Will 2015 Be the Year You Pick up The Kettlebells? Find Out If Your Strength, Fitness & Physique Would Benefit

2015 may offer a chance to get spice up your routine with kettlebells.

"Moderate evidence indicates that kettlebell training may be safe and effective for increasing certain functional strength and power measures and may show positive results with postural control in young, healthy populations," says a recent review of the literature in Physical Therapy Reviews (Girard. 2014) and does thus sound positively optimistic, but by far not as euphoric as some kettlebell warriors on the Internet.

Those of you who know me are probably aware that I am not a fan of kettle bells, but I am true to the motto of being open to good scientific evidence, like the one from the previously cited review by Girard et al. (2014).

I won't lie to you: I believe there are better muscle builders than kettlebells

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

Alternating Squat & Blood Pressure - Productive?

Pre-Exhaustion Exhausts Your Growth Potential

Full ROM ➯ Full Gains - Form Counts!

Battle the Rope to Get Ripped & Strong

Study Indicates Cut the Volume Make the Gains!

Speaking of which, the previously cited review found only five studies satisfied the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. The populations studied age range was 18–72 years old. Methodological scores based on the PEDro scale ranged from 3 to 7 out of 10. In those studies, ...

[k]ettlebell training demonstrated improvements for a number of strength measures: time 6 group for bench press ( P < 0.05) and back extension (P = 0.053), main effect for clean and jerk (P < 0.05) and certain power measures such as improved explosive strength comparable to a jump squat control (19.8% increase). Improved postural control was demonstrated in one study (P = 0.04)" (Girard. 2014).

What the kettlebells did not do in any of the five studies by Otto et al. (2012), Manoccia et al. (2013), Lake et al. (2012) and Jay et al. (2011 & 2013) was to have an effect on aerobic endurance as measured by VO2 Max.

Original photos from the study by McGill et al. (2014).

Isn't Kettlebell training bad for your back? No, it isn't. According to data from a 2012 study by McGill, kettlebell training rather than being bad for the back provides unique muscular pulses to the abdominals which, "[t]ogether with the muscle bracing associated with carries create kettlebell-specific training opportunities" makes McGill et al. conclude that the "unique loading patterns discovered during the kettlebell swing [...] which is opposite in polarity to a traditional lift" may in fact be the reason why "many individuals credit kettlebell swings with restoring and enhancing back health and function, although a few find that they irritate tissues" (McGill. 2014).

According to McGill et al. (2014) the "message for coaches is" that the kettlebell offers "several unique training opportunities", for example (a) the opportunity to train rapid muscle contraction-relaxation cycles emphasizing posterior chain power development about the hip. However, the large shear to compression load ratio on the lumbar spine created during swing exercises suggests that this training approach may be contraindicated for some individuals with spine shear load intolerance and (b) enhanced activation of the core musculature during the bottoms-up carry.

The non-significance of the oxygen uptake and thus the non-existence of conditioning effects may come as a surprise for those of you have already done kettlebell swings. Rightly so, as I would argue, because this result of the review is based mainly on the results of Jay et al. (2011) who invited 57 employees of a large pharmaceutical company for a physical examination. Of those only 43 showed up (motivation to work their assess off ↓) of whom 40 men and women in their mid-forties then trained for 20 minutes included a 5 –10 minute warm up and a 10–15 minute interval training consisting of 10 intervals of 30 seconds with rest period of 30–60 seconds which began with ZERO workload and was progressively intensified by the participants choice!

Kettlebell, weights, or ergometer, you have to work your ass off to make progress!

That's much in contrast to Fortner et al. (2014) who had their 14 young (18-25y), non-obese volunteers train three times a week for 8 weeks with 4.5kg and 8kg kettlebells for the female and male subjects, respectively in a "tabata style", i.e. at a twenty-second work to ten-second rest ratio and compared the VO2 response to a traditional protocol, consisting of four sets of work separated by ninety seconds of rest.

Figure 1: Subjective Borg RPE response to Tabata versus traditional kettlebell swing protocols in healthy, young adults. TAB- Tabata, TRADtraditional (left). % of peak VO2 value achieved during Tabata and traditional kettlebell swing protocols in healthy, young adults (right | Fortner. 2014).

