MASS - Volume 1 - Issue 3 - Monthly Applications in Strength Sport

90 Pages·2017·6.804 MB·English

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

ISSUE NO. 3 JUNE 2017
M A S S
MONTHLY APPLICATIONS IN
STRENGTH SPORT
ERIC HELMS | GREG NUCKOLS | MICHAEL ZOURDOS

1
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, and is a strength and conditioning Ph.D. candidate at
Auckland University of Technology in New Zealand. Eric earned pro status as a natural bodybuilder with the PNBA in
2011 and competes in the IPF at international-level events as an unequipped powerlifter.
Greg Nuckols
Greg Nuckols has over a decade of experience under the bar and a B.S. in exercise and sports
science. Greg is currently enrolled in the exercise science M.A. program at 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, is an assistant professor in exercise science at
Florida Atlantic University (FAU) in Boca Raton, FL., USA, with a specialization 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. As an assistant professor at FAU,
Mike is the director of the FAU Muscle Physiology Research Laboratory. 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.

2
Letter from the Reviewers
It seems like MASS just launched yesterday, yet it’s already June and this
is the third issue of MASS. We are now really hitting our stride, and as they
say, time flies when you’re having fun.
This month, we have a great spread of topics. On the video front, Mike
goes in-depth in part one of his video series on the topic of concurrent re-
sistance and aerobic training. Likewise, Eric starts a two-part series on the
broad topic of periodization. In our written content, we review the recovery
benefits of compression garments; how EMG changes with increasing loads
in the bench press; the effects of caffeine on strength performance; supple-
mental peri-workout whey protein while dieting; a comparison of high-rep
squats and deadlifts to traditional HIIT; how body composition, body water,
metabolic rate, hormonal status, and food consumption change in natural
physique competitors post-competition; and lastly, a comparison between
drop sets and traditional straight sets.
We cover a lot of topics in this issue that coaches and athletes deal with
on a regular basis. Having trouble conceptualizing periodization or knowing
where to start when programming? Want to be able to speak confidently
to your athletes about what they can expect to happen to their bodies post-
show? Ever wondered if high-rep resistance training could effectively re-
place cardio? Having trouble knowing when straight sets or drop sets would
be more appropriate? Look no further.
Thanks again for subscribing to MASS. We know you’ll enjoy our June
issue.
The MASS Team
Michael, Eric, and Greg

3
Table of Contents
6 B Y G R E G N U C K O L S
How Does Bench Press Muscle Activation Change with Increasing Load?
Muscle activation tends to increase with increasing loads. But in the bench press,
the increases aren’t identical in all major muscles.
20 B Y M I C H A E L C . Z O U R D O S
Compression Garments Provide a Meaningful Effect on Recovery from
Resistance Training
Just as it’s important to train hard, it’s equally important to recover for the following
session. Many recovery strategies exist, but without sufficient empirical evidence. A
brand new meta-analysis examines the effects of compression garments on recovery
from resistance training and subsequent performance.
B Y E R I C H E L M S
30
Is It the Dose or Timing? The Benefit of Added Protein While Cutting
Many people think that protein should be increased while dieting to prevent muscle
loss. This study seems to confirm that hypothesis, but is it the protein dose or timing?
41 B Y G R E G N U C K O L S
How Much Does Caffeine Boost Your Strength?
You can find caffeine in almost every pre-workout supplement. While it’s been shown
to decrease perceptions of fatigue, does it actually boost strength and performance?

4
50 B Y M I C H A E L C . Z O U R D O S
Rest-Pause Training is a Viable Strategy to Maximize Hypertrophy
Rest-pause training is a programming strategy that involves multiple sets to failure with
less than 30 seconds of rest between sets until a target number of reps is reached.
How do hypertrophy and strength outcomes with rest-pause training compare to
traditional set and rep schemes, and where should rest-pause training be included
in a program?
64 B Y E R I C H E L M S
Contest Prep Recovery in Male and Female Physique Competitors
Overall, physique competitors have contest preparation figured out, but transitioning
back to the offseason is another story. This pilot study investigates the recovery
period after contest preparation from multiple angles.
B Y G R E G N U C K O L S
74
Can Lifting Replace “Cardio”?
Squatting and deadlifting for high reps can certainly wear you out. But does that
mean lifting can actually improve your conditioning as much as traditional cardio
modalities?
B Y M I C H A E L C . Z O U R D O S
85
VIDEO: Concurrent Training Attenuates Anaerobic Adaptations, Part 1
Concurrent training is performing both cardio and resistance training. The common
theme is that cardio drastically harms strength and hypertrophy adaptations. Is this
true? If so, why? Because cardio is a necessity at times, this video sets the stage to
perform cardio while minimizing the negative effects on hypertrophy and strength.
B Y E R I C H E L M S
87
VIDEO: Intro to Periodized Resistance Training, Part 1
Periodization is an often over-complicated topic. In part 1 of this 2-part series,
Eric answers the question “what is periodization?” Then, he discusses the primary
variables that are manipulated in periodized plans.

