Kettlebell Swings as Muscle Builders? Increases in Cortisol & GH & Decreases in Testosterone Which Position the KB Swing Rather as a HIT Fat Burner Than Muscle Builder

Kettlebell swings - According to the results from the study at hand, probably great to shed body fat. not exactly what you should be doing to gain tons of muscle.

Ok, here is my confession: I hate kettle bell training (probably, because I am a pussy ;-). Now that it's out there and you know my bias, it's about time to take a look at the results of a recent study from the University of North Texas in Denton (Budnar Jr. 2014) that investigated the hitherto unknown hormonal response to kettlebell training among strength and conditioning professionals.

I know, there is no reliable evidence that the GH, testosterone and cortisol response to exercise is a good predictor of the exercise induced muscular adaptations - including muscle and strength gains and fat loss, but there are a few neat associations due to which looking at the study results probably isn't totally useless.

Learn more about building muscle at www.suppversity.com

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!

Based on the previously cited study by West et al. (2009 & 2012), the things we should be looking for are elevations of cortisol and growth hormone, but not those of testosterone, which were not associated with either lean muscle mass or type I / type II fiber cross sectional area (CSA).
As you can see in Figure 1, we could expect increases in muscle fiber size with significant increases in cortisol, and increases in total lean body mass if the amount of GH that's circulating in the blood of the ten healthy male volunteers' n (19–30 years; mean 24 years, 175 cm, 78.7 kg) was significantly increased in response to performing 12 rounds of 30 seconds of kettlebell swings alternated with 30 seconds of rest.

The subjects of which the scientists say that they were recreationally trained,  had been engaged in resistance exercise >2 times a week for at least the previous 3 months. They had no history of anabolic steroid use, but more importantly, they had no experience with the kettlebell swing exercise and were thus the perfect candidates for maximal hormonal responses (and strength outcomes) in response to an unaccustomed workout. As Budnar Jr. et al. point out, ...

"[...] Lake and Lauder (2012) have previously demonstrated that training using this exercise protocol improves lower-body strength and power. A 16-kg kettlebell (Perform Better, Cranston, RI, USA) was used by all participants because it is the recommended starting weight for men and has previously been used in evaluating the effect of kettlebell swings on strength training adaptations and acute aerobic responses (Lake. 2012)." (Budnar Jr. 2014) 

Fasted blood samples were collected using intravenous catheter before the warm-up (PRE), immediately postexercise (IP), 15 minutes postexercise (P15), and 30 minutes postexercise (P30) and were analyzed for testosterone (T), growth horomone (GH), cortisol (C), myoglobin, and lactate concentrations.

Table 1: 1.Heart rate (HR) and rating of perceived exertion (RPE; range, 6–20) at rest (HR only) and immediately after each round of kettlebell swings and number of swings per round (Budnar Jr. 2014)

A brief glimpse at the RPE data (rate of perceived exertion; 20 = max) in Table 1 reveals that the workout was pretty exhausting. After only one swing the RPE level had reached 50% of the 20 point maximum. No wonder, considering the fact that the subjects

"[...]completed 12 consecutive rounds of kettlebell swing exercise with each round consisting of 30 seconds of exercise followed by 30 seconds of rest. Investigators provided verbal encouragement to the participant to complete as many swings in the 12-minute period as possible." (Budnar Jr. 2014)

Immediately after the completion of the exercise bout, the participant was seated and the IP blood sample was obtained. The participant remained seated comfortably for the remainder of the session, including during the collection of the P15 and P30 blood samples.

Figure 1: Human growth hormone, cortisol and testosterone response to <15 min of kettlebell swings (Budnar Jr. 2014)

Figure 1 shows the results of the blood samples. The first thing you should notice are the huge differences in cortisol and GH response with one "hyper-responder" who probably went hypo right after his first swing (low glucose ➲ high coritsol + high GH during workouts).

Bottom line: Overall, the increase in growth hormone (GH) and cortisol (C), would suggest that there will be long-term beneficial effects on the total lean body mass and type I & II fiber size, as they were observed by West et al. (2012) in the previously cited study. Plus: The decrease in testosterone, that occurs in all subjects is not exactly what you'd like to see from a muscle builder. Previous studies do after all show that it's increased in response to classic hypertrophy workouts, even if there is no significant association between the T increase and the subsequent muscle gains.

