: Tuesday training log - Back + Traps + Shoulders (rear delts)

Primary goal: complete every set and every rep (finish the workout to a “T”), no more no less! Secondary goal: lift as heavy as I can handle throughout the whole workout Other: see above Image 2: At the 2012 Sunshine Classics, Adelfo could still smile, after Tuesday's back workout even that became difficult

Workout summary:When I woke up, I felt good. I mean, I woke up a bit sore and tight at first, but after taking my dog for a morning stroll, I loosened up and felt good. So I figured I don’t need a rest day, packed my bag and went to the gym, where I started off doing chins. I knew, if I did that last or even mid-way through my workout; I would not have been able to complete the prescribed number of sets and reps. I felt really strong during my high row exercise; awesome mind-and-muscle-connection and with the moderate load, I squeezed until I felt that even the last fiber of my traps had fully contracted. I was feeling good and kept pace until, all of a sudden, mid-way through my workout (seated rows), the weights began to get heavier - so heavy, in fact that I had to dial down the load. The reps felt as if I was lifting dead weight, but I pushed through and completed the workout; every set, every rep... I guess, it ain't necessary to say that I was more than ready to go home after the DB rows and suddenly able to understand how  my training partner must have felt the day before *lol*

---

Table 3: Wednesday training log - Arms (Biceps + Triceps + forearms)

Primary goal: complete every set and every rep (finish the workout to a “T”), no more no less! Secondary goal: lift as heavy as I can handle throughout the whole workout Other: pace myself throughout the workout, so I do not shoot my load too early.

Workout summary: Even though I woke feeling like I was just hit by a Mack truck, I figured it was arm day, already.; meaning I had the big and exhausting body parts behind and the "small and enjoyable" ones ahead. Moreover, last weeks arm workout (you may remember) had been a breeze, so I had no doubt that I wouldn’t be able to get through the workout. And though I was right, the workout was in fact not so tough as my "back day", it became a pretty rough ride; especially the bis/tris supersets took their toll and when it was all done… my arms felt like I just swam for a couple of miles.

Video 1: DB pullovers	Video 2: Barbell jammer presses

Since I know that it is not actually exciting to read gym-stories like these, I shot some footage of me doing DB pullovers and BB jammer presses during Monday's workout (click on the images to watch). Originally, I had planned to video the majority of Monday’s workout, but it really wasn’t practical to take video of every set and every rep, so this is the best I can do ;-)

Overkill? Yeah,... but it felt so damn good ;-)

I’ve mentioned before, that I’m not a huge fan of high volume training, and I prefer low reps, heavy weight, and high intensity; but to be honest, I really enjoyed this  temporary switch to the dark side... ah, pardon, high volume camp. I enjoyed the feeling of my heart rate going up, I enjoyed breathing hard and even injoyed sweating like a pig during my workouts. The tightness and the pump during and after the workouts were insane - and let's be honest, what is a better sign that you have done something right than waking up nice and sore ;-)

Image 3: When you train like a maniac, nutrition is the meat and potatoes, but just the two won't cut it. The whole food fanatic that he he is, Adelfo has yet found a way to combine the total milk proteins and designer starch (WM HDP) in his sponsor's Physique 2.0 with fruit and, of course, his beloved coconut oil into the perfect post-workout meal.

I guess, I have found yet another technique to incorporate into my routines from time to time; to keep myself from getting bored and my body too comfortable to still make forward progress - whether this will turn into dramatic growth remain to be seen... personally, I believe it is more of a "primer", something you incorporate from time to time, but want to make sure not to do or weeks, as it will - and after my first three workouts I am sure, Adel was right in this regard - wreak havoc on your central nervous system. Personally, I'd suggeest to stick to two, to max. three week intervals, switching every now and then, even if you - just like me - are surprise d how ell your body appears to handle those grueling workouts. Once you have passed beyond the point of no return, things will deteriorate and before you even realize, it may already be too late.

