MASS (Monthly Applications in Strength Sport) - 2022 - Volume 6 - Issue 03

137 Pages·2022·14.37 MB·English

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

VOLUME 6, ISSUE 3 MARCH 2022
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
An External Attentional Focus Helps You Crank Out More
Reps
When discussing attentional focus, we’re generally interested in the impact of
attentional focus on maximal strength or power performance. However, a recent meta-
analysis suggests that adopting an external attentional focus can also acutely increase
your strength endurance, which is far more relevant for normal training contexts.
16 B Y M I C H A E L C . Z O U R D O S
Is Training Twice a Day For You?
High-volume training to failure causes the number of reps performed or load lifted to
decrease substantially from the first to last set. This article breaks down a new study
investigating if splitting volume into two sessions allows lifters to maintain a higher
load than packing all sets into one session.
30 B Y E R I C H E L M S
Autoregulation is Effective, but it isn't Magic
We regularly discuss autoregulation favorably, but it isn’t a panacea. A recent meta-
analysis on autoregulation reported positive findings, but nothing crazy. Read and
learn what autoregulation can and can’t do, and why it hasn’t been a complete game
changer thus far.
45 B Y E R I C T R E X L E R
Is Extra-High Protein a Necessity for Body Recomposition?
High-protein diets are widely embraced in the evidence-based fitness world. An
increasingly common claim is that body recomposition goals (that is, simultaneous fat
loss and muscle gain) demand extra-high protein intakes, but a new study appears to
contradict this claim.
59 B Y M I C H A E L C . Z O U R D O S
The Periodization Data Remain Positive
A 2017 meta-analysis found that periodized training led to greater strength gains
than non-periodized training. A new meta-analysis explored if the previous findings
hold up, if periodization style matters, and if periodization impacts hypertrophy.
78 B Y E R I C T R E X L E R
Extrapolating From Short-Term Adaptations and Proxy
Measures: A Dangerous Game
Polyphenol supplements can acutely accelerate recovery, and protein
supplementation can boost muscle protein synthesis. A new longitudinal study sought
to determine if combined supplementation would pay off in the long run, but the
results were underwhelming.
92 B Y G R E G N U C K O L S & E R I C T R E X L E R
Research Briefs
In the Research Briefs section, Greg Nuckols and Eric Trexler share quick
summaries of recent studies. Briefs are short and sweet, skimmable, and focused
on the need-to-know information from each study.
131 B Y M I C H A E L C . Z O U R D O S
VIDEO: Time-Efficient Programming Strategies Part 1
Unfortunately, life gets in the way of training, sometimes leaving less time to train. In
these cases, lifters can use various time-efficient programming strategies to maintain
the appropriate configuration and dosage of training variables. This video discusses
those time-efficient strategies and provides specific examples of putting them into
practice.
133 B Y E R I C H E L M S
VIDEO: Resistance Training Performance Testing
MASS readers regularly read resistance training research, but most haven’t
been in an exercise science lab. This can make the specific methods hard to
understand, and subsequently, the relevance of the findings difficult to interpret.
In this video Dr. Helms covers the most common performance testing methods
typically used in resistance training research, discussing how they work, what they
measure, what they mean, their limitations and normative ranges.
Letter From the Reviewers
W
elcome to the March 2022 issue of MASS, Volume 6 Issue 3. This month we’ve got a
lot of good stuff in store.
To kick things off, the research briefs span a variety of interesting topics. On the
nutrition front, Dr. Trexler covers meal regularity, collagen protein supplementation, eating only
one meal-a-day, and the importance of digestion speed for peri-workout protein. Additionally,
Greg’s research briefs cover how to estimate energy expenditure from lifting, the impact of
powerlifting on joint range of motion, the “typical” progression of strength in a powerlifting
career, and a new study on the interaction of training to failure with low-load training.
Moving onto our full reviews, in the training department Dr. Zourdos reviews a new meta-analysis
that is a perfect fit for MASS, as it assesses the effect of periodization on strength and hypertrophy.
For Greg’s full review this month, he writes about a new study on how attentional focus impacts
strength endurance, discussing where your focus should be if you want to eke out a few more reps.
In his second article, Dr. Zoudos covers a new study on two-a-day training, prompting a discussion
of creative ways to use the concept to preserve training quality, and in some cases, even save time.
