SuppVersity EMG Series - Latissimus, Trapezius & More: The Very Best Exercises for Back Width & Thickness

Image 1: The major muscle groups
of the back - trapezius (red)
and latissimus dorsi (green)

In this issue of the SuppVersity EMG Series, we are going to tackle three instead of one muscle groups, ...

• the trapezius (image 1, red) and the rhomboidei (image 1, blue), of which the former, i.e. the "traps", which covers the rhomboids that connect the scapula with the vertebrae of the spinal column, is often erroneously associated with the musculature of the neck; in effect, the m. trapezius extends longitudinally from the occipital bone to the lower thoracic vertebrae and laterally to the spine of the scapula and is thus responsible for what pro-bodybuilders often refer to as back thickness and ...
• the latissimus dorsi (image 1, green), which literally is the 'broadest muscle of the back' and thus responsible for back width.

The reasons we will be addressing back width and thickness in a single issue are twofold: Firstly, you need to train all muscle groups of the upper/mid back if you want to develop a strong and visually impressive frame*.

*Note: In fact you have to train your lower back, particularly the erector spinae, as well, but since tackling all the four of them would have gone beyond the scope of one installment of the SuppVersity EMG Series, I decided to address abs and lower back together in an upcoming "core training" issue of this series.

And secondly, you cannot really isolate one from the other, because your body was not designed to look aesthetically appealing (whatever your interpretation of this may be), but it was made for optimal functional strength and agility and thus ultimately for survival. Consequently, the muscles of your back (even more so than it is the case with other body parts) will always work in concert, when you climb, pull, snatch or just carry heavy objects around your house or garden. Keep that in mind, when you read about training for "width" vs. training for "size" (even in this summary)... synergy is the name of the game and you would not want huge "wings" (meaning a broad back) on a frame that is as flat as a pancake, anyway - would you?

Chest	Biceps	Back	Core	Legs	Triceps	Shoulders
Navigate the SuppVersity EMG Series - Click on the desired body part to see the optimal exercises.

But enough of that, let's get to the meat and potatoes of EMG optimized back-training. Here they are, the most effective exercises for m. trapezius and m. latissimus dorsi, as measured by electromyography (10 male resistance-trained subjects, mean age 22y, mean body-fat 13%; data from Boeckh-Behrens & Buskies. 2000)...

I. The Latissmus Dorsi - Grow Yourself a Pair of Wings Exercises with standard equipment for the m. latissimus dorsi

1. Lat pulldown to sternum (PS1), narrow underhand grip, bend back
2. Lat pulldown to neck (PN), shoulder-wide overhand grip, upright
3. DB row, bend over (DB1), underhand grip, arms close to torso, palms to the front
4. Lat pulldown to sternum (PS2), shoulder-wide overhand grip, bend back
5. DB row, bend over (DB2), neutral grip, palms facing torso
6. Lat pulldown to sternum (PS3), shoulder-wide overhand grip, upright
7. Seated cable row (CR), V-Bar, arms close to torso

Figure 1: EMG activity of exercises with standard equipment expressed relative to lat pulldowns to the neck (PN); the abbreviations can be found in the ranking above (data calculated based on Boeckh-Behrens & Buskies. 2000)

The visual representation of the EMG activity relative to what was long considered the "meat and potatoes" of machine-based lat-training, the pulldown to the neck (PN), shows that the classic exercises, Joe Weider already recommended, i.e. the lat pulldown to the chest/sternum (PS1) and to the neck (PN) actually result in the greatest activation of the dorso-lateral muscle on the trunk, but other than the Canadian co-founder of the International Federation of BodyBuilders (IFBB) thought, Boeckh-Behrens & Buskies found no significant difference in the activation of the upper, middle and lower part of the latissimus dorsi between the different pulldown varieties. In other words, it is not possible to train the upper, middle or lower part of the broad back muscle (latissimus dorsi) in isolation.

