MASS - Vol 4 - Issue 9 (Monthly Applications in Strength Sport)

131 Pages·14.06 MB·English

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

VOLUME 4, ISSUE 9 SEPTEMBER 2020
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. Eric regularly publishes peer-
reviewed articles in exercise science and nutrition journals on physique and strength sport, in addition
to writing for commercial fitness publications. 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 unequipped powerlifting, weightlifting, and strongman.
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
“Genetic Variability” in Training Responses: A
Misunderstood Concept
A recent twin study attempted to estimate the degree to which divergent training
responses are influenced by “nature” versus “nurture.” In this article, I’ll discuss why
those estimates are way harder to pin down than typically assumed.
25 B Y M I C H A E L C . Z O U R D O S
How Does Your Preferred Training Time Affect Performance?
There doesn’t seem to be a huge difference in long-term muscle and strength gains
between morning and afternoon/evening training. However, acute performance may
be better when training at your preferred time of day, whether in the AM or PM. This
article covers a new study that tackled the preferred time angle.
36 B Y E R I C H E L M S
Training Plans Are Important, but Not Foolproof
While often debated and complicated, periodization is just planning training with
respect to time. For competitors, the important time points are competitions. In this
article, I review a weightlifting meet preparation case series. As you’ll see, planning is
critical, but not foolproof.
51 B Y E R I C T R E X L E R
The Tortoise Versus the Hare, Revisited: Who Wins the Fat
Loss Race?
For people with fat loss goals, rapid drops in body weight seem appealing, but
fast weight loss could theoretically come with notable trade offs. This month, a
new meta-analysis compared the effects of faster or slower weight loss on resting
metabolic rate and a variety of body composition outcomes. Read on to find out
what the research says about optimal rates of weight loss.
65 B Y G R E G N U C K O L S
Do Oral Contraceptives Affect Exercise Performance?
Many female athletes worry that oral contraceptives will hinder their performance. A
recent meta-analysis suggests that those fears are reasonable, though the degree to
which oral contraceptives affect performance is likely to be trivial.
80 B Y M I C H A E L C . Z O U R D O S
The Inherent Benefit of Tracking Velocity
A new study suggests that merely viewing velocity can enhance acute performance.
Therefore, an inherent benefit of velocity-based training may simply be seeing the
velocity. However, this article explains that this intrinsic benefit may manifest to a
greater extent in some exercises than in others.
91 B Y E R I C T R E X L E R
Is Beta-Alanine Under-Dosed in Every Study?
Beta-alanine was initially propped up as “the next creatine,” but that enthusiasm has
largely dissipated in the lifting world. However, the results of a new meta-analysis
may suggest that virtually every beta-alanine study to date has been under-dosed.
Read on to find out how much this study impacts our understanding of beta-alanine
supplementation.
104 B Y G R E G N U C K O L S
Do You Need to Go to Failure When Training with
Low Loads?
A recent study was the first to compare low-load training to failure versus low-load
training near failure. Do you need to actually reach failure with low loads to maximize
hypertrophy? The current study leaves us with a resounding “maybe.”
123 B Y M I C H A E L C . Z O U R D O S
VIDEO: Pre-Training Stretching: An Update
Acute static stretching decreases strength performance, right? Not so fast. Stretching
can negatively affect performance, but the detriment is in the dosage. Also, new data
suggests that you can quickly counteract the negative physiological effects of static
stretching. This video provides a thorough update on the topic.
125 B Y E R I C H E L M S
VIDEO: Autoregulation at the Mesocycle Level
Most research-based autoregulation strategies are useful within session for
manipulating load and volume. A few others can be used to modify session order
or session selection in a flexible template. However, there are few research-based
strategies for autoregulation between micro and macro cycles of training. Session
RPE has the potential to do just that, and in this video we discuss how to do so.
Letter From the Reviewers
elcome to the September 2020 issue of MASS!