But enough of those severe warnings and patronizing advice, I for one will now enjoy my Thursday off from the gym, and try to get a head start on some schoolwork, before on Friday and Saturday, it’s back to some fundamental 5x5 strength work ;-)

Meta Analysis Confirms: Strength Gains Depend on Training Status, Age, Workout Frequency, Rest Intervals & More

Image 1: Johanna Quas (86), "Germany's Fittest Granny"; check out this video of her on the high bar to see an extraordinary exception proving the rule - everybody who believes he/she could rival Johanna's gymnastic skills, could try that at the next world cup, where she probably will be competing again.

"Rodents are no little human beings", you will probably have heard or read this sentence at least a hundred times by now, but have you heard someone say "3 sets are not 1 set", "women are not men" or "8 weeks are not 16 weeks"? No, well in that case, a recently published meta-analysis of 45 primary strength training studies involving 1712 participants by Michael Fröhlich, Lutz Links and Andrea Pieter, is for you (Fröhlich. 2012).

Age, sex, training status, ... a hell lot of things to consider

The scientists from the University of Saarland and the Deutsche Hochschule für Prävention  und Gesundheitsmanagementin Saarbrücken conducted an extensive analysis of the respective training outcomes depending on individual preconditions of the subjects and study specific methodological variables like

training status,  gender,  age,   duration of the study,

total number of workouts, training frequency, periodization, number of sets, rest times between sets

and came up with a whole host of interesting results. And though the main utility of the effect sizes the researchers calculated based on data that was pre-coded according to an adapted scheme from Rustenbach (2003) probably is to enable other scientists to design trials that will yield significant results, the dependence of the "distinctness" of the study outcomes on one or more of the aforementioned parameters could also tell you something about how to interpret study data and maybe even about the efficiency of your own strength training routine.

The average training routine performed by an average trainee

If we take a look at the "average study" from Fröhlich et al. comprehensive dataset, we can identify the following characteristics:

• average exercises: 5 exercises
• average duration of the study: 12.5 weeks
• average number of workouts: 36.25 workouts total
• average number of workouts / week: 2.62 workouts/ week

The average subject was a 26.9 year old untrained (66% of the studies) male human being and had to perform leg extensions, leg presses or squats for the lower and bench presses, biceps curls and lat pulldowns for the upper body (exercises in order of frequency).

What if...? Personal, intervention and workout specifics influence the effect sizes

Even non-experts should not be surprised that Fröhlich et al. found significant effects (p < 0.001) for both the total study duration, as well as the total number of workouts:

Figure 1: Effect sizes according to training status, subject age, no. of workouts per week, no. of sets per exercise, and rest between sets (data adapted from Fröhlich. 2012)

As figure 1 goes to show, there were yet a number of other significant (*p < 0.05) or highly significant (**p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001) parameters which may be regarded as being predictive of the significance of the study outcomes, or - put more simply - whether or not the training intervention yielded a measurable effect.

A tale of trained and untrained subjects and different training regimen

Image 2: While sex doesn't matter for rookies, trained women are having a harder time gaining strength than men.

In addition to the data in figure one, Fröhlich et al. identified a couple of other interesting cross-dependences, such as:

• a significant difference between the effect sizes in trained men (F=1.5) vs. women (F=1.19), despite no difference for all subjects
• there was no significant difference between hypertrophy (F=1.01), strength-endurance (F=0.97) and coordinative strength training (1-4 reps a 70%-100%; F=1.23) as far as improvements in strength across all subject groups were concerned; despite their non-significance the data does thusly confirm conventional training wisdom about
• contrary to the global analysis the sub-analysis of untrained subjects revealed a statistically significant  influence of periodization on the effect sizes, with F=1.00 for non-periodized and 1.37 for periodized protocols

Of particular importance in the context of the ongoing discussion about the value of studies involving previously untrained subjects is also the following translated statement from the discussion of the results: 

[...] the strength increase in untrained subjects is very high at the beginning of the study. In the course of the training intervention, it is more or less continuous, but the performance increase per time unit is [...] continuously decreasing. This means that the adaptation curve is flattening out as the level of performance increases.