Always remember! The m. latissimus dorsi is no exception to the rule that you cannot isolate individual muscle fibers from a single muscle group. The same is true for the "upper and lower abs" and the "upper lower and middle parts of the chest", which will always work in conjunction, whenever you do your situps, leg raises, push ups and bench presses. In this context it is also worth mentioning that, at least to a certain degree, all pulling movements activate the m. biceps brachialis (biceps), the m. deltoideus, pars spinalis (rear delts) and the m. trapezius, pars transversa (middle part of the traps), as well.

Image 2: Leaning back slightly
(135° vs. 180°) increases the activation
of the m. latissimus dorsi by 11%!

Another interesting conclusion you can draw from the data in figure 1 is that, other than many gurus would have it, leaning back or as some may call it "cheating" on lat pulldowns is actually beneficial as far as the activation of the broad back muscle is concerned (as long as it is done without momentum!). Compared to the textbook version of the lat-pull (PS3), which would be executed sitting 100% straight, so that your arms and your torso are and remain perpendicular to the floor, bending slightly back (PS1; 135° vs. 180°, cf. image 1) increases the muscular activation of the m. latissimus dorsi by 11%. In a similar vein, the derided underhand grip dumbbell row (DB1), which is supposed to turn the bend over dumbbell row into a biceps exercise effectively increases the activation of the lats by 6%, as long as it is executed with appropriate form, i.e. with the arm tucked into the side of your body (don't let your arms flare to handle bigger weights, guys!).

Note: Although the angle between your arms and your torso (tucked in vs. flared out) does affect the intensity of the exercise, it is not as crucial as you may have thought. Flairing your arms to a 45° angle during a V-bar cable row, for example decreases the activation of the lats by less than -1%! A 90° abduction, on the other hand, decreases the EMG activity by -49% and would thus effectively turn a 'lat' into a 'rear delt' exercise.
 

Image 3: Wide grip pull up to
the neck, still the number one
body weight exercise for lat
development (bodytrainer.tv)

Bodyweight exercises for the m. latissimus dorsi

1. Pull up to neck, wide overhand grip
2. Pull up to sternum, wide underhand grip
3. Pull up to sternum, wide overhand grip
4. Pull up to sternum, narrow overhand grip

As you can see the good old, but for some painful wide grip pull up to the neck (if you asked me a very unnatural movement) does still provide the greatest lat activation.

Figure 2: EMG activity of variations of the pull up to the sternum expressed relative to wide grip pull ups to the neck (data calculated based on Boeckh-Behrens & Buskies. 2000)

Moreover, it is interesting that pull ups done using a wide underhand grip and not pull ups with an overhand grip, as most trainees probably think, come in second (-13% and -19% less EMG activity vs. pull ups to the neck). A narrow grip, on the other hand takes away much of the activity in the lat muscle, if nothing else, then due to the lower weight that can be used.

Training tip! If you cannot do the "classical" pull up to the neck, because your shoulder, neck or whatever starts hurting, find yourself one of those pull-up-towers, which usually have handles without a bar in between. If you are lucky you can push down the weight that would usually assist you, so that you do can to regular pull ups, but will not have to bend your head forward, as your head travels freely, where usually the bar would block your way (make sure, though, not to lean back too much, because otherwise you would be doing a pull up to the sternum, anyway).

I. The Trapezius & the Rhomboidei - Adding a Thick Roadmad to Your Backside

A note on the rhomboid muscles: All exercises that activate the m trapezius will inevitable target the underlying m. rhomboidei, as well. This circumstance and the impracticality of measuring muscle activity in a muscle that cannot be accessed without surgical intervention (remember the m. rhomboidei are covered by the m. trapezius) prompted Boeckh-Behrens & Buskies decision not to measure the EMG activity of the rhomboid muscles individually.

