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

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

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

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

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

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

Block Periodization Done Right

Linear vs. Undulating Periodizationt

12% Body Fat in 12 Weeks W/ Periodizatoin

Detraining + Periodization - How to?

Intensify Your Training W/ NEMS

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

"HRS training? Never heard of it!?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 

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

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

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

What are the practical implications, then?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

Shorter Inter-Set Rest Periods Maximize Muscle Activation During Antagonist Super-Set Training - Downstream Effects on Strength and Size Gains Less Unambigous

You don't have to push and pull at the same time - don't worry!

You may have read Menno Henselmans', Brad J. Schoenfeld's review of the effects of inter-set rest periods on muscle and strength gains in the latest issue of Sports Medicine (Henselmans. 2019). In said paper, Henselmans and Schoenfeld conclude that the increase in the production of purportedly anabolic hormones in response to the reduction of rest-times to 1 min or less is, at best, weakly related to the long(er)-term study outcomes.

The reason I am repeating this previously cited conclusion is simple, I don't want you to overrate the increase muscular activation Marianna F. Mai and colleagues from the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro and the  Eastern Illinois University report in a soon-to-be-published paper in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (Maia. 2014).

Learn more about building muscle at www.suppversity.com

Optimizing Rest for Size and Strength Gains

Alternating Squat & BP - Productive?

Pre-Exhaustion Exhausts Your Growth Potential

Full ROM ➯ Full Gains - Form Counts!

Battle the Rope to Get Ripped & Strong

Cut the Volume Make the Gains!

In the corresponding randomized cross-over study the scientists randomly assigned their fifteen recreatinally trained male subjects subsequently to one out of the six resistance training modes outlined in Figure 1:

Figure 1: Summary for experimental protocol trials. TP = traditional protocol; PMR = paired sets with minimal
allowable rest; P30 = protocol with 30-second rest interval; P1 = protocol with 1-minute rest interval; P3 =
protocol with 3-minute rest interval; P5 = protocol with 5-minute rest interval (Maia. 2014)

The recovery period between the experimental protocols, which were executed on conventional resistance training machines, was between 48 and 72 hours. The number of repetitions performed and the EMG activity of vastus lateralis (VL), vastus medialis (VM), and rectus femoris (RF) muscles were recorded during the knee extension set in each protocol.

So, how exactly did the resistance training protocol look like?

Before all protocols, warm up sets for the knee flexion (KF) and knee extension (KE) exercises were performed for 10–15 repetitions with 50% of the 10RM load, and then a 2-minute interval was instituted before initiating each protocol. To verify the acute effect of rest interval between paired sets of agonist and antagonist muscles, 5 experimental protocols were applied as the following.

• 

  SuppVersity Suggested Read: "Want to Design a Killer Workout? Reduce the Rest Times and Burn 37% More Energy During Your Workout!" | more

  Traditional protocol: the subjects in this protocol performed a set of KE with 10RM loads until concentric failure;
• PMR (antagonist paired sets = APS with minimal allowable rest interval): the subjects in this protocol performed a set of KF followed immediately by a set of KE. In addition, the time allowed for changing exercises (KF and KE) was fixed and controlled at 15 seconds.
• P30: the subjects in this protocol performed a set of KF and after 30 seconds of rest performed a set of KE;
• P1:the subjects performed a set of KF and after 1 minute of rest performed a set of KE;
• P3: the subjects in this protocol performed a set of KF and after 3-minute rest performed a set of KE; 
• P5: the subjects in this protocol performed a set of KF and after 5-minute rest performed a set of KE. 

During the resistance exercises (KF and KE), the 10RM loads were adopted, and the number of repetitions completed were recorded in each protocol. The EMG signal of the VL, VM, and RF was also recorded during the KE exercise.

Will this work for back and chest, as well? Due to the fact that the biomechanics are different, the outcome of antagonistic sets of say bent over row and bench presses will probably be very different. Still, studies by Robbins et al. (2009 & 2010a,b) suggest that push and pull training could produce superior results compared to regular push or pull workouts.

All subjects had previous RT experience (2.7 +/- 0.8 years), with a mean frequency of four 60-minute sessions per week, using 1- to 2-minute rest intervals between sets and exercises. Subjects were on their typical diet, not permitted to use nutritional supplementation, and did not consume anabolic steroids or any other anabolic agents known to enhance performance.