Now, this is not a new result, yet still one, why you, someone with say 3 years of regular strength training under his/her belt cannot expect the exact same +10% increase in bench press performance after 1-week of supplementation with Supplement X as Mr Trainingsnoob from study A, the producer of supplement X is referring to in his write-up.

Don't compare apples and oranges

Even in the absence of supplementation untrained subjects can achieve an average increase in strength of 25%-30% within the first 6 months, before they hit their first plateau (ACSM. 2009). You better take this, as well as the influence of other confounding variables into account, whenever you compare your own results with other people from the gym, or the anonymous subjects of scientific studies, if you do want to do yourself justice... that this also implies that you must have done something wrong, if you are / once you were a male scrawny beginner in the prime of his life and your bench or squat did not go up from say 100lbs to 130lbs within the first 6 months of your training, should be self-evident, right?

Step By Step Guide to Your Own Workout Routine - Part III: Understanding the Role of Workload, Density and Intensity

Image 1: Simply copying Arnold's routine would probably be a bad idea, but copying the way he played with workload and density to achieve maximal intensity would be.

After reading Part I and Part II of the "Step By Step Guide to Your Own Workout Routine" on the last weekend and a whole week to think about your first / new own workout program, you should by now know

• how often and on which days you train (cf. part I), and
• what type of workout you perform on a given day (cf. part II)

Those of you who have not already done that may want to check out Adelfo's latest "own" workout plan, the details of which he explained in the last installment of his weekly guest-posts here at the SuppVersity, so that you get an idea of what I have already hinted at in the last installment: Despite that the number of possible workout regimen you could come up with is literally endless, your knowledge about your goals, your past training experiences and your personal preferences should always be reflected in your program design.

The logical next step: Set and rep prescriptions for your workouts

It goes without saying certain decisions you may have made in the last week will make at least part of the considerations regarding the total number of sets, the number of repetitions per set, the time-under-tension (TUT), the rest times between sets and many of the related, less important parameters obsolete. If, for example, you decided on a similar routine as Adelfo's week 1 EDT + 5x5 combo, you would not have to care about either the number of sets or reps, because both "workouts" (in this case the term refers to a the whole concept) include detailed prescriptions, i.e.

• "perform your superset for 20min with as many reps as you can" (EDT), and
• "do 5 sets of 5 reps to failure" (5x5)

While it would certainly be possible to modify these prescriptions that would leave you with something I like to call an XY-esque, as in EDT-esque or 5x5-esque workout. In the end, though, it does not even matter if you want to modify an existing routine to suit your current goals or come up with a new one, without at least a cursory understanding of the implications the number of exercises, sets, reps, TUT and weights you use will have on your results, it is pretty likely that the latter will at least be suboptimal - if not completely absent.

Tip #1: It is very well possible to modify any detailed workout prescription to suit your individual needs. Whenever you do that, you should yet keep in mind that whoever came up with the original workout probably had his reasons to incorporate for example 10 sets of 10 reps and not 10 sets of 3 reps. Or put more simply, if you change fundamental variables of a given routine - in the example at hand this would be using a strength specific rep-range in a workout routine that was designed primarily for hypertrophy gains - it usually is more prudent to start building your own routine from scratch instead of making one modification after the other to end up with an at best "suboptimal" routine (in many cases you will end up with a non-functional mutant, though).

Learning from the bros and checking with the pros

I guess, many of you will already be familiar with the most commonly cited principles of workout programing and in case you were expecting me to come up with revolutionary insights into what you may call the "workout 101", you have obviously overlooked that they were and still are the ones 90% of the successful weight lifters and bodybuilders adhere to.