Finally, Dr. Helms gets back to his PhD roots, reviewing a newly published meta-analysis on the
effects of autoregulation on strength and hypertrophy, and you can see him manage his existential
crisis prompted by the findings before your eyes.
Just next door, Dr. Trexler enjoyed the rare peace and quiet while writing his two nutrition articles
this month, as Dr. Helms was on loan to the training department. In Trex’s first review, he covers
the combined effects of protein and polyphenol supplementation on hypertrophy, total work, and
muscle protein synthesis, helping the reader navigate why sometimes proxy measures don’t line up
with what they are supposed to predict. In his second review, Eric uses a new study on the effects
of various protein doses on body recomposition to address the claim that very high protein intakes
are a required element of successful body recomp protocols.
In the video department, Drs. Helms and Zourdos complemented each other with one practical
and one informative video. In the former, Mike dives deep on how to save time by increasing
training efficiency, without sacrificing the stimulus, a great video for all you busy folks out there.
For the latter video, Eric goes through some of the most common performance testing methods in
resistance training research, detailing what they measure, how they work, normative ranges, and
the limitations for each, to help the watcher better interpret studies they read in the future.
Going on a long drive or walk? Check out the audio roundtables for our main reviews. After, join
us in the Facebook group to discuss them. Trainers, behind on your continuing education? Don’t
forget we have CEC/CEU quizzes available for NSCA, ACSM, NASM, and ACE practitioners.
We hope you have a great month, and we appreciate you for being a part of MASS!
Thanks,
The MASS Team
Eric Helms, Greg Nuckols, Mike Zourdos, and Eric Trexler
5
Study Reviewed: Effects of Attentional Focus on Muscular Endurance: A Meta-Analysis.
Grgic and Mikulic (2021)
An External Attentional Focus Helps
You Crank Out More Reps
BY GREG NUCKOLS
When discussing attentional focus, we’re generally interested in
the impact of attentional focus on maximal strength or power
performance. However, a recent meta-analysis suggests that
adopting an external attentional focus can also acutely increase
your strength endurance, which is far more relevant for normal
training contexts.
6
KEY POINTS
1. Researchers identified all of the crossover studies investigating the impact of
adopting an internal attentional focus versus an external attentional focus on
muscular endurance – the amount of reps that could be performed during a set to
failure.
2. An external attentional focus led to greater muscular endurance than an internal
attentional focus. The difference between the two conditions was larger for lower
body exercises than upper body exercises.
3. If you want to maximize your rep performance during training, adopting an external
attentional focus seems to be ideal.
A
ttentional focus was one of the first that means you focus on lifting explosively
topics we covered in MASS – you and simply moving the bar from point A to
can find our first article on the sub- point B (for example, the classic “throw the
ject in the second issue (2). When you adopt bar through the ceiling” cue for bench press).
an internal attentional focus, you intention- You can see the general characteristics of in-
ally focus on one aspect or component of a ternal and external cueing in Table 1.
movement. For example, you may focus on
A recent research brief discussed a meta-anal-
contracting one of the prime movers for a
ysis which found that an external attentional
particular exercise, or focus on maintaining
focus improved maximal strength acutely,
a particular joint positioning or body posture
as well as longitudinal strength development
during an exercise. When you adopt an exter- (3). However, we haven’t focused much on
nal attentional focus, you focus on the out- the impact of attentional focus on rep perfor-
come of a movement. More often than not, mance, which might be more relevant for day-
7
to-day training. A new meta-analysis fills that Scopus, SportDiscus, and Web of Science) to
gap (1), examining all of the crossover stud- find all of the studies that met these criteria:
ies that investigated the effect of attentional
1. The study needed to be published in En-
focus on muscular endurance (the number
glish.
of reps subjects could perform during a set
to failure). This meta-analysis found that an
2. The study needed to employ a crossover
external attentional focus led to greater rep
design.
performance than either an internal focus or
3. The study needed to compare the effects
control (no experimental cueing) condition,
of adopting an internal attentional focus
whereas an internal focus led to performance
that was comparable to control conditions. versus an external attentional focus on
Furthermore, an external attentional focus muscular endurance.
seemed to be more beneficial for lower body
4. The study needed to employ an isotonic
exercises than upper body exercises. Read
test (i.e., normal resistance training exer-
on to learn more about why an external at-
cises using free weights or bodyweight;
tentional focus leads to greater muscular en-
tests on isokinetic or isometric dynamom-
durance, how the effect may be different for
eters were excluded), in which muscular
different types of exercise, and what these
endurance was quantified as reps com-
results mean for people with strength versus
pleted during a set to failure.
hypertrophy-related goals.