Exercises with standard equipment for ...* indicates a reference exercise to which the others were compared in figure 3  ^ indicates that the exact EMG value for this exercise has not been measured / not measured with the same subject group ° if not stated otherwise the given angles denote the angle between arm and torso

...the upper part of the m. trapezius DB shrug* BB front raise, narrow grip Deadlift ^   ...the middle part of the m. trapezius Machine rev. fly (int. rotation, 90°) DB reverse fly (90°)* BB bend over row (90°) Straight bar cable rows Face pulls  DB row (90°)*

...the lower part of the m. trapezius Machine rev. fly (ext. rotation 120°) DB reverse fly (120°)*^ Machine rev. fly (ext. rotation 90°) Shoulder pulls, on lat pull down DB reverse fly (90°) Machine reverse fly (int. rotation 90°) Image 4: This is the machine the subjects in the study used to perform the internally rotated reverse fly on; notice the 90° angle of arms and torso (photo menshealth.de)

Figure 2: EMG activity of various back exercises for the upper, lower and middle part of the m. trapezius; values are expressed relative to exercises tagged with an asterisk (*) for the respective part of m(data calculated based on Boeckh-Behrens & Buskies. 2000)

Although they did not explicitly measure the EMG activity for the deadlift, the authors speculate that "in view of the anatomical function of the muscle and the huge leverages, the [deadlift] is likely to be highly effective". That being said, neither the names nor the ranking of the top 3 exercises for the upper part of the m. trapezius should surprise you. These exercises are and have always been the meat and potatoes of back training regimens, although they are sometimes mislabeled as neck or shoulder exercises. Isolating the individial parts of the m. trapezius With regard to the superior activation of the middle part of the m. trapezius by the machine based reverse fly vs. its free weight equivalent, the reverse dumbbell fly, I would like to draw your attention to image 4, which shows a similar piece of equipment as the one that was used in the study. Other than the free-weight variety the machine based reverse fly takes both, the momentum, as well as the contribution of triceps / arm out of the equation and is thus an ideal isolation movement.

Note: Although, Boeckh-Behrens and Buskies did not measure that explicitly, it is very likely that the activation of the m. trapezius would be lower on one of those machines, where you pull with your hands instead of pushing the pads back with the back of your upper arms.

Image 4: Shoulder pulls,
an exercise that is often
used as part of rehabilitation
programs

A simple change in the angle between your arms and your torso from 90° to 110° switches the focus of both the free weight, as well as the machine based exercise towards the lower part of the traps. An ideal isolation exercise that will also help with posture and the prevention of the dreaded "impingement syndrome", where the tendons of the rotator cuff muscles become irritated and inflamed as they pass through the subacromial space, the passage beneath the acromion, is the shoulder pull on a standard lat pulldown machine, where, instead of pulling with your lats (and arms) your arms stay extended throughout the movement and you move the weight exclusively with the muscles you would use if someone asked you to pull your shoulder-blades back and downwards (cf. figure 4). While it is no common exercise in a bodybuilding regimen, incorporation of effective rehab exercises like this can help injury prevention and - who knows - help you draw the last "roads" of the roadmap onto an otherwise perfectly built back.  

Body weight exercises for the lower part of the m. trapezius

1. Dips
2. Pull up to sternum, wide overhand grip

You probably will be surprised to see the dips as the top body weight exercise to develop the lower part of your m. trapezius. If you don't believe the EMG data, try doing some diips after an exhaustive back workout with heavy trap-involvement, but watch out, you could easily get hurt, when your traps cannot stabilize your body anymore...

Training tip: Although many trainees fail to realize it, the back is probably the muscle group that is most difficult to train, or I should say, to stimulate adequately. Make sure you use a weight that is so heavy that you really struggle lifting it off the ground / pulling it up, but always make sure it is not so heavy that you cannot control it on its way back down. If your muscles cannot stop the weight on its way down before your tendons do, the weight is too heavy. Leave your ego at the door, grab a lighter weight and work the muscle, not the cartilage. Pulling, squeezing and struggling synergistically pave the way to injury free back development.

