MASS - Volume 2 - Issue 7 - Monthly Applications in Strength Sport

92 Pages·6.334 MB·English

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

VOLUME 2, ISSUE 7 JULY 2018
M A S S
MONTHLY APPLICATIONS IN
STRENGTH SPORT
ERIC HELMS | GREG NUCKOLS | MICHAEL ZOURDOS
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 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 associate 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 associate 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
elcome to Volume 2, Issue 7 of Monthly Applications in Strength Sport. We are
W proud to have another packed issue for you.
Greg’s trio of written content is highlighted by analyzing a study that has de-
veloped the “Effort Index,” a new metric of assessing total session fatigue. While there are
limitations to using this metric, the results for effectively gauging acute fatigue are quite
promising. It will be exciting to follow advancements in the Effort Index over the next few
years. Greg has also analyzed the first study to compare muscle activation in the bench press
between the sexes, and he evaluates one of the surprisingly few studies that exists on includ-
ing single-joint training into your program for strength and hypertrophy.
This month, Eric caps off his video series on training for the dual-sport athlete and covers
a new paper on appropriate protein distribution. Finally, Eric covers a recent long-term study
on the concept of nighttime protein feeding. This topic has been around for a while, but most
of the data in this area is related to acute changes in protein balance, so Eric breaks down the
long-term implications of nighttime feeding.
Mike delves into the world of supplements by analyzing long-term data on supplementation
with the physiological buffer sodium bicarbonate. Further, Mike has reviewed an interesting
study showing wildly different adaptations for rate of force development on the individual
level. Mike’s content concludes with a video on “Program Troubleshooting,” which examines
how to make practical changes to your program when there are restrictions to training, such
as time or travel.
As always, it is our honor and privilege to produce this content for you, and we are enjoying
the increased activity in the Facebook group. We hope to continue to see you in there as well.
Enjoy, and we’re already looking forward to the next one.
The MASS Team
Eric, Greg, and Mike
3
Table of Contents
6 B Y G R E G N U C K O L S
The Effort Index: The Next Leap Forward in Monitoring Training?
Can a simple calculation predict, with almost perfect accuracy, the acute metabolic
and neuromuscular fatigue you’ll experience from a training session, regardless of
intensity? That may sound too good to be true, but the results of this study are very
impressive … with some caveats.
18 B Y M I C H A E L C . Z O U R D O S
Power Training or Speed Work for Some, But Not All?
MASS has already covered individualization, but new information is emerging. In this
study, rate of force development was maximized by some people through heavy training
and by others through explosive training – but why? And what impact does that have
for strength and hypertrophy
30 B Y E R I C H E L M S
Protein Distribution: Theory to Application
Acute studies clearly show that spreading your protein intake across multiple meals
maximizes acute measures of protein synthesis, provided that the protein intake at
each meal is sufficient. Do these acute measures line up with research actually
assessing hypertrophy?
41 B Y G R E G N U C K O L S
Will Single-Joint Accessory Lifts Help You Get Jacked?
Adding single-joint exercises into a routine based on compound lifts is bound to
deliver more hypertrophy for the targeted muscles than compound lifts alone, right?
As it turns out, the science isn’t that straightforward.
4
52 B Y M I C H A E L C . Z O U R D O S
Long-Term Data with Sodium Bicarbonate Supplementation is Not
Promising
Sodium bicarbonate has sufficient evidence to support its usage in intermittent cycling,
rowing, and running, but the first long-term study on lifting does not show promising
results. So can we forget about sodium bicarbonate, or is there a saving grace?
63 B Y E R I C H E L M S
Grow While You Sleep: Is Casein the Answer?
For a while now, bodybuilders have consumed slow-digesting proteins before bed
in an effort to maintain elevated rates of protein synthesis for as much of the day as
possible. Only now is the science exploring this practice.
76 B Y G R E G N U C K O L S
Sex Differences in Bench Press Muscle Activation
Though this was a small study, it was the first to compare muscle activation patterns
in both men and women in one of the Big 3. It ultimately leaves us with more questions
than answers, but it gives us some hints that there may be important differences
between the sexes.
86 B Y M I C H A E L C . Z O U R D O S
VIDEO: Program Troubleshooting
It’s great to program around scientific principles, and we always should. However,
life gets in the way, and we need to troubleshoot for feasibility. This video examines
how to anticipate things like time constraints and travel to make adjustments, yet still
adhere to scientific guidelines.
88 B Y E R I C H E L M S
VIDEO: Considerations for Dual-Sport Athletes, Part 3
It’s common these days for physique competitors and strength athletes to look over
each other’s fences and wonder if the grass is greener. Sometimes, they decide they
like the grass on both sides of the fence and get a second mortgage. In this series,
Eric explains how dual-sport athletes can manage their efforts to succeed in both
sports.
5
Study Reviewed: Effort Index as a Novel Variable for Monitoring the Level of Effort
During Resistance Exercises. Rodríguez-Rosell et al. (2018)
The Effort Index: The Next Leap
Forward in Monitoring Training?
B Y G R E G N U C K O L S