The kettlebell swing would be a great addition to regular resistance training and could be listed in every workout in the fat loss episode of the "Step By Step Guide to Your Own Workout Routine" | read more

Considering the fact that the kettlebell swing exercise was performed for a relatively short duration (11.5 minutes in total: 6 minutes of exercise and 5.5 minutes of rest), the results are quite impressive and speak in favor of performing kettlebell swings as a high intensity, but not necessarily a muscle building workout. But just as Budnar Jr. et al. (2014) point out, there debate concerning the physiological importance of the acute hormonal response to resistance exercise for long-term strength and hypertrophy adaptations is still ongoing and the connection is rather putative (Phillips. 2012).

Against that background I would rather stick to the tried and proven, if your goal is maximal muscle hypertrophy. Due to the degree of exhaustion and the overall high energy demand, kettlebell swings would yet make an effective and highly time-efficient high intensity addition to a classic resistance training workout | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Budnar Jr, Ronald G., et al. "The acute hormonal response to the kettlebell swing exercise." Journal of strength and conditioning research/National Strength & Conditioning Association (2014).
• Lake, Jason P., and Mike A. Lauder. "Kettlebell swing training improves maximal and explosive strength." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 26.8 (2012): 2228-2233. 
• Phillips, Stuart M. "Strength and hypertrophy with resistance training: chasing a hormonal ghost." European journal of applied physiology 112.5 (2012): 1981-1983.
• West, Daniel WD, et al. "Resistance exercise-induced increases in putative anabolic hormones do not enhance muscle protein synthesis or intracellular signalling in young men." The Journal of physiology 587.21 (2009): 5239-5247.
• West, Daniel WD, and Stuart M. Phillips. "Associations of exercise-induced hormone profiles and gains in strength and hypertrophy in a large cohort after weight training." European journal of applied physiology 112.7 (2012): 2693-2702.

To Fail or Not to Fail - 5x10 or 10x5? The Energetic Demand of Your Workouts Doesn't Depend on Workloads, Alone

Image 1: PCr, ATP, whatever as long as there was energy left, Arnold kept pumping iron (pun intended ;-)

"To fail or not to fail", this question is probably about as ancient as the hilarious idea to engage in physical activity that is not in one way or another directly related to one of our two most fundamental needs, survival and procreation. Researchers from the Physical Education Department at the Sport Sciences University of the Basque Country and the Department of Health Sciences at the University of Navarra in Spain have recently examined this question from a slightly different angle than most of the articles you have probably seen in and on the various muscle mags and bodybuilding related websites on the Internet. What Esteban M. Gorostiaga and his colleagues wanted to know was:

Are There Significant Differences in Energy Metabolism When you Train to Failure?

Or, put another way: Does it make a difference if you fail from a molecular energetic point of view or is the mere number of reps the most fundamental determinant of the changes in muscle adenine nucleotides, inosine 59-monophosphate (IMP), phosphocreatine (PCr), creatine (Cr), lactate and energy charge during a workout. To answer this question the researchers recruited 6 healthy male volunteers (age 28-40y; BMI 23.3kg/m²; 1-RM_max on unilateral leg press 199+/-43kg) and had them perform a total of 50 repetitions with the same initial load (83% of 1-RM) on two separate occasions, either

• performed to failure, as a quintette of 5 x 10 (sets x reps), or
• stopped before failure, in a 10 x 5 fashion.

On both occasions the subjects rested 2 minutes between the sets. Furthermore, Gorostiaga et al. tried to eliminate "confounding factors", by equating the values of several variables such as initial load and total number of repetitions between both exercise sessions and making sure that whenever a "subjects could not lift the initial load during the following sets due to fatigue" the load was decreased by 15kg until the respective subject was able to complete all 50 repetitions (Gorostiaga. 2012).