In summary, while almost all back exercises will activate both, the m. latissimus dorsi (back width) and the m. trapezius and the subjacent rhomboidei to some degree, only a combination of the most effective lat exercises, which are the wide grip overhand pull up to the neck and the wide grip underhand pull down to the sternum with the best exercises for the upper, middle and lower traps, which are heavy dumbbell shrugs and reverse flies using both a 90° and a 110° angle will maximally stimulate all muscle groups of your back.  

An EMG-optimized routine There is of course a myriad of ways of combining the individual exercises, my personal recommendation for impressive back development (based on EMG data) would yet be as follows:

Image 5: There are exercises that would
have to bee invented, if they had not been
there sincethe early days of physical culture.
The DB shrug, as the one and only "Governator",
Mr Universe & Olympia, Mr.  IFBB International,
... you name it,  Arnold Schwarzenegger performs
them on this photo, certainly is one of them.

1. Pull ups to the neck - for lat development + all those hidden stabilizing muscles a full body movement such as the pull up activates (5-10 reps / use additional weight or rest-pause if you can do more / less)
2. Narrow underhand grip pull-down to the sternum (in contracted position pull elbows back as much as possible) - to fully exhaust the lats (8-12 reps)
3. DB shrugs (use peak contractions) - for upper trap development (10-12 reps) Super Set = go from 4 to 5 without rest, rest after 5, repeat
4. Reverse fly 90° (preferably on a machine like the one in image 4) - for mid trap development (10-12 reps)
5. DB reverse fly 110° (use light weights, feel the burn!) - for lower trap development (do to failure, up the weight if you can do 15+)

You may notice that I do not make volume (i.e. set) recommendations. This is due to the fact that I found that everyone has to find what works best for him / her in terms of optimal volume and training frequency. This may also change over time / according to lifestyle factors / nutrition and supplementation.

Dumbbell Chest & Shoulder Training Shoot Out: New EMG Data from Experienced and Novice Female Lifters

Does a woman's pectoralis react the same way to dumbbell bench, incline and shoulder presses as the one of their male training partners? Does it make a difference whether you are a novice or an advanced trainee? What about light vs. heavy weights - any effect on the activation patterns of pectoralis, delts, trapezius & co? Learn the answers to these & other questions in today's SuppVersity article (photo bodybuilding.com)

The SuppVersity EMG Series is still one of the the most popular article series, here at the SuppVersity and that despite the fact that I guess most of you will already know the results by heart. Therefore I am happy to present you some additional data from a recently conducted study from the Biodynamics and Human Performance Center at the Armstrong Atlantic State University in Abercorn. The study that was published in the Journal of Sports Medicine a couple of days ago is - according to the authors - the first to investigate, whether the previously observed differences in muscular activation patterns in response to modified trunk inclination angle on muscle activation using barbells and Smith machines in men would occur in women, as well.

Another distinctive feature of the experimental protocol, Joshua Luczak, Andy Bosak, and Bryan L. Riemann devised is the use of both experienced and novice trainees and the separate analysis of the eccentric and concentric potion of the dumbbell bench press, incline bench press and shoulder press.

Who? What? How?

The researchers recruited 24 healthy college-aged (mean age 22.5 years) recreational female athletes as subjects and divided them into two groups, twelve per group, based on their experience with upper body weight training.

"One group was identified as experienced resistance trained exercisers by regularly participating in upper body resistance exercise at least 1–3 times per week for the last six months. The second group was comprised of novice resistance trained females who did not regularly participate in upper body resistance training exercises but instead were physically active in cardiovascular exercise at least 1–3 times per week." (Lukczak. 2013)

Within the 2-way repeated measures design of the study the exercise protocols were administered in a
between-subjects counterbalanced order, to ...