As you can see in Figure 1 the response to the two different workouts was very different - despite the fact that the total number of swings from each individual's "tabata condition" (TBA) was equally divided into four sets for their "tradititional condition" (TRAD). From non-kettlebell studies, we know that training at an intensity like this, even if it's done for only a few minutes, will just as Fortner et al. say "safely and effectively provide multi-faceted exercise adaptations with a relatively short time investment" (Fortner. 2014) - an assumption that's backed by a 2011 study by Falatic et al. that used a 15s/15s protocol and elicited significant increases in VO2max in seventeen female NCAA Division I collegiate soccer players.

Figure 2: Energy expenditure during two-hand kettlebell exercise and graded treadmill walking (Thomas. 2014).

Furthermore, James et al.  (2014) were recently able to show that a KB routine consisting of 2-hand swings and sumo deadlifts with 3-minute rest periods produces similar metabolic responses to those of a moderate-intensity treadmill walking protocol designed for the improvement of aerobic fitness in 5 women, 5 men between 21 and 31 years of age - and, as you can see in Figure 2, it also burned a few extra calories.

A comparison with treadmill walking is yet not enough to confirm that kettlebell training is also superior to "regular" HIIT training. Personally, I suspect it isn't but it's at least a good way to diversify your training routines and create a new exercise stimulus that may even help you break through a plateau.

You're not interested in fitness? What about improve- ments in glucose tolerance, then? Samantha Leigh Greenwald found in her master thesis that kettlebell training can improve glucose clea- rance in young sedentary men" and concludes that the results of her study "suggest that kettlebell training may provide an inexpen- sive home-based approach for prevention or management of type 2 diabetes" (Greenwald. 2014).

Speaking of diversification: Another recent study by Budnar Jr, et al. who investigated the testosterone, GH and cortisol response to kettlebell training, indicates that "the kettlebell swing exercise might [in fact] provide a good supplement to resistance training programs" (Budnar Jr. 2014).

So, in case you are just working on your 2015 workout routine, you may want to give kettlebells a chance. In that you may, for example, replace one of your regular HIIT training sessions with a brief, but intense tabata-style kettle bell workout as it was described by James et al. (2014): 2-hand swings and sumo deadlifts with 3-minute | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Falatic, Jonathan Asher. "The effects of kettlebell training on aerobic capacity." San José state University (2011).
• Fortner, Howard A., et al. "Cardiovascular and metabolic demands of the kettlebell swing using a Tabata interval versus a traditional resistance protocol." International Journal of Exercise Science 7.3 (2014): 2. 
• Greenwald, Samantha Leigh. The impact of an acute bout of kettlebell exercise on glucose tolerance in sedentary males. Diss. State University of New York at Buffalo, 2014.
• Jay, Kenneth, et al. "Kettlebell training for musculoskeletal and cardiovascular health: a randomized controlled trial." Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health (2011): 196-203.
• Jay, Kenneth, et al. "Effects of kettlebell training on postural coordination and jump performance: a randomized controlled trial." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 27.5 (2013): 1202-1209.
• Lake, Jason P., and Mike A. Lauder. "Mechanical demands of kettlebell swing exercise." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 26.12 (2012): 3209-3216.
• Manocchia, Pasquale, et al. "Transference of kettlebell training to strength, power, and endurance." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 27.2 (2013): 477-484.
• McGill, Stuart M., and Leigh W. Marshall. "Kettlebell swing, snatch, and bottoms-up carry: back and hip muscle activation, motion, and low back loads." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 26.1 (2012): 16-27. 
• Otto III, William H., et al. "Effects of weightlifting vs. kettlebell training on vertical jump, strength, and body composition." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 26.5 (2012): 1199-1202.
• Thomas, James F., et al. "Comparison of Two-Hand Kettlebell Exercise and Graded Treadmill Walking: Effectiveness as a Stimulus for Cardiorespiratory Fitness." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 28.4 (2014): 998-1006.

Add Two Pounds of Lean Mass in Three Weeks W/ HIIT. HIIT Sprint Training Builds Muscle & Anaerobic Power While Reducing the Exercise Induced GH Response by 64%

HIIT - A GH diminishing mass builder?