Image 2: Unlikely that you won't find the information on the left somewhere in this incarnation of the Encyclopedia of Bodybuilding (img MuscleMag International). Why? The answer is simple: They work - as long as you choose and combine them correctly.

If you take a look at the inferior and oftentimes non-existent results many of the trainees have, although they know many of these "fundamentals"

• in and out of the gym in <60min
• less than 18-20 sets total
   
• 10-15 sets for the back and leg muscles*
• 6-9 sets for chest and shoulders*
• 4-8 sets for arms*
  *the numbers apply to bodypart split training
   
• 3-5 reps for strength
• 6-12 reps for hypertrophy
• 12-25 reps for strength endurance (+conditioning)

it does yet become obvious that there is more to getting stronger, building muscle and improve your conditioning than the knowledge of these simple rules.

And as awkward as it may seem, my personal experience tells me that in 75% of the cases, where trainees are not satisfied with the results their workout programs are generating, the underlying reasons is not following the rules. In that, I have found that the "in and out of the gym in <60min" rule and the "less than 18-20 sets total" rule, as well as the "6-9 set for chest and arms" and "4-8 sets for arms" rules appear to be among the favorite "does not apply to me" rules for the average trainee

Tip #2: Even though the most fundamental contributer to continuous progress is having a sound workout program, sticking to the plan is a very close second. And both, coming up with a new plan every week and just doing more than your plan prescribes are the worst enemies of your progress.

Pull the trigger and leave!

The reason for the widespread ignorance towards these rules is the very human misconception that more was always better. To understand why this is not the case, it may be useful to read up on the underlying physiological processes of skeletal muscle hypertrophy and increases in contractile force in the respective parts of the Intermittent Thoughts on Building Muscle series, here at the SuppVersity.

Figure 1: The intricacies of skeletal muscle hypertrophy. For all the details check out the preliminary summary of the Intermittent Thoughts on Building Muscle (click here to be redirected)

If you take a closer at figure 1 and remember what you have learned in the course of the series, it should be obvious that working is at the heart of all those processes that will make you stronger and more muscular, but its role is not that of a driving force, but that of a trigger.And just as you probably do not push the "on" button on your computer ten times to accelerate the time it takes for the system to boot, you should leave the gym at the very moment, where the signaling cascade has kicked in.

The primacy of intensity and how it relates to workload and density

Of the many factors which will determine how "long" it will take to initiate this cascade, the training workload (often also referred to as "volume"), the density and the intensity are not only the most important ones, they are also the ones you can deliberately control. "Optimal" results thusly requite that you align these factors with the ones you cannot manipulate directly, such as your age, your overall health, your current training status, the time you have to spare, etc. to match your current goals.

Image 3: German Olympic lifter Julia Rohde - do you still believe lifting heavy will make you "bulky"? (img sportzentrum-flora.de)

• Workload: Of these three variables the training "volume" is probably the most straight forward one, as it can be measured simply by the workload. Even if you are no physicist you should be aware that the work (w) is the total amount of force applied to the weith (F = mass x acceleration) times the way (S) you are moving it (W = F x S). In other words, if you carry a 50lbs stone 100m exerting the force of F = 50lbs * 10m/s² (where 10m/s² is the acceleration due to gravity), you have performed the same amount of work as someone who carries a 5lbs stone in his pocket while walking 1km. It should be obvious that this measure alone is of little value and I do still see people training set after set, staying in the gym for 2 hours, performing twice or thrice the amount of "work" I do and still stagnate in terms of strength and size gains.
   
• Density: If we use the previous example of carrying a stone, and think of ten steps you take as one rep, then the density of your "workout", i.e. carrying the 50lbs stone for 100m would be 10x higher than the one of the other person, because - if we assume that you walk at the same pace - you will be ready in 10x shorter timespan than the person who carries the 5lbs stone for 1000m.
   