Figure 2: Number of repetitions completed in each protocol and RMS average of EMG amplitude for the muscles evaluated in each protocol; data expressed relative to group means (Maia. 2014)

As you can see there were two factors influencing the muscle activation: The inter-set rest periods and the execution of knee flexion (KF) and knee extension (KE) exercises shortly after each other.

Increases in activity and rep-max (volume) = growth triggers?

Consistent with previous studies by Baker et al. (2005), Balsamo et al. (2012), Burke et al. (1999), Joean et al- (2001) and Roy et al. (1990), the repetition performance increased in response to the antagonist preactivation. This effect was albeit only evident, when the timespan between knee flexion and extension, i.e. the inter-set rest was below 3 minutes.

"Collectively, greater KE repetitions were demonstrated during the PMR, P30, and P1 protocols vs. the TP, P3, and P5 protocols. These data suggested that limited or minimal rest between APS provides the optimal window to enhance repetition performance and muscle activation for the agonist musculature. The longer rest intervals in this study (e.g., P3 and P5) seemed to negate the potentiation effects demonstrated in repetition performance and muscle activation." (Maia. 2014)

As Mia et al. point out, the significantly greater muscle activation observed in the RF and VM muscles for the PMR and P30 protocols might be associated with the increased number of repetitions
completed for these conditions.

Similar results have been generated by Roy et al. (25) who suggested that the preactivation characteristic of APS training has a positive effect on agonist muscles because of the facilitatory stimulation of Golgi tendon organs of knee flexor muscles and muscle spindles of extensor
muscle.

So, shall I train like this? In the absence of data on the chronic effects of the different exercise modalities it is difficult to answer this justifiable question.

Supersets are also among Adelfo Cerame Jr's favorite training techniques | learn more about his "Fave Five", here at the SuppVersity.

The authors of the study at hand are unquestionably right, when they say that "[e]xercise models performed using a reciprocal antagonist/agonist protocol, as in this study, might be less time consuming and could be useful in clinical practice as well as sports performance training." (Mia. 2014).

Next to the increased time efficacy, there may be benefits related to the increase in muscle activation of which you should remember that it is restricted to the 2nd exercise in the superset. In other words, if you decide to copy the protocol in the study at hand, you should be aware that your quads, not your ham strings will benefit. Whether this is also going to result in increased strength and size gains, however, is - as mentioned in the context of rest times in general at the beginning of this article, questionable. In view of the fact that the knee flexions increased not just the muscle activation, but the number of reps, as well, I wouldn't be surprised if the consequent increase in training stimulus would pay off over time | Comment on Facebook!

Reference:

• Baker, Daniel, and Robert U. Newton. "Acute effect on power output of alternating an agonist and antagonist muscle exercise during complex training." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 19.1 (2005): 202-205.
• Balsamo, Sandor, et al. "Exercise order affects the total training volume and the ratings of perceived exertion in response to a super-set resistance training session." International journal of general medicine 5 (2012): 123.
• Burke, Darren G., Thomas W. Pelham, and LAURENCE E. HOLT. "The influence of varied resistance and speed of concentric antagonistic contractions on subsequent concentric agonistic efforts." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 13.3 (1999): 193-197.
• Henselmans, Menno, and Brad J. Schoenfeld. "The Effect of Inter-Set Rest Intervals on Resistance Exercise-Induced Muscle Hypertrophy." Sports Medicine (2014): 1-9. 
• Jeon, HS, Trimble, MH, Brunt, D, and Robinson, ME. "Facilitation of quadriceps activation following a concentrically controlled knee flexion movement: the influence of transition rate." J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 31 (2001): 122–129.
• Maia Marianna F. et al. "Effects of Different Rest Intervals Between Antogonist Paired Sets on Repetition Performance and Muscle Activation." Journal of Strength and Conditioning 28, 9 (2014): 2529-2535.
• Robbins, Daniel W., et al. "Effects of agonist–antagonist complex resistance training on upper body strength and power development." Journal of sports sciences 27.14 (2009): 1617-1625.
• Robbins, Daniel W., et al. "The effect of a complex agonist and antagonist resistance training protocol on volume load, power output, electromyographic responses, and efficiency." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 24.7 (2010a): 1782-1789.
• Robbins, Daniel W., Warren B. Young, and David G. Behm. "The effect of an upper-body agonist-antagonist resistance training protocol on volume load and efficiency." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 24.10 (2010b): 2632-2640.
• Roy, M-A., et al. "Proprioceptive facilitation of muscle tension during unilateral and bilateral knee extension." International journal of sports medicine 11.04 (1990): 289-292.