After identifying the studies that met these in-
Purpose and Hypotheses
clusion criteria, the researchers extracted all
Purpose of the necessary data to calculate standard-
ized effect sizes (Cohen’s d), and perform a
The purpose of this meta-analysis was to ex-
series of random-effects meta-analyses (an
amine the effects of adopting an internal ver-
appropriate choice for this particular study)
sus external focus on muscular endurance.
comparing internal focus to external focus,
Hypotheses
internal focus to control conditions, and ex-
As is standard for meta-analyses, no hypoth- ternal focus to control conditions. They also
esis was stated.
performed sub-analyses to see if the results
of their main meta-analyses persisted when
Methods separately analyzing results on upper body
exercises and lower body exercises. Fur-
Meta-analyses begin with a systematic litera-
thermore, they appraised the risk of bias and
ture search to find all of the studies that meet
methodological quality of the studies using
the researchers’ inclusion criteria. For this
the PEDro checklist.
meta-analysis, the authors searched five da-
tabases (Networked Digital Library of The-
ses and Dissertations, Pubmed/MEDLINE,
8
muscular endurance (d = 0.58; p = 0.001).
Findings
The sub-analyses found that this difference
remained significant when examining both
Five studies met the researchers’ inclusion
upper body exercises (d = 0.53; p = 0.0003)
criteria. One of the studies tested male and
and lower body exercises (d = 1.36; p = 0.01).
female subjects separately, and one of the
You can see these results in Figure 1.
studies reported on two separate experiments.
So, in total, the meta-analysis included 141
The meta-analysis comparing external at-
subjects (24 females and 117 males), and in-
tentional focus versus control conditions (no
volved seven groups of subjects. All of the
cueing for the purpose of affecting attention-
studies used multi-joint exercises (push-ups,
al focus) found that adopting an external at-
bench press, squat, and deadlift), and four of
tentional focus led to greater muscular endur-
the five studies used trained subjects. All of ance (d = 0.42; p = 0.01). The sub-analyses
the studies assessed muscular endurance us- found that this difference remained signifi-
ing a single set performed to failure. Finally, cant when examining lower body exercises
all of the studies received PEDro scores of 5 (d = 0.95; p = 0.01), but the difference fell
or 6, indicating “fair” to “good” methodolog- just below the standard bar for statistical sig-
ical quality. Characteristics of the included nificance when examining upper body exer-
studies can be seen in Table 2. cises (d = 0.39; p = 0.06). You can see these
results in Figure 2.
The meta-analysis directly comparing exter-
nal versus internal focus found that adopting Finally, the meta-analysis comparing internal
an external attentional focus led to greater attentional focus versus control conditions
9
found that the two conditions did not result evant in most day-to-day resistance training
in significantly different muscular endurance contexts. You may only max once every few
outcomes; this held true for both upper- and months, but you’re likely frequently making
lower-body exercises (p = 0.14-0.41 for all decisions about load selection and progres-
comparisons). You can see these results in sion based on how many reps you can per-
Figure 3. form with submaximal loads.
This meta-analysis found that an external at-
Interpretation
tentional focus significantly and reliably im-
proves strength endurance performance (1).
This isn’t the first time we’ve discussed at-
Not only did the pooled effect size favor an
tentional focus in MASS. Previous articles
have covered the impact of attentional focus
on muscle EMG (4), the impact of attentional
THIS META-ANALYSIS
focus on muscle growth (5), and a recent re-
search brief looked at the impact of attention-
FOUND THAT AN EXTERNAL
al focus on strength gains (3). However, this
ATTENTIONAL FOCUS
is the first time we’ve specifically focused on
the impact of attentional focus on strength SIGNIFICANTLY AND RELIABLY
endurance. While most MASS readers prob-
IMPROVES STRENGTH
ably ultimately care more about improving
their 1RMs than eeking out an extra rep with ENDURANCE PERFORMANCE.
a particular load, strength endurance perfor-
mance is the sort of metric that’s the most rel-
10