I know it sounds contradictory, at first. If you take into considerations that previous studies show that the post-exercise increase in growth (and other) hormones does not correlate with the beneficial adaptational effects of exercise, it's actually no longer that surprising that researchers from the Department of Exercise Physiology at the Winston-Salem State University found that "[o]ne week of HIT significantly decreased GH release, with a simultaneous significant increase in anaerobic power and lean body mass of the lower extremities." (Ritsche. 2014)

In their latest paper which appeared in the December edition of the Journal of Exercise Physiology Kevin Ritsche, Jason Smith, Paul Mellick, and Laurie Wideman report the results of a recent experiment in the course of which 19 recreationally active male subjects (24.9 ± 3.9 yrs) completed a one-week high intensity interval training.

You can learn more about HIIT at the SuppVersity

Never Train To Burn Calories!

Tabata = 14.2kcal /min ≠ Fat Loss

30s Intervals + 2:1 Work/Rec.

Making HIIT a Hit Part I/II

Making HIIT a Hit Part II/II

HIIT Ain't For Everyone

The training protocol used in the study was based on similar high-intensity protocols published by Burgomaster et al. (2005) and Gibala et al. (2006) and began 24 hrs after the completion of a pre-test that was designed to measure the baseline fitness, body fat and lean body mass (by DEXA), as well as the acute GH response to high intensity exercise in the 19 young subjects.

The training protocol consisted of 4 to 6 repetitions of 30-sec maximal sprints and was performed three times per week for 3 weeks. One day of rest intervened each training session.

"The first 3 training sessions consisted of four 30-sec repetitions at 7.5% body mass with 4 min of active recovery at 50 W between each repetition. Training sessions 4 to 6 (wk 2) consisted of 5 repetitions, and sessions 7 to 9 (wk 3) consisted of six 30-sec maximal repetitions. During each repetition, each subject was encouraged verbally to provide maximal effort" (Ritsche. 2014).

At the end of each week, 48 hrs after the third training session for the week, subjects completed the acute sprint test protocol outlined previously (including blood draws).

Figure 1: Changes in body composition in response to the 3-week hiit-training protocol. the percentages above the bars indicate the relative difference between pre- and post-value. The light bars tell you that the corresponding changes were not statistically significant (Ritsche. 2014).

At least 48 hrs after the final blood profile, a post-training DXA scan was completed as outlined previously.

Figure 2: (a) Peak power; (b) peak power-corrected for subjects’ body mass; and (c) fatigue index during each 30-sec maximal cycle ergometer acute sprint (as) before and after 3 wks of hit; and (d) total combined workload of every sprint during each training week (Ritsche. 2014)

As you can see in Figure 1, the DXA-scans revealed significant increases in total and leg lean mass, albeit only non-significant reductions in body fat - changes which went hand in hand with a profound increase in exercise performance (see Figure 2) and a significant reduction of the initially observed post-exercise growth hormone spikes (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: Peak growth hormone concentrations after the workouts during the pre-test and after 1, 2 & 3 weeks of training; %-ages indicate difference to pre-value (Ritsche. 2014).

Bottom line: If you take into consideration that there is a close association between the post-workout growth hormone release and the relative exercise intensity - i.e. relative to one's individual fitness level and the corresponding demands of the exercise - the amelioration of the growth hormone response could be a consequence of the adaptation process that occurred in the course of the three week intervention.

It is thus not necessarily a bad thing and does therefore not stand in contrast to the adaptational response Ritsche et al. describe in their latest paper. If you take another look at Figure 3 and compare the GH response to the adaptations in Figure 2, it rather indicates that the subjects got used to the exercise | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Burgomaster, Kirsten A., et al. "Six sessions of sprint interval training increases muscle oxidative potential and cycle endurance capacity in humans." Journal of applied physiology 98.6 (2005): 1985-1990.
• Gibala, Martin J., et al. "Short-term sprint interval versus traditional endurance training: similar initial adaptations in human skeletal muscle and exercise performance." The Journal of physiology 575.3 (2006): 901-911.
• Ritsche, Kevin, et al. "Acute Exercise-Induced Growth Hormone is Attenuated in Response to Short-Term, High-Intensity Exercise Training." Journal of Exercise Physiology (2014).

Strongman Training is as Effective as Traditional Resistance Training in Improving Body Comp, Muscular Function & Performance, Study Claims - The Data Suggests Otherwise

This image of heavy sled pulls was taken during one of the strongmen training sessions in the study at hand - for the full protocol see Table 1 (Winwood. 2014)

Brad Schoenfeld's recent study on the differential effects of 3x10 vs. 7x3 rep x set resistance training regimen (reread corresponding SuppVersity Article) took much of the wind óut of the sails of the proponents of classic hypertrophy training (3-4 sets of 8-12 reps) as the one and only training method for anyone thriving for maximal muscle gains.