"[...] measure muscle activity in the anterior deltoid, pectoralis major (clavicular and sternal portions), and upper trapezius muscles by way of surface  electromyography data collection during flat bench (0° trunk inclination), incline bench (45°), and shoulder (85°) presses and then compare the muscle activation data between the novice and experienced groups as well as between the different exercises during the concentric and eccentric phases." (Lukczak. 2013)

After being familiarized with the correct execution of the exercises, the participants completed one set of five repetitions of each of the exercises with pretty light (4.5 kg) dumbbells. The order of the exercises was completed according to the counterbalanced protocol that each subject was assigned. Initiation of each set of repetitions was self-initiated and three minutes of rest were given between sets.

Figure 1: Normalized EMG activity for all subjects (no inter-group differences measured) during the dumbbell bench, inlcine and shoulder press (Lukczak. 2013)

Due to the use of the light weights I had to normalize the EMG data on a per muscle base before plotting it in figure 1. What you are seeing here are thus not the absolute values, but the EMG activity expressed relative to the mean activation pattern for a given muscle group on the concentric / eccentric potion of the exercise.... hah? I guess, I better give you an example:

• the absolute EMG value for the upper trapezius activity during the concentric phase of the bench, the incline and the shoulder press were 103.5, 374.0 and 1,164.7, respectively

It goes without saying that plotting these values would have made it very difficult to read the diagram, so I calculated the mean of these three values and plotted the ratio of the actually measured EMG value to this very mean - got it?

But didn't we know most of that already?

What we knew already: According to the study the SuppVersity EMG Series is based on, the best exercises for the pectoralis major using standard equipment are:

1. BB Bench Press
2. Cable Cross*
3. DB Bench Press
4. Pec Deck
5. DB Flys
6. DB Pullovers

* the cable cross exercise should be performed actually crossing one's arms low before your body (learn more)

Basically the way the data is displayed does not really change anything about what it's telling you and that's more or less what both previous studies and bro-science have told you as well:

"The results of this study largely confirm previous research related to performing these exercises with barbells. Specifically, the bench and incline presses produced the greatest activation for the two portions of the pectoralis major muscle, while the shoulder press elicited the greatest activation for the anterior deltoid and upper trapezius muscles." (Lukczak. 2013)

Moroever, the hypothesis that the activation patterns of novice and advanced trainees would differ was not confirmed. When the form is picture perfect and the weight light enough to keep this picture perfect form over the whole set, the activation patterns are identical. In that, it's actually important to point out that the same results have been observed in previous studies using different weights (in % of 1RM) for rookies and pros (Lagally. 2004; Schick. 2010) - so this is not a consequence of using "too little weight", guys ;-)

Ah, and lastly, the observed increased activation of the muscle during the concentric phase of pressing movements are likely related to the light weights, used in the study at hand, which did, as the scientists point out, not require "for as much stabilization of the weight during the descent" compared to what is required during the completion of the same exercise with higher weights.This hypothesis is supported by previous studies by Goodman et al. (2008) and Uribe et al. (2010), in which the subjects had to bench close to their 1RM or with still submaximal  but heavy weights and where no differences in the activation patterns between the eccentric and concentric phase were observed.

---

Bottom line: I am sorry to say that, but the study at hand does not really bring anything new to the table. You want more shoulder involvement? Increase the angle! ... ah, and don't forget that the eccentric potion of the exercise has it's merits as well - specifically, when you are using practically relevant loads in the 70% 1-RM range. Now get back to the gym and rock the weights!

References:

• Goodman CA, Pearce AJ, Nicholes CJ, Gatt BM, Fairweather IH. No difference in 1RM strength and muscle activation during the barbell chest press on a stable and unstable surface. J Strength Cond Res. 2008 Jan;22(1):88-94.
• Lagally KM, McCaw ST, Young GT, Medema HC, Thomas DQ. Ratings of perceived exertion and muscle activity during the bench press exercise in recreational and novice lifters. J Strength Cond Res. 2004 May;18(2):359-64.
• Luczak L, Bosak A, Riemann BL. Shoulder Muscle Activation of Novice and Resistance Trained Women during Variations of Dumbbell Press Exercises. Journal of Sports Medicine. 2013; article ID 612650.
• Schick EE, Coburn JW, Brown LE, Judelson DA, Khamoui AV, Tran TT, Uribe BP. A comparison of muscle activation between a Smith machine and free weight bench press. J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Mar;24(3):779-84.
• Uribe BP, Coburn JW, Brown LE, Judelson DA, Khamoui AV, Nguyen D. Muscle activation when performing the chest press and shoulder press on a stable bench vs. a Swiss ball. J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Apr;24(4):1028-33.