• Intensity: Contrary to what you often see in the "intensity" column of many workout programs, the weight (often expressed relative to your one-repetition max, the 1RM; or as the maximal amount of weight you can lift for X repetitions, the 12RM, 6RM, etc.) is not the single determinant of the intensity of your workouts. A workout with little to no rest periods, light weights, high reps and a medium amount of sets can be as "intense" as one of Metzner's HIT workouts where you warm up for two sets perform one all out set and head home. 

The last example, which revolved around the notion that a Metzner HIT workout could be as intense as a more medium workload, high density workout actually brings up an important point: Regardless of what your goal may be - you must always train intense!

Tip #3: Planned periods of light lifting after likewise planned periods of deliberate overreaching (we will get to the issue of periodization in a future installment), aside, you should always try to do the one rep more or add another of those ridiculous 2.5lbs plate to the bar. If you do not push yourself, you cannot expect to push the envelope on the way you look and perform.

Science says: Many roads lead to Rome

With "intensity" being a prerequisite and goal-specificity (re-)emerges as the fundamental determinant particularly in view of the number of reps and sets to perform. Against that background it is also less confusing that you will find scientific evidence to support almost every of the initially mentioned pieces of common wisdom. In 1999, for example, Weiss et al. confirmed the common wisdom that a low (=4x 3-5RM) rep-scheme produces favorable increases in squat performance (strength) compared to 4x 13-15RM or 4x 23-25RM routines. Now, was this a result of the heavier weight alone? No, it was the mere consequence of the specificity of the program - after all, the performance on slowly performed leg-extensions was slow-velocity (~1-2s concentric and 1-2s eccentric phase) was maximal in the 13-15RM group (Weiss. 1999). 

Tip #4: Although this is somewhat of an anticipation, the intensity principle and its dependence on volume and density do also explain why most trainees see success with higher rep work in their ab routines. While you can argue that this is a consequence of the physiology of the rectus abdominis (click here to read about the most effective exercises in the SuppVersity EMG series) and the way it is used in the exercise most trainees perform, i.e. the crunch. With the minimal range of movement and the low weight, density, i.e. short to non-existent rest periods and high reps (like walking 1km vs. just 100m in our previous example) are a must to achieve the intensity that is necessary to pull the "growth trigger".

In tomorrows direct follow up to this third part of the "Step By Step Guide to Your Own Workout Routine" we will take a look at three concrete incarnations of this principles with some guidelines how to adapt total workload and density to allow you to train, recover and grow at full intensity ;-)

Advanced Trainees Benefit from Increased Training Volume! Greater & Steadier Strength Gains with 8 Sets of Squats. Plus: Over 6 Weeks, 1 Set and 4 Sets Equally (In-)Effective.

Image 1: Look at his legs, Ronnie Coleman must have done something right... and guess what, the study at hand suggests that part of it could have been his insane training volume.

Studies on different exercise protocols are scarce and many, if not most of them are conducted with obese, sick, elderly or otherwise physically impaired individuals. And even the infamous "recreationally active" study participants are not a very suitable model for aspring physical culturists like you and me *rofl*, right? Daniel W. Robbins, Paul W.M. Marshall and Megan McEwen, three researchers from the University of Sydney, the University of Western Sidney (obviously not identical to the former!?) and the University of Auckland obviously felt the same, when they set out to investigate the effects of a 6-week training intervention with different training volumes (as measured by sets per workout) on the lower-body strength (barbell squat) of 31 experienced (mean training experience ~6.7y) strength trainees (Robbins. 2012). By setting a minimum barbell squat performance of 130% of their own body weight as an inclusion criteria for their subjects, the scientists also made sure that none of their male participants (mean age 27.8y) had only been going to the gym to hit on the ladies at least twice a week for the last 2 years.

Finally a study on subjects "like you and me" ;-)

After an initial 2-week standardization phase with 9 training sessions on a 3-way split, in the course of which the subjects did not squat, they were randomized to one of the three volume conditions (Low  = 1-Set; Medium = 4-Sets; High = 8-Sets, cf. figure 1).