An even more recent study by Paul Winwood et al. that's about to be published in the upcoming issue of the #1 journal for everything strength training, i.e. the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, does not just support the findings of Schoenfeld et al. it claims "that short term strongman training programs are as effective as traditional resistance training programs in improving aspects of body composition, muscular function and performance." (Winwood. 2014)

Maybe adding some HIIT training compensates the body fat gain with strongman training

Never Train To Burn Calories!

Tabata = 14.2kcal /min ≠ Fat Loss

30s Intervals + 2:1 Work/Rec.

Making HIIT a Hit Part I/II

Making HIIT a Hit Part II/II

HIIT Increases Post-Workout GH

Next to the fact that the two protocols in the study at hand were neither volume-matched nor based on the same exercises, there is yet another highly significant difference between the study at hand and the aforementioned powerlifting vs. classic resistance training study by Schoenfeld et al. the conclusion of the Winwood study is only "statistically correct". From a practical point of view, on the other hand, the body composition part of it is total bullshit.

If you take a look at the actual "body composition" data, even a blind man sees that the strongman protocol that consisted seven weeks /two obligatory training sessions per week) of the resistance training protocols outlined in Table 1 and two facultative, non-supervised and recorded sessions of prehabilition exercises, as well as two cardiovascular training sessions per week.

Table 1: Outline of the training protocols; * indicates that the exercise is performed explosively (Winwood. 2014)

The first thing you should realize after taking a look at the "traditional" protocol is that it's traditional, but not the protocol you would traditionally use if your main goal was to build muscle. The number of repetitions is too low there is no individual training for the arms - both of which are characteristics most hypertrophy regimens share.

Published ahead of print warning: I am not 100% sure that the data in the tables of the full text are accurate. The changes in strength parameters, for example are all negative. The article, on the other hand, speaks of increases, which is why I simply removed the "-", when I plotted the graph in Figure 1, which is now in line with the results discussed in the text.

This alone wouldn't be that bad, if the conclusion that both training regimen had identical effects on the body composition of the subjects wasn't simply flawed.

Figure 1: Changes in body composition and strength (Winwood. 2014)

Ok, the differences may not be statistically significant, but if one regimen, i.e. the "traditional" training improves, while the strongman training compromises the body composition of young men, I would be very hesitant to state that "strongman training programs are as effective as traditional resistance training programs in improving aspects of body composition" (Winwood. 2014).

If the trend the researchers must obviously have overlooked (or ignored) continues, the guys in the "traditional group" will soon look like ripped men's fitness cover models, while the guys in the strongmen group will develop a pot belly. Not exactly what anyone could want. Even if you don't care about being jacked, looking at the effects on body fat, the "traditional" strength training protocol would also classify as the healthier training regimen.

Suggested read: "Want to Get Ripped & Strong? "Battling the Rope" Could be THE Exercise to Do! The "Battle" is More Demanding Than Squats, Lunges and Deadlifts - Only Burpees Come Close" | more

Bottom line: Although the study does not, as the researchers claim, provide evidence for the efficacy of strongmen training as body composition improvers, the two regimen are in fact equally effective in improving strength and performance variables.

If you are more into increases your 1RM squat and deadlift (ES = 0.66), change of direction (COD) turning ability and total COD time, horizontal jump, and sled push performance you should gravitate towards traditional training. If, on the other hand, you are looking to improve your 1RM bent over row, 5 m sprint performance and COD acceleration, strongmen training should be your first choice.

If we assume you actually do the facilitative cardio sessions (I assume the lazy study participants didn't because it wasn't controlled), you may even achieve the same improvements in body composition (-0.4% body fat) on the strongman regimen. Furthermore we should not forget: Abs are made in the kitchen, not in the gym (learn more) - without reliable data on the quantity & quality of the food the subjects consumed the changes in body composition are hard to ascribe (solely) to the different training regimen.

Reference:

• Winwood, PW, et al. "Strongman  versus  traditional  resistance  training  effects  on  muscular  function  and  performance." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2014). Publish Ahead of Print. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000629

Isn't High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) For Everyone? Study Puts "!" Behind "Personalized Training" - Fitness, Fatness, Age & More Determine Its Effective- & Usefulness

Isn't HIIT for everyone? Study suggests: Effective- and usefulness of high intensity interval training depend on age and fitness level.