Three is More Than One: Higher Volume Increases Strength Gains in Legs, and Satellite Cell Recruitment and Fiber Size in Legs & Traps. Plus: Data on Myostatin, IGF1, MGF & Co.

Image 1: The green dots that are crowding left and right from the blue myonucleus are the satellite cells (Hanssen. 2012)

In case you are not really sure what a "satellite cell" is and why you should care abouts it's "recruitment", you have probably missed the Intermittent Thoughts on Building Muscle series and should get into detention. Otherwise, here is the news: In a study that has been published in the latest issue of the Scandinavian Journal of Medicine in Sports Science T.S. Hanssen et al. published a paper with the auspicious title "The effect of strength training volume on satellite cells, myogenic regulatory factors, and growth factors" (Hanssen. 2012). Exactly that kind of study that would have the potential to take the mostly common or bro-sensical reasoning behind the current recommendations on training volume to the next, a scientific level, if it the scientists would finally realize that strength training noobs are hardly a better model for advanced trainees than rodents :o(

Full body training 3x /week: How many sets are optimal?

For their study, Hanssen et al. recruited twenty two healthy untrained men (age 26.5y; height: 181.8cm; weight: 81kg) and assigned them to one out of two full-body workouts, with identical exercises (leg press, leg extension, leg curl, seated chest press, seated rowing, latissimus pull-down, biceps curl, and shoulder press), but different amounts of sets for a given body part:

• 3x Legs & 1x Upper Body: Trainees in this group performed 3 sets for each of the leg exercises and 1 set for the upper body exercises
   
• 1x Legs & 3x Upper Body: Trainees in this group performed 1 set for each of the leg exercises and 3 sets for each of the upper body exercises

All subjects started out with 10 reps per set in the first two week. In weeks 3-6, the intensity was increased to 8RM and in the last 5 weeks (7-11) all participants trained at their "7-rep max":

Participants were encouraged to continuously increase their RM loads during the intervention and they were allowed assistance on the last repetition.

In addition to the three strength training sessions per week, the participants were allowed to perform one (not more!) additional steady-state cardio session. And while this may help with standardization, my mathematical skills tell me that the 3L-1UB group performed only 14 sets per workout, while the 1L-3UB group performed 18 sets, simply because the number of lower and upper body exercises was not identical. Now, everyone who does not claim that he or she does not need to train legs (for whatever stupid reason) will know leg training is much more draining than upper body workouts, so "intensity-wise" the workouts were probably still identical.

Single vs. multiple-set training? Nothing new or exciting if it was not for the specific data

We have seen similar studies before - most of them with the same, very unfortunate limitation of being performed on strength training novices, by the way - and the results of this study would hardly be exciting, if it were not for the sheer amount of data Hansson et al. recorded:

Image 2: If those acronyms don't ring a bell, click here to learn more.

• muscle strength and muscle fiber size,
  
  
• the number of satellite cells and number of satellite cells positive for myogenin and MyoD,
   
• the number of myonuclei, myogenin and MyoD content of muscle samples, and
  
  
• myostatin and a whole host of growth factors, namely IGF-1, MGF, HGF, FGF2 and VEGF

This is what I call a "comprehensive" analysis ;-) And one which brought about some pretty interesting results, of which the increases in muscle strength and fiber size are unquestionably the most straight-forward and least surprising ones (cf. figure 1):

Figure 1: Changes in 1RM strength and fiber area after 11 weeks on the training regimen with different set schemes (data calculated based on Hanssen. 2012)

As you can see in figure 1 strength-wise, only the leg (m. vastus lateralis), yet not the back (trapezius) muscle benefited from the increased training volume. When you do take a look at the fiber size, however, it becomes obvious that as long as we compare 1 vs. 3 sets more is actually more +24%, to be precise (the 4% difference for the fiber size in the legs is statistically non-significant).