W
This month, Eric Helms reviewed a case series documenting changes in
physiology and performance in a pair of elite weightlifters preparing for
competition. Eric Trexler reviewed a meta-analysis comparing fast and slow rates of
weight loss, and a meta-analysis examining the effects of beta-alanine supplementation
on muscle carnosine levels. A cool takeaway from the beta-alanine meta is that we
may be underestimating the possible effects of beta-alanine supplementation, since
supplementation protocols used in the literature are probably insufficient to maximize
muscle carnosine levels. Mike reviewed a study examining whether velocity feedback
improves performance during strength-oriented and power-oriented sessions, and
a study examining the degree to which time-of-day affects resistance training
performance. Finally, Greg reviewed a meta-analysis looking at the effects of hormonal
contraceptives on exercise performance, a study examining hypertrophic responses in
low-load failure versus low-load non-failure training, and a twin study investigating the
degree to which genetics impact strength and endurance training outcomes.
Also, we’ve made a small change to some of our interpretation sections this month.
Whenever we want to get into the weeds regarding methodology or statistics, we’re
going to start using a separate subheading. It’s a small change, but it should be helpful
for readers with different goals and expectations. If you’re someone who’s really
into research, you can travel down the nerdy little rabbit holes with us. If you read
MASS for more focused research discussions and more actionable takeaways, the new
subheads will let you know what parts of the article you can skip without missing any
actionable information. Hopefully this little tweak will help MASS be a little more
useful for everyone.
Sincerely,
The MASS Team
Eric Helms, Greg Nuckols, Mike Zourdos, and Eric Trexler
5
Study Reviewed: Fitness and Strength Responses to Distinct Exercise Modes in Twins:
Studies of Twin Responses to Understand Exercise as a Therapy (STRUETH) study. Marsh and
Thomas et al. (2020)
“Genetic Variability” in Training Responses:
A Misunderstood Concept
BY GREG NUCKOLS
A recent twin study attempted to estimate the degree to which
divergent training responses are influenced by “nature” versus
“nurture.” In this article, I’ll discuss why those estimates are way
harder to pin down than typically assumed.
6
KEY POINTS
1. The presently reviewed study was a crossover twin study. Sets of monozygotic
(“identical” or “maternal”) and dizygotic (“fraternal”) twins underwent 12 weeks of
strength training and 12 weeks of endurance training in a randomized order, and
the two training blocks were separated by a 12-week washout period.
2. The researchers wanted to compare the degree to which baseline performance and
responsiveness to training are influenced by genetic versus environmental factors.
3. Genetics probably have a larger impact on our pre-training performance (our
strength and aerobic fitness before doing any training) than they have on our
ability to respond positively to training.
4. The statistical framework that researchers often use to study genetic
contributions to different traits is based on a set of very shaky assumptions.
Therefore, any estimate of genetic contributions to a particular trait should be
taken with a pretty large grain of salt.
5. Regardless of their origins, we know that responses to training exhibit enormous
variability. It’s worth acknowledging this variability, regardless of its source, but
primarily focusing on things within our control.
’m sure that you’ve seen people claim are world-class sprinters that have two copies
I
that they have “bad genetics” for lifting, of the “bad” version of the gene (3).
or that so-and-so has “good genetics” for
Since individual genes don’t tell us too much,
lifting. This verbiage invites a few questions:
the next option is to look at twin studies, which
“What does it mean to have ‘good’ or ‘bad’
are supposed to be able to tell us how much of
genetics for lifting,” “How do we know that
the variability in performance is attributable
someone has ‘good’ or ‘bad’ genetics for lift-
to “nature” (genetics) versus “nurture” (envi-
ing,” and most importantly, “How much of
ronment). The presently reviewed study (1)
the variability we see in training responses is
takes that approach. Groups of monozygotic
truly due to variation is genetics?”
and dizygotic twins went through a crossover
As it turns out, it’s hard to pin down solid an- study, performing 12 weeks of strength train-
swers to any of those questions. Research has ing and 12 weeks of endurance training in a
established that some particular allele vari- randomized order, with a 12-week washout
ants are predictive of success in strength and period between programs. Researchers com-
power sports (2), but each allele variant only pared the similarities between monozygotic
explains a small amount of the variability in versus dizygotic twins to estimate the degree
performance. For example, the ACTN3 gene to which their baseline strength, baseline aer-
is the gene that seems to be most strongly as- obic fitness, changes in strength, and changes
sociated with success in sprinting, but there in aerobic fitness were attributable to genet-
7
ic versus environmental factors. The authors one form of training would also respond
suggest that the vast majority of the variabil- positively to the other form of training.
ity could be explained by environmental fac-
3. The genetic contribution to the variance
tors, rather than genetic factors. Read on to
in baseline strength and aerobic capacity
find out why I’m not incredibly confident in
would be different than the genetic contri-
the authors’ interpretation.
bution to training effects.