Alternate vs. Classic Resistance Training: Can You Bench in Between Your Squat Sets & Still Make Fabulous Gains?

What now? Wait 3 minutes or off to the bench for an alternate set of bench presses or pulls ?

Traditional strength training with 80% of one-repetition maximum (1RM) utilizes 2- to 5-minute rest periods between sets. These long rest periods minimize decreases in volume and intensity, but result in long workouts. Performing upper-body exercises during lower-body rest intervals may decrease workout duration, but may affect workout performance.

The above is how Anthony B. Ciccone, Lee E. Brown, Jared W. Coburn, Andrew J. Galpin kick off their latest paper in the venerable Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (Publish Ahead of Print).

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

Optimizing Rest for Size and Strength Gains

When Rodents Squat, We Can Learn A Lot!

Farmer's Walk or Squat? Is Strong- men T. For You?

Full ROM ➯ Full Gains - Form Counts!

Battle the Rope to Get Ripped & Strong

Up Your Squat by 25% With Sodium Bicarbonate

The purpose of the corresponding study was to compare the effects of traditional to those of alternating whole body strength training on squat performance. To this ends, Ciccone et al. recruites 20 youn men, who had to perform two workouts:

• The traditional set workout (TS) consisted of four sets of squats at 80% of 1RM on a force plate with 3-minutes rest between sets. 
• The alternating set workout (AS) also consisted of four sets of squats at 80% of 1RM but with bench press, and bench pull exercises performed between squat sets 1, 2 & 3 with between-exercise rest of 50 seconds, resulting in approximately 3-minutes rest between squat sets. 

For both workouts, sets 1-3 were performed for four repetitions, while set four was performed to concentric failure. The total number of completed repetitions, the peak ground reaction force (GRF), peak power, (PP), and average power (AP) of every squat repetition were recorded and averaged for each set.

Figure 1: Maximal # of reps on last set and average power in the classic vs. alternating condition (Ciccone. 2014)

Interestingly, there was no significant interaction for GRF, PP, or AP. Only, the volume-equated AP was ca. 5% greater during the TS condition (989 ± 183) than the AS condition (937 ± 176). A more pronounced difference which was yet still within the margin of one standard deviation (in this case 2.2. reps) was observed for the fourth squat set to failure, where the TS condition resulted in 15% more reps to failure (7.5 ± 2.2) than the AS condition (6.5 ± 2.2). Reason enough for Ciccone et al. to suggest that:

1. Individuals who aim to optimize squat AP should refrain from performing more than three AS sets per exercise.
2. Those who aim to maximize squat repetitions to failure should refrain from performing upper body multi-joint exercises during squat rest intervals.

Certainly a sound advice, but in the end, we all live in a world where time is a precious gem and some people give a fuck about average power and the number of reps until they fail.

Bottom line: The number of trainees I know whose interest in (1) average power and (2) maximal repetitions to failure exceeds their drive to improve their physiques is... well, let's say it's not exactly high. In view of the fact that the study at hand does not provide any relevant information about a potential decrement in muscle gains due to alternate training and considering the fact that I don't need a study to tell you that the shorter rest times in-between sets and the incorporation of bench press and bench pull is going to help you shed that belly of yours, the majority of trainees, I know will still be better off training according to AS, i.e. with alternate exercises in-between the sets and 50s instead of 3 minutes rest between sets.

Figure 2: Changes in right leg 1RM during the experimental 6-month strength-training period in both groups and the relative changes after the short rest (SR) and long rest (LR) training periods (Ahtianen. 2005).

Ah, I almost forget, four of the subjects actually increased the number of reps they performed in the alternate condition - and the standard deviation for the average power is larger than the difference between the two conditions. If you still insist that 3-min of rest are necessary you may be interested to hear that shorter rest periods are (a) consistently associated with increased GH release (de Salles. 2009) and (b) previous studies comparing short (2 min) vs. long (5 min) rest times have shown increased size gains (Figure 2) even in a non-alternating scenario (Ahtianen. 2005) - the conclusion that longer rest times lead to higher gains, 'cause you can lift more weight / do more reps is thus obviously unwarranted.