Figure 1: Outline of the training protocol that was used in the study (adapted from Robbins. 2012)

In the following 6 weeks, all subjects trained according to a 2-way split program (cf. figure 1), which differed only in the amount of working sets the subjects had to perform on the regular barbell squat, the only lower body exercise in their programs. The lower leg strength of the study participants was assessed at 4 time-points: (1) at the end of the initial standardization period, (2) after the third week and (3) at the end of the 6-week volume manipulation phase, and (4) after the completion of the 4-week post-program phase.

Figure 2: Repetitions per set in the first set and average repetitions per set in all working sets (left) and minimal (avg. - 1x standard deviation) and maximal (avg. +1SD) total number of barbell squat repetitions the subjects in the 1-, 4- and 8-SET groups performed during the 6-week volume manipulation phase (data adapted from Robbins. 2012)

As the data in figure 2 goes to show, the comparatively higher training volume in the 4- and 8-SET (cf. figure 2, right) conditions took a toll not only on the average number of repetitions per set, but also on the the number of reps they cranked out on their first working set of barbell squats. Robbins et al. attribute this effect to the psychological burden of having to perform another 3, respectively 7 sets and advise practitioners (i.e. trainers) to be "cognizant of this [tendency to] 'hold back' in early sets to perform better in later sets", when they design a program.

There is no "one size fits it all" volume, but ...

If we now take a look at the actual study outcome in figure 3 it becomes obvious that at least a certain sub-group of those "practitioners" will probably also have to revise their approach to building strength from a very low, to a higher volume approach. After all, the 1-SET group did not only register the smallest gains in lower body strength, a statistically significant increase in strength (as denoted by the asterisk "*" in figure 3) did occur only in the second half of the intervention period, whereas the subjects in both the 4- and 8-SET groups experienced statistically significant strength gains right from the start.

Figure 3: Maximal squat strength (kg) and relative increase in squat strength during different periods of the study; * statistically different from baseline, # statistically different from 1-SET group (data adapted from Robbins. 2012)

In the 4-SET group, on the other hand, we do see a statistically significant increase in strength in the first 3 weeks of the intervention period, already. In the following 3 weeks, however, the strength of the subjects in the 4-SET group stagnated, so that the overall increase in lower body strength of the 1-SET and 4-SET groups at the end of the both the 6-week volume adaptation as well as the 4-week post program phase did not show statistically significant differences. This lead Robbins et al. to speculate that...

[...] over the longer 6-week period, the accumulated volume and associated training stimulus were sufficient to elicit an effect similar to that elicited via the 4-SET condition

This does yet not change the significantly greater and above all steady increases in lower body strength in the 8-SET group, which - somewhat surprisingly - continued even into the post 4-week post program phase, when the study participants were again training according to identical full-body workout plans.

... for advanced trainees a higher volume appears to illicit favorable lower body strength gains.

Image 2: Only a few "gifted" and often "artificially enhanced" athletes can train still intense, when they increase their training volume to Coleman'ish or in this case Tom Platz'ish levels,

Against that background the main take-home-message of the study appears to be that advanced strength athletes benefit from an increase in training volume from 1 or 4 to a still very reasonable level of 8 working sets per workout.

These results do yet  not justify the insane 2h+ "mammoth" leg workouts especially bony beginners (I would hope they are beginners, as they surely look like that) like to do to "bring up their wheels" - I mean, come on, even if you use Coleman'ish "supplements" doing 5 sets of squats, 4 sets of leg presses, 3 sets of lunges, 3 sets of leg extensions and whatever else may come to your mind will either burn you out within 2 weeks, or amplify the aforementioned tendency "to hold back" to a degree that will turn your strength into a whacky cardio workout.

So, please bear in mind: If some is good and more is better, this rarely means that even more would be even better... but I guess this is enough "wise-assing" for today ;-)