5
How Does Bench Press Muscle
Activation Change With Increasing Load?
Study Reviewed: Effect of Barbell Load on the Structure of the
Flat Bench Press. Król and Golaś (2017)
B Y G R E G N U C K O L S

he bench press is quite well-stud- published all of their data. McLaugh-
T ied. However, most studies only lin and colleagues gathered a ton of
look at a small piece of the puz- data on the bench press in the 1980s,
zle. Frustratingly, the two studies (I’m but only a small fraction of their data
aware of) that took a really compre- were published in academic journals
hensive look at the bench press never (2). More recently, Duffey carried out

6
KEY POINTS
1. Your front delts and the long head of your triceps have larger EMG increases
than your pecs as load on the bar increases.
2. Lifters assume a slightly more J-shaped bar path as the load increases, likely
because it’s more biomechanically efficient than pressing in a straight line.
quite a comprehensive study of the
Purpose and Research
bench press. While all of his data were
Questions
published in the resulting doctoral
dissertation (3), only a small portion
There were two primary research ques-
of the data have been published in
tions:
journals (4, 5).
1. How does muscle activation of the
This study by Król and Golaś chang-
pecs, triceps, anterior deltoids, and
es all of that. It’s the first comprehensive
lats change with increasing loads in
study of its kind on the bench press that’s
the bench press?
been published. In it, a group of mod-
2. How do kinetic and kinematic pa-
erately trained males lifted loads ranging
rameters of the bench press change
from 70% 1RM to 100% 1RM, and the
with increasing load?
researchers measured muscle activation
and kinetic and kinematic parameters The authors hypothesized that muscle
of the movement including joint angles, EMG would increase with load, while
force output, velocity, acceleration, and bar velocity and acceleration would decrease
path. The study reported a ton of data, but with load.
for our purposes here, the most import-
ant novel finding was that while triceps
Subjects and Methods
and anterior deltoid activation increased
with increasing loads, pec activation was
Subjects
actually pretty steady as loads increased.
The subjects were 20 young men in
Another important finding was that hor-
their mid-20s with at least one year of
izontal displacement of the bar increased
lifting experience (3.3 ± 1.6 years on
with increasing loads, meaning that peo-
average). Their average bench press was
ple either tended to touch the bar lower
107.1 ± 19.4kg, with a range from 85-
on their chest as the weight increased,
145kg, and their average body mass was
press the bar farther back over their throat
80.2 ± 8.6kg, with a range from 65-95kg.
as the weight increased, or both.
The average bench press in the study was