References:

• Ahtianen, Juha P., et al. "Short vs. long rest period between the sets in hypertrophic resistance training: influence on muscle strength, size, and hormonal adaptations in trained men." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 19.3 (2005): 572-582.
• Ciccone AB, et al. "Effects of Traditional Versus Alternating Whole-body Strength Training on Squat Performance." J Strength Cond Res. (2014) Jun 17. Ahead of print.
• de Salles, Belmiro Freitas, et al. "Rest interval between sets in strength training." Sports Medicine 39.9 (2009): 765-777.

Squat 8% More For Your 1-RM, NOW! And Generate 200% More Power After 7 Weeks of Training With Band-Aids. Plus: Method Works For Bench Presses (+100% Power), As Well

This is how it should look like, when you are doing variable resistance warm-ups or even complete workouts.

Sometimes it's the little things that can make all the difference. Little things such as resistance bands you'd use in addition to the barbell on your back during your warm-ups to generate 35% of the tension (e.g. 32.5kg from weights, 17.5kg from bands).

In a recent study from the University of Derby the increasing resistance the bands generate on the way up from the bottom position of the squat had a statistically significant beneficial effect on the maximal 1-RM weight the subjects, sixteen physically active men (age mean = 26.0 ± 7.8 yr, range 18 to 44 yr, height = 1.7 ± 0.2 m; mass = 82.6 ± 12.7 kg) with more than three years of serious weight training experience under their belts squatted in a subsequent 1-RM max effort.

You can learn more about squatting at the SuppVersity

Optimizing Rest for Size and Strength Gains

When Rodents Squat, We Can Learn A Lot!

Farmer's Walk or Squat? Is Strong- men T. For You?

Full ROM ➯ Full Gains - Form Counts!

Cut the Weight, Add the Vibe - Vibration Plates

Up Your Squat by 25% With Sodium Bicarbonate

As you can see in Figure 1 the use of the bands did yet not affect the EMG activity, which is often used as a measure for muscle activation. What did improve, though, was the form - or I should say the execution velocity; I mean, if you've squatted before you know how squatting your 1-RM max 20% slower than usual will hurt, right?

Figure 1: Mean EMG activity (difference n.s.), velocity and 1-RM during eccentric and concentric classic 1-RM squat after warming up with weight only (Classic) and with weight and resistance bands (+Band) in strength training veterans (Mina. 2014)

Unfortunately, the underyling reason of the performance boosting effects of this type of "dynamic" variable resistance workout have not yet been elucidated.

It is generally assumed that effects like the observed strength increases are a result of post-activation potentiation (PAP) which will increase the number of motor units and thus allow you to lift more weight.

Figure 2: Changes in 1RM max after 7 weeks of classic vs. band-aided training (Baker. 2009)

In the long(er) term this is assumed to induce superior increases in muscular strength and power. An effect, which appears to be substantiated by Anderson et al., Baker et al. (Anderson. 2008; Baker. 2009 | see Figure 2).

"Compared with C [control], improvement for E [elastic tension] was nearly three times greater for back squat (16.47 ± 5.67 vs. 6.84 ± 4.42 kg increase), two times greater for bench press (6.68 ± 3.41 vs. 3.34 ± 2.67 kg increase), and nearly three times greater for average power (68.55 ± 84.35 vs. 23.66 ± 40.56 watt increase)." (Baker. 2009)

Based on three times more pronounced strength gains, Baker et al. rightly conclude that "[t]raining with [combined elastic and free weight resistance] may be better than [classic free weight resistance training] alone for developing lower and upper body strength" (Baker. 2009).

Photo from the original publication (Mina. 2014)

This is something you, as an advanced trainee should try! What is particularly noteworthy is the fact that most of the studies, including the ones by Mina et al. (2014) and Baker et al. (2009), were conducted with resistance trained individuals. Men and women like yourself who are way past the weekly 10% increase in 1-RM max of a beginner.

The short and long term success the researchers observed should thus be reason enough for you to break out of your weekly routine, and get some "band-aid" in the literal sense to finally bust that damn bench press or squat plateau you've been struggling with for weeks, now. And let's be honest: What on earth do you have to lose?

