MASS (Monthly Applications in Strength Sport) - 2021 - Volume 5 - Issue 11

109 Pages·2021·11.414 MB·English

by  Eric Helms, Greg Nuckols, Michael Zourdos, Eric Trexler

VOLUME 5, ISSUE 11 NOVEMBER 2021
M A S S
MONTHLY APPLICATIONS IN
STRENGTH SPORT
ERIC HELMS | GREG NUCKOLS | MICHAEL ZOURDOS | ERIC TREXLER
The Reviewers
Eric Helms
Eric Helms is a coach, athlete, author, and educator. He is a coach for drug-free strength and physique
competitors at all levels as a part of team 3D Muscle Journey where he is also the Chief Science
Officer. Eric regularly publishes peer-reviewed articles in exercise science and nutrition journals on
physique and strength sport, in addition to contributing to the 3DMJ blog. He’s taught undergraduate-
and graduate-level nutrition and exercise science and speaks internationally at academic and
commercial conferences. He has a B.S. in fitness and wellness, an M.S. in exercise science, a second
Master’s in sports nutrition, a Ph.D. in strength and conditioning, and is a research fellow for the Sports
Performance Research Institute New Zealand at Auckland University of Technology. Eric earned pro
status as a natural bodybuilder with the PNBA in 2011 and competes in numerous strength sports.
Greg Nuckols
Greg Nuckols has over a decade of experience under the bar and a B.S. in exercise and sports
science. Greg earned his M.A. in exercise and sport science from the University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill. He’s held three all-time world records in powerlifting in the 220lb and 242lb classes.
He’s trained hundreds of athletes and regular folks, both online and in-person. He’s written for many
of the major magazines and websites in the fitness industry, including Men’s Health, Men’s Fitness,
Muscle & Fitness, Bodybuilding.com, T-Nation, and Schwarzenegger.com. Furthermore, he’s had the
opportunity to work with and learn from numerous record holders, champion athletes, and collegiate
and professional strength and conditioning coaches through his previous job as Chief Content
Director for Juggernaut Training Systems and current full-time work on StrongerByScience.com.
Michael C. Zourdos
Michael (Mike) C. Zourdos, Ph.D., CSCS, has specializations in strength and conditioning and skeletal
muscle physiology.  He earned his Ph.D. in exercise physiology from The Florida State University (FSU)
in 2012 under the guidance of Dr. Jeong-Su Kim. Prior to attending FSU, Mike received his B.S. in
exercise science from Marietta College and M.S. in applied health physiology from Salisbury University.
Mike served as the head powerlifting coach of FSU’s 2011 and 2012 state championship teams. He
also competes as a powerlifter in the USAPL, and among his best competition lifts is a 230kg (507lbs)
raw squat at a body weight of 76kg. Mike owns the company Training Revolution, LLC., where he has
coached more than 100 lifters, including a USAPL open division national champion.
Eric Trexler
Eric Trexler is a pro natural bodybuilder and a sports nutrition researcher. Eric has a PhD in Human
Movement Science from UNC Chapel Hill, and has published dozens of peer-reviewed research
papers on various exercise and nutrition strategies for getting bigger, stronger, and leaner. In
addition, Eric has several years of University-level teaching experience, and has been involved in
coaching since 2009. Eric is the Director of Education at Stronger By Science.
Table of Contents
6 B Y G R E G N U C K O L S
Partial Range of Motion Training Can Work … With the
Right Kind of Partials
A recent study compared longitudinal effects of partial range of motion biceps
curls trained at long versus short muscle lengths. Partials at long muscle lengths
produced superior results across the board: more muscle growth, and larger gains
in concentric, eccentric, and isometric strength.
18 B Y M I C H A E L C . Z O U R D O S
Lifting and Cardio: You Gotta Keep ‘Em Separated
A new study shows that post-lifting interval cycling blunts long-term power
performance. However, I’m not sold on that finding. This article focuses on the
appropriate proximity of cardio to lifting, and discusses whether the modality of
aerobic exercise matters.