7
1.34x bodyweight. In other words, these ed 1RM, benching 70%, 80%, 90%, and
were reasonably well-trained benchers, 100% of their anticipated 1RM along the
but weren’t world-class strength athletes. way. If they failed their anticipated 1RM,
the load was adjusted down until they
Measurements
recorded a 1RM. If they succeeded with
Kinetic and kinematic parameters were
their anticipated 1RM, the load was in-
calculated by recording the positions of
creased until they recorded a true 1RM.
the barbell and the joints of the upper
Loads that ended up being approximate-
body using a six-camera system.
ly 70%, 80%, and 90% of the true 1RM
Muscle activation was assessed via sur- load were included for analysis.
face electromyography (EMG). Prior to
All reps were performed without a
the bench press attempts, the research-
pause and without bouncing. Grip was
ers had the subjects exert as much force
set to the maximum legal width allowed
as they could against a stationary barbell
in powerlifting (81cm). The subjects were
positioned 5cm off the chest, 15cm off
allowed 5 minutes of rest between at-
the chest, and 25cm off the chest (max-
tempts to minimize fatigue.
imum voluntary isometric contractions
– MVICs). They assessed surface EMG
for the sternocostal head of the pecs,
Findings
the long head of the triceps, the anterior
deltoid, and the lats in all three of these
Unsurprisingly, muscle activation tend-
positions, and used the highest reading
ed to increase across the board as loads
for each muscle in any of the three tri-
increased. For all four muscles, activation
als to normalize the subsequent EMG
increased as load increased during the ec-
readings. Normalization was performed
centric (lowering) phase. However, during
by dividing EMG readings during the
the concentric phase, there were only sig-
bench press by the highest EMG reading
nificant increases for the triceps, anterior
during the MVICs. For example, if a sub-
deltoids, and lats (p<0.05), with no sig-
ject had 30% higher triceps EMG read-
nificant change for the pecs (p=0.965).
ings when bench pressing a 90% 1RM
Muscle activation was also higher during
load than they did during the isomet-
the concentric phase than the eccentric
ric contraction yielding the highest the
phase for all muscles. The difference was
highest triceps EMG, their normalized
largest for the triceps, with EMG read-
triceps EMG would be 130% MVIC.
ings increasing more than two-fold from
Testing the eccentric to the concentric portion of
the lift, and smallest for the pecs, which
After a general warm-up, the partic-
had only a 21% increase. The EMG in-
ipants all worked up to their anticipat-
crease from eccentric to concentric phase

8
F I G U R E 1
Pec EMG: 70% 1RM vs. 1RM Triceps EMG: 70% 1RM vs. 1RM
Pecs 70% Pecs 100% Triceps 70% Triceps 100%
ECCENTRIC CONCENTRIC ECCENTRIC CONCENTRIC
150 150
C) C)
VI VI
M 100 M 100
% %
G ( G (
M M
E 50 E 50
0 0
0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 100%
PERCENTAGE OF LIFT COMPLETED PERCENTAGE OF LIFT COMPLETED
Anterior Deltoids EMG: 70% 1RM vs. 1RM Lat EMG: 70% 1RM vs. 1RM
Anterior Deltoids 70%
Lats 70% Lats 100%
Anterior Deltoids 100%
150 150
C) C)
VI VI
M 100 M 100
% %
G ( G (
M M
E 50 E 50
ECCENTRIC CONCENTRIC ECCENTRIC CONCENTRIC
0 0
0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 100%
PERCENTAGE OF LIFT COMPLETED PERCENTAGE OF LIFT COMPLETED
was roughly 40% for the anterior deltoids – on average with 70% and 80% 1RM
and the lats. loads. With 90% 1RM loads, there was a
small sticking region, and the sticking re-
Mean velocity and acceleration de-
gion became pronounced with true 1RM
creased with increasing loads, as you’d
loads, as you’d anticipate.
expect. The bench press didn’t have a true
sticking region – defined as a period with Horizontal displacement of the bar (i.e.
a decrease in velocity and a negative ac- left-to-right if you’re looking at some-
celeration prior to approaching lockout one performing the bench press from

9
the side) didn’t change during the eccen- bar, so we don’t know exactly how hori-
tric as load increased, but it increased by zontal displacement increased. There are
about 3.7cm (~1.5in) during the concen- two ways it could increase:
tric as load increased from 70% 1RM to
1. Touching the bar a bit lower on the
100% 1RM. Unfortunately, the authors
chest, and pressing it back to the same
don’t report the starting position of the
position relative to the shoulders.
F I G U R E 2
70% 1RM 80% 1RM
ECCENTRIC CONCENTRIC ECCENTRIC CONCENTRIC
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
S) S)
M/ 0.2 M/ 0.2
Y ( Y (
CIT 0.0 CIT 0.0
O O
L L
E -0.2 E -0.2
V V
-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
25% 50% 75% 100% 25% 50% 75% 100%
PERCENTAGE OF LIFT COMPLETED PERCENTAGE OF LIFT COMPLETED
90% 1RM 100% 1RM
ECCENTRIC CONCENTRIC ECCENTRIC CONCENTRIC
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
S) S)
M/ 0.2 M/ 0.2
Y ( Y (
CIT 0.0 CIT 0.0
O O
L L
E -0.2 E -0.2
V V
-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
25% 50% 75% 100% 25% 50% 75% 100%
PERCENTAGE OF LIFT COMPLETED PERCENTAGE OF LIFT COMPLETED

10