You will remember the two-part article serious about HIIT training "Making HIIT a HIT!" (Part I, Part II) I wrote back in 2012... you didn't well, although I would suggest you read it now, you will understand the idea of personalized HIIT training and there being no single optimal training regimen that works for everyone, anyways - right?

Good! Accordingly, you are not surprised that researchers from tie California State University San Marcos and the Griffith University at the Gold Coast in Queensland, Australia, teamed up to identify individual HIIT-responders and HIIT-non-responders.

You can learn more about HIIT at the SuppVersity

Never Train To Burn Calories!

Tabata = 14.2kcal /min ≠ Fat Loss

30s Intervals + 2:1 Work/Rec.

Making HIIT a Hit Part I/II

Making HIIT a Hit Part II/II

Triple Your Energy Exp.

The idea was to test whether there would be common denominators in those who do and those who don't respond with improvements in VO2max and lipid oxidation, as well as heart function and heart rate two commonly used modalities of interval training which have been previously-employed in the scientists lab.

"It was hypothesized that frequency of ‘‘non-responders’’ would be less than that typically reported after endurance training" (Astorino. 2014)

The ultimate goal obviously is the development of individualized exercise prescription which may help optimize responses to training and overall health status of various individuals.

In this particular case this meant determining whether the 20 habitually-active men and women who participated in part 1 of the study would show inter-individual as well as inter-group differences compared to the 20 non-obese sedentary women from part 2 of the study.

• In study 1, recreationally-active men and women underwent 2 wk of Wingate-based standardized interval treatment. At baseline and after completion of training, measures of VO2max, HR, and lipid oxidation were determined on separate days at least 24 h apart. Participants were required to maintain their habitual training status which was confirmed with a training log, and time of day was standardized within subjects across all trials. 

• 

  SuppVersity Suggested Read: "More HMB Free Acid Science: Now It's Also Good For High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) Says the Latest Sponsored Trial W/Out Calcium HMB Control in Young Men & Women" | read more

  In study 2, sedentary young women completed 12 wk of a more tolerable form of interval training at intensities equal to 60–80% or 80–90%Wmax, during which these variables were assessed at baseline and every 3 wk of the study over two separate sessions. They were required to refrain from additional physical activity other than activities of daily living outside of the study. Exercise was performed at approximately the same time of day (#60 min) within participants. In both studies, body composition was assessed pre- and post-training using waist:hip ratio and sum of threeskinfolds (chest, abdomen, thigh for men and triceps, suprailiac, and thigh for women) following standardized procedures.

The fact that we are comparing the short-term effects (4–6 per day at intensities = 200–300%Wmax) over a 2 wk period.) in healthy trained men and women to the long-term effects of 3 d/wk of interval training for 12 wk (six to ten 1 min bouts of cycling at work rates equal to 60–80%Wmax or 80–90%Wmax) in untrained, but still healthy women is allegedly not 100% logical and reduces the significance of the results.

Figure 1: Changes in HR and fat oxidation in trained (left, part 1) & untrained (right, part 2) individuals (Astorino. 2014)

The latter is yet only true for the inter-group, yet not the intra-group comparisons, of which the data in Figure 1 leaves no doubt that it confirms the existance of responsers and non-responders to both regimen:

"Frequency of improved fat oxidation was similar (60–65%) across regimens. Only one participant across both interventions showed nonresponse for all variables." (Astorino. 2014)

Interestingly, the vaseline values of VO2 max, exercise HR, respiratory exchange ratio, and body fat were significant predictors of adaptations to interval training:

• Positive predictors of increases in VO2max were low baseline fitness (difficult to improve what's already top) and high effort during the wingate test.
• Positive predictors of improved heart rate was a high age and a high baseline heart rate
• Positive predictors of increases in fat oxidation were a low baseline physical activity and a low age.

In other words, the short-term wingate protocol (intense HIIT) is most beneficial for the lazy ones, in general and helps the elderly with heart health, and the young with increasing their fat oxidation. For the low intensity chronic regimen things were similar: Body fatness was another non-fitness related positive predictor of increases in VO2max and improvements in heart rate and fat oxidation.