Figure 2: Relative changes in myonuclei number per muscle fiber and the number of satellite cells after 2 and 11 (post) weeks of the training intervention (data calculated based on Hanssen. 2012)

If you also take into account that the data in figure 2 clearly shows that an increase in training volume leads to increased satellite cell recruitment (indicated by the increases in the number of myonuclei per muscle fiber) and number, it becomes obvious that you are missing out on the growth promoting effects of strength training. The decrease in myonuclei per muscle fiber in the latter 9 weeks of the training intervention in the low volume upper body group (dark red bars in figure 2) would also suggest that this is particularly true for the experience strength trainee in whom the initial 2-week growth spurt of which Hansson et al. state that it was one of their two "main observations":

The novel finding in our study was the early increase in the proportion of activated satellite cells, the early increase in total number of satellite cells and the dependence on training volume in the leg muscle. The number of activated satellite cells, indicated by myoD and myogenin expression, increased from ~2% before training to 6–10% 2 weeks into the intervention.

So as "novel" as this finding may be, it is still somewhat unsatisfying for experienced strength trainees, who will have to rely on the hypothesis that their response will be an ameliorated version of the "late" growth response in the study at hand, which would support my personal observation that 3x3 i.e. three exercises à three sets per body part is at the lower end of the "optimal" volume continuum for advanced trainees. A volume continuum, by the way, that is capped at 12-15 sets for the largest body parst, i.e. legs and back and does by no means extent into the "insanity realm", where people perform 20 sets for biceps and 20 working  sets for triceps on a 5-day body-part split.

Surprise: No statistical significant differences in growth factors

What I found quite surprising though, is that this advantage of 3- vs. 1-set training was not reflected by greater increases in myostatin and/or MGF (want to know more about MGF, click here for the pertinent installment of the Intermittent Thoughts). MGF was even higher in the vastus of the 1 set group and the smaller incline in myostatin levels in the 3-set group (1.1x vs. 1.8x) did not reach statistical significance.

Figure 3: Changes in mRNA levels of myostatin, IGF-1, MGF, HGF, FGF2, and VEGF in the 10 subjects with the largest satellite cell response (seven from 3L-1UB and three from 1L-3UB; data adapted from Hanssen. 2012)

If we do yet take a look at the changes in mRNA levels of myostatin, IGF-1, MGF, HGF (hepatocyte growth factor; growth factor for satellite cells, cf. Sheehan. 2000), FGF2 (fibroblast growth factor; promotes cell adhesion and proliferation, as well as the build up of callege, cf. Yun. 2012) and VEGF (cf. figure 3) in the 10 subjects with the largest satellite cell response (seven from 3L-1UB and three from 1L-3UB), we do see that all but myostatin and VEGF were statistically significantly elevated above baseline. These results stand in line with the main message of the Intermittent Thoughts which was that it is the interaction of a whole host of "hormones" (and peptides) that "builds muscle" - and not as the producers of a certain category of 100% useless "all-natural" supplements want to make you believe, testosterone (or any other growth factor) alone.

And while it was to be expected that the expression of those growth factors would decline over the course of the 11-week intervention period, I am honestly wondering, whether the decrease in reps from 10 (initial two weeks) to 8 and subsequently 7 reps per set had anything to do with it... but I guess, this is an issue for the next study, about which, you will read nowhere else than right here, at the SuppVersity, the place where bro- and pro-science unite in the spirit of true wisdom - but I guess you know that by now, don't you? ;-)