Figure 1: Peak power output profiles (average for n=6 subjects) for each exercise during the two experimental conditions: when exercise was 5 sets of 10 repetitions to failure (10REP; open circles), and when exercise was 10 sets of 5 repetitions not to failure (5REP; filled circles; adapted from Gorostiaga. 2012)

It is plain to see from the data in figure 1 that performing all sets to failure (open circles) lead to a significant reduction in total workload (the area under the peak powder curve):

During 5REP all the subjects were able to complete all the repetitions with the initially load assigned (154+/-31 Kg; 83+/-8% of 1RM). During 10REP, however, most of the participants were unable to complete all the repetitions with this starting load, due to failure. The load had to be reduced by 7.2+/-3.8% after 27+/-16 repetitions and was progressively reduced, reaching 85+/-12%(P,0.05) of the initial load at the last repetition. Average load during the 50 repetitions of 10REP was 6.1+/-6.3% lower (P<0.05) than during 5REP. (Gorostiaga. 2012)

If we examine the graph further there are a couple of other interesting things to observe, though:

• the 2nd-3d rep was the one with the maximal power - so much about the value / validity of 1-RM maximum strength tests, then ;-)
• the power progressively declined from the 3rd rep on (35-45%) and that with an astonishing dip after the 5th rep - maybe because subjects are used to do 5 reps, so that this could also be a psychological factor
• while not training to failure with 10 sets of five reps allows to maintain almost identical average peak power on all sets, training to failure with 5 sets of 10 reps resulted in a net reduction of 33% from 812Watts on the first to 569 Watts on the last set
• the average peak power per set was accordingly 28% lower, when the participants trained to failure

What's the "energy charge"? The energy charge was calculated as the quotient of (ATP + 1/2 ADP)/(ATP + ADP + AMP) and does thus quantify the ratio of usable to used energy in the muscle samples.

Yet while the average mean power output changes paralleled those of peak power output in both experimental conditions, the opposite was the case for the aforementioned muscle metabolites - muscle adenine nucleotides, inosine 59-monophosphate (IMP), phosphocreatine (PCr), creatine (Cr), lactate and energy charge - the scientists measured by high-performance liquid chromatography from the muscle biopsies they had taken from the right legs of the subjects on each occasion.

Is light training an option, at all?

Very much in accordance with the subjective experience of many trainees, the data in figure 2 appears to confirm that working out to failure does induce muscular exhaustion, which manifests in the form of physically quantifiable changes in muscle metabolites in the training to failure group

• almost depleted PCr stores in the failure group (85% fall, P<0.05), and 
• reduced ATP (-21%), energy charge (-4%), and  
• reduced adenine nucleotides pool (-20%; ATP + ADP + AMP), in the presence of
• increased IMP (+8600%) and lactate (+1400%) levels

Which stand in stark contrast to the mediocre decrease in of phosphocreatine, the almost unchanged muscle ATP, IMP, energy charge and adenine nucleotide pool and comparatively marginal elevations in blood lactate in the 10 x 5 non-failure group.

Figure 2: Changes in ATP, ADP, AMP, phosphocreatine (PCr) inosine monophosphate (IMP) and lactate from pre to post workout in the 5 x 10 (failure) and the 10 x 5 (no failure) session (data calculated based on Gorostiaga. 2012)

As far as the correlation between these markers and the actual power output during the workout are concerned, the scientist say that they observed a ...

Figure 3: Relationship between muscle lactate concentrations and average peak power (from Gorostiaga. 2012).

• significant linear negative correlation (R²=0.59) was observed between the average changes in peak power output observed during the last two repetitions (expressed in percent of the initial two repetition values) and the decreases in ATP levels (expressed in percent of initial value).
• significant curvilinear negative correlation between the average peak power output changes observed during the last two repetitions of the first and last sets (expressed in percent of the initial two repetition values) and the corresponding levels of muscle lactate. 

From the curvilinear nature of this relationship (see figure 3) Gorostiaga et al. conclude that "when muscle lactate levels do not exceed the upper limit of 10–15 mmol/kg wet muscle, power output changes little from maximum values". The exact opposite is yet the case, when the lactate values exceed this critical upper value and the power output begins to decrease sharply.