31 B Y E R I C H E L M S
Do Protein Requirements Change for Older Lifters?
In sport, Father Time remains undefeated. But, that’s not to say older athletes don’t
have tools at their disposal to keep improving as long as possible. In this article, we’ll
go over how protein requirements change (or might not change) as athletes age.
42 B Y E R I C T R E X L E R
Higher Hopes for CBD Supplementation?
CBD supplements are popular for recovery, but have a surprising lack of supporting
evidence. A new study suggests that CBD may enhance recovery, but we’ll need to
get into the weeds to attain a nuanced understanding of the current CBD literature.
53 B Y G R E G N U C K O L S
Do Knee Sleeves Improve Strength Endurance?
Knee sleeves are popular among lifters, but do they actually improve performance in
training? In a recent study, knee sleeves failed to improve strength endurance over
multiple sets, suggesting that sleeves may not help much in training.
61 B Y M I C H A E L C . Z O U R D O S
How Accurate Do Your RIR Ratings Need to Be?
The chief limitation of RIR-based load prescription is that the rating is subjective.
That criticism is indeed warranted. However, if using RIR, what is an acceptable
degree of error? The answer may depend upon the goal of the set.
76 B Y E R I C T R E X L E R
Back to Betaine: Assessing the Newest Evidence
When we last discussed betaine, the tentative conclusion was “interesting, and
potentially promising, but more research is needed.” More data have become
available, so it’s time for a quick betaine update.
90 B Y G R E G N U C K O L S
Research Briefs
In the Research Briefs section, Greg Nuckols shares a few quick summaries of
recent studies. Briefs are short and sweet, skimmable, and focused on the need-to-
know information from each study.
103 B Y M I C H A E L C . Z O U R D O S
VIDEO: Verbal and Visual Feedback Part 1
C’mon! Let’s go! Great Work! We’ve all had training partners yell these phrases at us
during training and have also been the training partners yelling. But does this type
of encouragement help? This video discusses if shifting to an external focus while
lifting via verbal encouragement and verbal and visual velocity feedback enhances
acute performance.
105 B Y E R I C H E L M S
VIDEO: Nutrition for Strength vs Physique Athletes Part 2
While there is a lot of overlap between the nutritional guidance for strength athletes
and physique athletes, there are also many nuanced differences. In this video series
we explore what those differences are and where the recommendations to optimize
strength and bodybuilding performance should differ. In part 2 I discuss how glycogen
depletion can impact performance for both classes of athlete, if, when, and how it
could occur, and ultimately provide sport specific carbohydrate guidelines.
Letter From the Reviewers
Welcome to the November 2021 issue of MASS!
In this issue we cover a lot of nutrition ground with two articles by Dr. Trexler and
one article and one video by Dr. Helms. Dr. Trexler reviews the latest research
on two emerging supplements, CBD oil and betaine. While both of these studies reported
positive findings, you’ll read in his reviews that we are still a ways from having enough ticks
in the positive findings column to inspire enough confidence in their efficacy to warrant their
recommendation. However, you should certainly keep your eye on this space as more studies
are conducted. Dr. Helms reviews the topic of protein intake for masters athletes, ultimately
discussing why the concern of “anabolic resistance” to dietary protein among untrained older
adults may not apply to masters athletes. Finally, the nutrition department rounds out its
content with part 2 of Dr. Helms’ video series comparing and contrasting the nutritional needs
of strength athletes with physique athletes, honing in on carbohydrate intake and timing.
In the world of training we also have some interesting research to discuss. Previously, Greg
reviewed an article on how knee sleeves provide a slight boost to 1RM performance, but
this month he reviewed a new study on how they impact repetition performance. Also, Greg
reviewed a study which acts as the latest installment of MASS articles on range of motion.
While we generally advise training with a full range of motion, in this article Greg discusses
how not all partial ranges of motion are created equal when taking the muscle length trained
into account. In addition, Dr. Zourdos reviewed a recently published meta-analysis on RIR
accuracy with nuanced, but overall encouraging results, and for his second article Dr. Zourdos
covers the latest study on concurrent training. While this study at face value lines up with
previous data, it has some aspects that require further inquiry. Finally, to finish out his content,
Mike discusses the effects of verbal encouragement, verbal velocity feedback, and visual
velocity feedback on acute resistance training performance and motivation in his video review.