References:

• Anderson, Corey E., Gary A. Sforzo, and John A. Sigg. "The effects of combining elastic and free weight resistance on strength and power in athletes." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 22.2 (2008): 567-574.
• Baker, Daniel G., and Robert U. Newton. "Effect of kinetically altering a repetition via the use of chain resistance on velocity during the bench press." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 23.7 (2009): 1941-1946.
• Mina et al. "The Influence Of Variable Resistance Loading On Subsequent Free Weight Maximal Back Squat Performance." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Publish Ahead of Print. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000471

No Superior Longterm Muscle/Strength Gain W/ Blood Flow Restriction - W/ Low Weights, BFR Gains Don't Differ From Those of Classic Strength Training to Failure

The benefits of blood flow restriction in healthy athletes may be less pronounced than the advocates would have it.

After the initial hype abated, only few people are still talking about blood flow restriction and its potential beneficial effects on strength and muscle gains. One of the reasons for the reduced enthusiasm among muscle heads is that all beneficial effects were observed in low intensity training; and "low intensity" = using low weights is not exactly what bros like to do.

Against that background it would be all the more important to be sure that reducing your training weights to 40% to do your blood flow restricted biceps curls is actually worth it.

You can learn more about BFR and Hypoxia Training at the SuppVersity

BFR, Cortisol & GH Responses

BFR - Where are we now?

Hypoxia + HIIT = Win?

BFR for Injured Athletes

Strength ⇧ | Size ⇩ w/ BFR

Training & Living in Hypoxia

A recent study from the Department of Public Health at the Aarhus University does now suggest: It is not worth it! In said study, Farup et al. the hypertrophic potential of load-matched blood-flow restricted resistance training (BFR) vs free-flow traditional resistance training (low load TRT) performed to fatigue.

Figure 1: Study design. The upper timeline displays the overall study period whereas the lower timeline displays the 6 weeks training period. Measures of muscle thickness (by ultrasound; UL), muscle soreness (by visual analog scale; VAS), muscle volume and muscle water content (by magnetic resonance imaging; MRI), isometric strength (by maximal voluntary contraction; MVC), dynamic strength (by three repetition maximum; 3 RM), and muscle activity (by electromyography; EMG) were performed on specific time points as indicated.

To this ends, they recruited ten healthy young subjects who performed unilateral BFR and contralateral low-load traditional strength training for the elbow flexor with dumbbell curls and a weight amounting to 40% of their individual 1-repetition maximum.

• 

  Strength and size don't always go hand in hand... and BFR training appears to be better suited for strength | more.

  All sets were performed until volitional concentric failure, meaning no add. rep with accurate form could be performed. 
• The athletes trained three days per week for a total study duration of 6 weeks (that's more than in many other studies). 
• Prior to and at 3 (post-3) and 10 (post-10) days post-training, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was used to estimate elbow flexor muscle volume and muscle water content accumulation.

The results shows that the total work (number of reps x weight lifted) was threefold lower for BFR compared with low-load TRT ( P < 0.001).

Figure 2:Pre-post comparison of muscle size and strength gains show no differences between regular and BFR training if the exercises are performed to failure (Farup. 2015).

On the other hand, both BRF and low-load TRT increased muscle volume by approximately 12% with no significant difference in the MRI-determined water content and the muscle size being measured three and ten days after the last workout. Due to the exercise induced muscle swelling the muscle size was yet increased to a greater extent with BRF ( P < 0.05) in the early training phase, i.e. up to 48h after a workout.

Even the cell swelling occurs only after the initial workouts (a) not after the long-term use (b) of BFR!

Bottom line: Since the "impressive" short term increases in sleeve size in the first 48h after the initial BFR workout are just a consequence of cell swelling, not actual size gains, the results of the study at hand prove what many of you may already have suspected: Even if you train with low weights, regular strength training without blood flow restriction is not inferior to BFR training when it comes to long-term (=real) strength and size gains, as long as it is performed with proper form and to full fatigue.

Considering the fact that proponents of blood flow restriction write in their reviews that there is no significant difference between size gains on BFR and regular RT regimen (Loenneke. 2012), it is not likely that a comparison of a high intensity traditional resistance training (TRT) regimen to the BFR protocol used in the study at hand would have yielded increased strength and size gains with BFR. I would be curious, though, whether using BFR as intensity technique in conjunction with traditional training made an effective training strategy - for size, specifically | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Farup et al. "Blood flow restricted and traditional resistance training performed to fatigue produce equal muscle hypertrophy." Scand J Med Sci Sports (2015): Accepted Article.
• Loenneke, Jeremy P., et al. "Low intensity blood flow restriction training: a meta-analysis." European journal of applied physiology 112.5 (2012): 1849-1859.