Purpose and Hypotheses
Subjects and Methods
Purpose
Subjects
The purpose of this study was to estimate the
34 pairs of twins completed the study (in-
genetic and environmental contributions to
cluding baseline testing and training inter-
resistance and aerobic exercise trainability.
ventions), including 24 pairs of monozygotic
Hypotheses
twins (i.e. “identical” or “maternal” twins)
The authors hypothesized that: and 10 pairs of dizygotic twins (i.e. “frater-
nal” or “non-identical”), out of an initial 40
1. Exercise responsiveness would follow
twin pairs that enrolled. They were mostly
the principle of specificity (e.g. strength
young (24.9 ± 5.4 years old) nonsmokers, but
gains would be larger following resis-
were relatively unfit, and exercised less than
tance training, and gains in aerobic per-
150 minutes per week. Their baseline infor-
formance would be larger following en-
mation can be seen in Table 1.
durance training).
Experimental Design
2. People would respond positively to at
least one form of training (either aerobic This was a randomized crossover study,
or resistance training), and responders to meaning each twin pair was assigned to com-
8
plete either a resistance training or endurance and reps per set decreased during the strength
training program, followed by a washout pe- training program (from sets of 12-15 reps with
riod, followed by the completion of the other 60-70% of 1RM in weeks 1-3, to sets of 5
training program. The training periods and with 80-90% of 1RM in weeks 10-12). Sub-
the washout period were all 12 weeks long. jects alternated between upper and lower body
So, for example, if you were a subject in this training days, with one main exercise per day
study, you and your twin may be randomized (bench press, standing military press, leg press,
to complete the resistance training program squats, and deadlifts), followed by supplemen-
first; you’d do the resistance training pro- tal exercises (which aren’t exhaustively list-
gram for 12 weeks, not train for 12 weeks, ed). The endurance training began with four
and then do the endurance training program weeks of low-intensity work (at 60% of max
for 12 weeks. heart rate), followed by four weeks of training
that alternated between high intensity interval
Testing was carried out at the start and end of
training (up to 90% of max heart rate) and low-
each training phase. The testing consisted of
er intensity training, finishing with four weeks
leg press 1RM, bench press 1RM, and VO2m-
of longer-duration moderate intensity training
ax (a measure of maximal aerobic power; 4).
just below lactate threshold. Subjects trained
The strength training and endurance training three times per week, and all training sessions
protocols were periodized. Intensity increased lasted approximately one hour.
9
The authors note that monitoring was per- Based on the training responses observed in the
formed to equate the workload within each monozygotic and dizygotic twins, the authors
twin pair. For resistance training: “Number calculated the degree to which each training
of repetitions, number of sets, weight and outcome was influenced by genetic effects,
rate of perceived exertion (RPE) were re-
shared environmental effects, and individual
corded for every session to allow the trainers
environmental effects. In the interpretation
to monitor the work load undertaken by the
section of this article, I’ll explain how those
participants. The main purpose of this moni-
calculations are performed, and why we may
toring was to ensure individual workload was
want to take them with a grain of salt.
equal within twin pairs.” For endurance train-
ing: “Training intensity was personalised and Findings
matched within the twin pair for each session
Unsurprisingly, subjects gained more
and monitored via continuous heart rate (HR)
strength in both the leg press and bench press
assessment. Target HRs were calculated from
HR at a percentage of the initial graded exer- following resistance training than endurance
cise VO2max test, so that they were individ- training. Conversely, VO2max and time to
ualised, but matched, for intensity between exhaustion increased more following endur-
individuals and within-twin pairs.” ance training than resistance training.
10