In Greg’s Research Briefs this month, he discussed vitamin D’s antioxidant effects, how safety
bar, high bar, and low bar squats compare biomechanically, the effects of sleep quantity and
quality on collegiate athletes, and how being sedentary or more active can impact your fitness
adaptations in response to an exercise regimen.
Just like every month, you can read these articles or listen to their audio roundtables. If you
have questions or want to discuss this issue, make sure to join us in the Facebook group.
Trainers, don’t forget you can get continuing education for NSCA, ACSM, NASM, and ACE
from taking our content quizzes.
Thank you for being a MASS subscriber and we hope you enjoy this issue!
Thanks,
The MASS Team
Eric Helms, Greg Nuckols, Mike Zourdos, and Eric Trexler
5
Study Reviewed: Elbow Joint Angles in Elbow Flexor Unilateral Resistance Exercise Training
Determine Its Effects on Muscle Strength and Thickness of Trained and Non-trained Arms.
Sato et al. (2021)
Partial Range of Motion Training Can
Work … With the Right Kind of Partials
BY GREG NUCKOLS
A recent study compared longitudinal effects of partial range of
motion biceps curls trained at long versus short muscle lengths.
Partials at long muscle lengths produced superior results across
the board: more muscle growth, and larger gains in concentric,
eccentric, and isometric strength.
6
KEY POINTS
1. Two groups of untrained lifters completed a five-week training program consisting
solely of unilateral, partial range of motion biceps curls. One group performed all
of their reps at long muscle lengths (from 0° to 50° of elbow flexion), and the other
group performed their reps at short muscle lengths (from 80° to 130° of elbow
flexion). A third group served as a non-training control group.
2. Increases in elbow flexor thickness (biceps and brachialis), eccentric torque,
concentric torque, and isometric torque (at two of the four joint angles assessed)
were larger in the group training at long muscle lengths.
3. This is the second study finding that partials at long muscle lengths produce more
hypertrophy than partials at short muscle lengths (especially in distal regions of
the muscles being trained). The prior study also found that partials at long muscle
lengths tended to result in more growth than training through a full range of
motion. While we clearly need more research on the topic, this developing body
of research is worth keeping an eye on.
W
hen we discuss how range of Furthermore, research on isometric training
motion (ROM) affects muscle – the most partial-ROM training imaginable
growth, we’re generally interest- – shows that isometrics performed at long
ed in the effects of full-ROM training versus muscle lengths may cause more hypertrophy
partial-ROM training. However, when we than isometrics performed at short muscle
think about partials, we generally think of lengths (3). With that in mind, there’s rea-
partials performed at relatively short muscle son to believe that not all partials are created
lengths: half squats, bench presses where you equal; partial range of motion training gets a
don’t touch your chest with the bar, leg press- bad rap, but its poor reputation is driven by
es with a six inch ROM, etc. But what about studies on partials performed at short muscle
partials performed at long muscle lengths? lengths. Partials performed at long muscle
Do they have different effects on muscle lengths, on the other hand, may be consid-
growth? Are all partials created equal? erably more effective for promoting muscle
growth.
The prior literature on the subject is pretty
scant. A study we previously reviewed in In the presently reviewed study (1), two
MASS (2) found that, in the context of knee groups of untrained lifters completed a five-
extensions, partial-ROM training at long week training program consisting solely of
muscle lengths caused at least as much quad unilateral, partial range of motion biceps
growth as full-ROM training, and consider- curls. One group performed all of their reps
ably more quad growth than partial-ROM at long muscle lengths (from 0° to 50° of el-
training performed at short muscle lengths. bow flexion), and the other group performed
7
their reps at short muscle lengths (from 80° to larger strength gains, greater hypertrophy,
to 130° of elbow flexion). A third group and a larger cross-education effect than par-
served as a non-training control group. Re- tial-ROM training at short muscle lengths.