Image 2: While training like a sissy will at best produce suboptimal results, maxing out on every set of every workout will work for max. 2-3 weeks until you will not just lose the gains you may have made but end up weaker and with less muscle in the hospital, when an injury or total burn-out forced you to finally see reason. Going to failure on one the last set of a selected exercise for each body group may be a way smarter, safer and more productive way. Combine that with planned 3-RM tests to gauge your strength progress and you should see some nice gains and can keep track of your strength gains without risking burn-out or injury and trust me this has little to do with being a sissy!

Implications: At first sight you may certainly argue that the study does not provide much novel information. If you do however compare the main results to common wisdom about various strength training regimen, the total depletion of the phosphocreatine stores in the "higher" rep group and the increase in IMP levels, of which Gorostiaga et al. rightly argue that they reflect the failure of ATP resynthesis to match ATP hydrolysis rates and eventually feed into the uric acid cycle (as reflected by the 19% increase in the failure group) put an emphasis on the often underestimated energetic and metabolic demand of training to failure. In this context, the pronounced loss of purines from the muscle, as it has also been observed by Hellsten et al. subsequent to profoundly lowered ATP levels in the course of a one-legged HIIT protocol on a cycle ergometer (Hellsten 1999), and the subsequent extraction of urate from the blood by the muscle to restore intramuscular urate levels (remember: urate acts as a free-radical scavenger during intense exercise; cf. Hellsten. 1997) may well be an overlooked factor, when it comes to assessing exercise recovery.

Still, while the former would suggest that you better avoid training to failure altogether and simply hit the gym for a "light" 10 x 5 workout everyday, the minor reduction in PCr (-15% vs. -80%) and the non-existent rise in plasma lactate and urate (no stress = no adaptation?) do indicate that frequent light training session will probably not result in the desired, or at least suboptimal muscular adaptations, which are the physiological bases for the strength and size gains, you are looking for (read all about "The Physiology of Building Muscle"). Moreover, the almost unchanged ATP/ADP ratio (see figure 3), which is the gauge by which AMPK works (cf. "Zoning in on AMPK"), could be the reason why many of the "sissy workout" studies report that strength training would not have the same / any beneficial effect on glucose tolerance, lipid levels and all the other standard parameters of metabolic health scientists usually measure in those trials.

Bottom line: While it is almost certain that you will out-train your own recovery potential by going to failure on every set of every workout, the results of this study put an emphasis on the fundamental difference between physical workloads and their immediate physiological effects (just a reminder, the workload, i.e. weight lifted x reps was identical for both groups). What we are still lacking to derive concrete reliable workout tips from data like this, though, are clear-cut mechanistic or at least probabilistic relationships between the short term effects of and the long-term adaptation to different workout regimen and their respective energetic demands... ah, and by the way, this goes for the incredible popular measurements of post-workout protein synthesis, as well. Until now, no-one can say how much predictive value temporary increases in fractional muscle protein synthesis actually have in terms of long(er) term muscle gains.

References:

• Gorostiaga EM, Navarro-Ame´zqueta I, Calbet JAL, Hellsten Y, Cusso R, et al. (2012) Energy Metabolism during Repeated Sets of Leg Press Exercise Leading to Failure or Not. PLoS ONE 7(7): e40621. 
• Hellsten Y, Tullson PC, Richter EA, Bangsbo J. Oxidation of urate in human skeletal muscle during exercise. Free Radic Biol Med. 1997;22(1-2):169-74.
• Hellsten Y, Sjodin B, Richter EA, Bangsbo J (1998) Urate uptake and lowered ATP levels in human muscle after high-intensity intermittent exercise.Am J Physiol 274: E600–E606.

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

Taking a Week Off? Sudden 7-Day Exercise Cessation Perceived as a Strain by Highly Trained Athletes. Overtraining is the Culprit!

Did you ever decide to take a week off and felt like hell? Did you feel how the gym, a place of which, only two days before, you thought you would be happy not to see for at least a month, suddenly seemed to draw you in as a giant magnet? Yes? Then you are either an exercise addict or just a highly trained athlete (probably you are both), of whom a recent study (Zeller. 2011) published in the Israel Medical Journal reports that

exercise deprivation is associated with change in non-articular tenderness threshold and reduction in quality of life scores. 