I can only repeat my recommendations: If you are sedentary and obese, go slowly, it's likely you benefit much more from chronic low intensity interval training or even steady state exercise. If you are lean and athletic, HIIT it hard, but be careful! If you are also lifting weights, it may make more sense to do some regular cardio (LISS) and one or another plyometrics workout if ultimate leanness and the perfect body are your goals.

Bottom line: The study at hand does not deliver the promised experimental evidence one could use to program a personalized training regimen. In the end, it the design is just too limited to provide the corresponding information.

What the study did do, though, is confirm the already well-known associations between current effort and previous laziness with respect to the effective "gain" you can make in the gym or wherever else you may be working out: The lower your baseline fitness, the higher your fatness and the lower your activity levels the greater the impact of both: Low intensity long-term and high intensity short-term HIIT training. If you are the lean athletic type you will thus have to go really "high" on the intensity side to trigger a response... And maybe, just maybe, doing some LISS + weights is the better idea to get the body you're dreaming of, anyways. For me personally,it is the more sustainable way of training.

References:

• Astorino TA, Schubert MM (2014) Individual Responses to Completion of Short-Term and Chronic Interval Training: A Retrospective Study. PLoS ONE 9(5): e97638.

Trying to Build Strength? Periodized Training Yields 30% / 34% / 77% Increases in Bench Press, Squat and Deadlift Performance in Elite(!) Powerlifters over 16 Weeks

With the huge success of Crossfit more and more women are "hitting the weights"

Almost 80% increase in deadlift performance in "elite powerlifters" with 7 ± 3 yrs of training experience and a mean age of 34 ± 5 yrs and a mean body mass of 94.4 ± 16.7 kg? That's catching your attention, right? Now, what would you say that there was no magic supplement involved and that the periodization routine the researchers prescribed to their 9 male study participants is far from being revolutionary?

You're still interested to learn more? Even if I tell you that the baseline lifts don't look very elite, rather average, though? Let's see, then, what the subjects had to do during their three weekly 120min training sessions.

Want to get stronger? Don't take creatine? Huge mistake! Learn why at the SuppVersity

Creatine Doubles 'Ur GainZ!

Creatine, DHT & Broscience

Creatine Better After Workout

ALA + Creatine = Max Uptake?

Creatine Blunts Fat Loss?

Build 'Ur Own Buffered Creatine

As the graphical overview in Figure 1 shows, the subjects trained in four mesocycles, each of them lasting for four weeks (although the fulltext does not mention this, I assume that the subjects did all three exercises in all sessions - how else would you spend 120 training minutes?).

Figure 1: Overview of the study protocol and assessment points 1-5 (Allegretti. 2014)

Well, if we are honest, this is not 100% exact. The last of the four mesocycles was actually further devided into two 2-week and one 1-week microcycles... but I guess, it's best you check out the details in Table 1 for yourself.

Table 1. Periodization of 4 Powerlifting Training Mesocycles. Explanation of the acronyms: MESO: mesocycle; MICRO: microcycle; No. SER: number of sets; No. REP: number of repetitions; ID: rest interval; RM%: percentage of 1 repetition maximum; CT: Workload (the product of sets x reps)

I am not sure how familiar you are with classic powerlifting programs, but I personally wouldn't call the above scheme "revolutionary". What I would do, though, is call the results it produced over the course of the 16-week study period "damn impressive!".

Figure 2: Strength development from one assessment (AS) to the other (Allegretti. 2014)

Overall the researchers recorded highly significant strength increases of 31.7kg, 45.0kg and 101.7kg in the three major powerlifting exercises, the bench press, the squat and the deadlift, respectively.

Tapering is a must for professional athletes before an event like the Olympic games - learn how to do it in a previous SuppVersity article.

Bottom line: Assuming that strength (not size - that may need a higher volume and lower rest times) is your main goal, you may want to spend the next four months doing exactly what Table 1 tells you to do.

Assuming that you're eating clean (and enough), it would be a real stroke of bad luck if you didn't increase all your major lifts... well, a stroke of bad luck or the inability to recognize that the real "strength explosion" occurs only, when you are reducing volume and intensity of at the end of mesocycle four and the subsequent ignorance towards the worth of layoff phases and weeks of well-deserved rest.

Reference: 

• Astorino, Todd, et al. "Effect of 16 Weeks of Periodized Resistance Training on Strength Gains of Powerlifting Athletes." Journal of Exercise Physiologyonline 17.3 (2014).