searchers investigated changes in elbow
flexor thickness and a wide array of strength Subjects and Methods
measures (isometric torque at four different
Subjects
joint angles, concentric torque at two differ-
ent velocities, and eccentric torque) in these 32 young, healthy, untrained subjects partici-
three groups. Furthermore, since the training pated in the study (19 males and 13 females).
groups only trained one arm, the researchers
Experimental Design
were able to investigate the effects of par-
Subjects were randomized into three groups,
tials performed at long versus short muscle
including two training groups (n = 12 per
lengths on cross-education: strength gains in
group), and one control group (n = 8). Sub-
an untrained limb, resulting from resistance
jects in the two training groups performed
training for the contralateral limb.
two training sessions per week for five weeks
Partials performed at long muscle lengths led
(10 training sessions in total), consisting sole-
to larger strength gains in five out of the seven
ly of unilateral preacher curls performed with
strength measures, greater increases in elbow
their dominant arm. Both groups performed
flexor thickness, and greater cross-education
3 sets of 10 reps in each session, employing
in several of the strength measures. For the
a metronome-controlled tempo (two-second
second study in a row, partials performed at
eccentrics and concentrics), and resting for
short muscle lengths appeared quite lacklus- three minutes between sets. The total range
ter, while partials performed at long muscle of motion per-rep for each group was 50°,
lengths produced quite impressive results. but one group performed their reps at long
muscle lengths (from 0° to 50° of elbow flex-
Purpose and Hypotheses ion), and one group performed their reps at
short muscle lengths (from 80° to 130° of el-
Purpose
bow flexion). The training intensity for each
The purpose of this study was to investigate workout was based on the subjects’ pre-train-
the effects of unilateral partial-ROM biceps ing maximal isometric elbow flexion torque
curls performed at long versus short mus- at joint angles germane to the range of mo-
cle lengths on elbow flexion strength, elbow tion through which they trained: loads were
flexor (biceps and brachialis) muscle thick- based on isometric torque at 50° of elbow
ness, and the cross-education effect. flexion of the group training at long mus-
cle lengths, and 90° of elbow flexion for the
Hypotheses
group training at short muscle lengths. Train-
The authors hypothesized that partial-ROM ing was performed with isotonic resistance
training at long muscle lengths would lead (i.e. dumbbells), but loads were selected that
8
corresponded to 30% of maximal isometric ric torque was assessed at 10°, 50°, 90°, and
torque for the first training session, increasing 130° of elbow flexion. Maximal concentric
all the way to 100% of pre-training maximal torque was assessed at a slow (60°/sec) and
isometric torque for the final training session fast (180°/sec) angular velocity, and maximal
(30% for session 1, 50% for sessions 2 and 3, eccentric torque was only assessed at a slow
70% for sessions 4 and 5, 80% for sessions 6 (60°/sec) angular velocity. Furthermore, el-
and 7, 90% for sessions 8 and 9, and 100% bow flexor (a combination of both the biceps
for session 10). and the brachialis) muscle thickness was as-
sessed in both arms via ultrasound at three
Pre- and post-training, unilateral isomet-
sites (50%, 60%, and 70% of humerus length,
ric, concentric, and eccentric elbow flexion
from proximal to distal).
torque were assessed for both the trained
(dominant) and untrained (non-dominant)
Findings
arms. Subjects were also familiarized with
these measurements one week before the In the trained arms, most strength measure-
pre-training testing session. Maximal isomet- ments (isometric torque at 50° and 90° of
9
elbow flexion, concentric torque at both an- In the untrained arms, three strength mea-
gular velocities, and eccentric torque) in- surements (isometric torque at 50° and 90°
creased to a greater degree in the group train- of elbow flexion and concentric torque at
ing at long muscle lengths. For the other two 60°/sec) increased to a greater degree in the
strength measurements (isometric torque at group training at long muscle lengths, with
10° and 130° of elbow flexion), there was no no significant differences between groups for
significant difference between groups. the other four measurements. Notably, there
10