I already hear the exercise junkie within you jubilating: "24/7, 365 days a year! That's the way to go. That's my way." Before you do fall for this misunderstanding, you'd better thing about possible underlying reasons for the sudden tenderness and the decrease in perceived overall health (-4pts out of 100) the 26 asymptomatic healthy athletes who regularly exercise 6.75 ± 3.65 hours a week reported after the 7 days intervention.
In fact, the scientists conclude that it is not the resting that fatigued them, but rather the constant exercise that prevented them from feeling their ever-increasing level of fatigue (keyword: overtraining):

[...] healthy individuals who have hypoactive function of the biological stress response systems unknowingly exercise regularly to augment the function of these systems. 

Aside from falling victim to the mainstream believe in the "more helps more"-principle, this almost pathological behavior, i.e. to blunt exhaustion by exhausting oneself even more, is unquestionably the central mechanism behind the commonly observed tendency of athletes, who are already severly overtrained, to 'naturally' ramp up training volume and/or intensity in order to achieve the short term satisfaction the increased nervous system stimulus provides. In the long run, however, this will inevitably lead to performance declines, total exhaustion, susceptibility to infections and injuries, and so on.

Bottom line: Take a week or two off every now and then. If you crash badly, you know it was about time ;-)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Learning from the bros and checking with the pros

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pull the trigger and leave!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Science says: Many roads lead to Rome

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

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

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

Putting Carbs to Good Use: Meta-Review Reports Ergogenic Effect of Carbohydrates in Endurance Athletes

One of the leitmotifs, many of my posts here at the SuppVersity share, is the idea that (almost) everything works for someone. From the feedback I am receiving, from the crowd this blog is attracting, I gather that my general advice against high carbohydrate intake is (as human as that may be) often misinterpreted as "carbs are evil, beware of all carbs"! For the average pizza eating fast-food junkie, this certainly is an adequate message, because even if he believes that carbs are the root of all disease, without a MAJOR change in his dietary habits (I am not talking of ordering the normal, instead of the super size menu at McDonalds, here) he will probably still get way more carbs out of his diet than it would fit his sedentary lifestyle.
If, however you are an athlete or avid gym-goer you may probably already start to notice that following what you took to be a one-solution-fits-it-all recommendation lead to performance decreases, laziness, brainfog, lack of sexual desire, bad sleep and many of the other symptoms you would find, when you googled one of the ambiguous terms "adrenal fatigue" or "general fatigue syndrome"... Carbs are more than just insulin triggers, and fatteners. Glucose is the gasoline in your fuel tank and - most importantly - its the substrate your nervous system thrives on. And while it might not be necessary to eat them, very active (and lean) individuals may derive similar benefits from a moderate carb consumption as the athletes from the 50 studies included in a meta-review by Themesi et al. (Themesi. 2011).

The scientists' results suggest that intake of a <8% carbohydrate beverage (~50-80g) [TT] in the course of an endurance event (≥1 h) significantly "enhances endurance exercise performance in adults" as measured by submaximal exercise performance and time to exhaustion [TTE]:

The ES [effect size] for submaximal exercise followed by TT was significant (ES = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.37–0.69; P < 0.001) as was the ES for TT (ES = 0.30; 95% CI = 0.07–0.53; P = 0.011). The weighted mean improvement in exercise performance favored CHO ingestion (7.5 and 2.0%, respectively). TTE (ES = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.32–0.62; P < 0.001) and submaximal exercise followed by TTE (ES = 0.44; 95% CI = 0.08–0.80; P = 0.017) also showed significant effects, with weighted mean improvements of 15.1 and 54.2%, respectively, with CHO ingestion. Similar trends were evident for subanalyses of studies using only male or trained participants, for exercise of 1–3 h duration, and where CHO and PLA beverages were matched for electrolyte content.

Against this background, can the relevant question really be: "To carb or not to carb?" Probably not. You better follow Vince Andrich's recent advice and ask yourself "Are you working your sugar-bags (muscles) hard enough to earn your fair share of carb intake?" in order to make sure that you use just as much carbs as it takes to optimize performance without compromising health and body composition.