Can a simple calculation predict, with almost perfect accuracy, the
acute metabolic and neuromuscular fatigue you’ll experience from a
training session, regardless of intensity? That may sound too good
to be true, but the results of this study are very impressive … with
some caveats.
6
KEY POINTS
1. Subjects did 16 different squat or bench press workouts, with each workout having
a specific peak velocity target and a specific target for velocity loss per set.
2. A simple calculation, termed the Effort Index, based on those two variables, predicted
acute neuromuscular fatigue and post-exercise blood lactate almost perfectly.
3. Interestingly, at the same Effort Index value, bench press led to more acute
neuromuscular fatigue, while squat led to higher blood lactate levels.
4. For the time being, the Effort Index is of limited usefulness for day-to-day training
because it requires several variables to be controlled that would often vary within
a training session. However, a more generalized version of the Effort Index (if it still
performs well) could be a big step forward in assigning daily training loads.
very training variable we may track Index) could predict acute neuromuscu-
E is nothing more than a proxy for lar fatigue and post-workout elevations in
the underlying physiological re- blood lactate. Trained subjects carried out
sponse we’re trying to generate or pre- 16 different bench press or squat work-
dict. Take, for instance, training volume outs. Each workout was defined by two
(no matter how you prefer to calculate it). targets – average velocity of the best rep,
You don’t have bean counters in your mus- and relative velocity loss per set – and the
cles that keep a tab of how many sets or Effort Index was the product of those two
reps you did or how many tons you lift- values. So, for example, if your best rep had
ed in your most recent session. However, a mean velocity of 0.7 m/s, and your av-
we know that volume is a primary driver erage velocity loss per set was 30%, your
of acute muscle protein synthesis, and we effort index would be 21 for that training
know that it’s predictive of long-term hy- session. In this study, the Effort Index did
pertrophy. It’s a rough proxy, but a useful an amazingly good job predicting decreas-
one due to its practicality. es in acute neuromuscular performance
(assessed by measuring decreases in bar
With any variable you track, it’s import-
velocity pre- to post-workout with a fixed
ant to keep in mind the strength of the re-
load) and post-workout blood lactate levels
lationship between the variable you track
(r > 0.90) for both bench press and squat.
and the outcome you’re trying to achieve:
That level of association isn’t unheard of
the stronger the relationship, the more
in physiology, but it’s very rare. The Ef-
attention you should pay to the variable.
fort Index has some drawbacks that limit
With that in mind, this study set out to see
its immediate applicability, but I hope fu-
how well a new metric (termed the Effort
7
ture research will expand and generalize it, after a training session than simply moni-
since it shows great promise for assigning toring velocity loss during the session.
and optimizing per-session training pre-
scription.
Subjects and Methods
Purpose and Research
Subjects
Questions
The subjects were 21 healthy young men
with 2-4 years of resistance training expe-
rience. Eleven participants were assigned
Purpose
to complete squat workouts, while ten
The purpose of this study was to deter-
were assigned to complete bench work-
mine whether a novel approach to gauging
outs. These weren’t elite powerlifters, but
training effort (termed the Effort Index)
the average estimated squat max was a
could estimate the acute fatigue-inducing
little over 1.5 times bodyweight, and the
effects of a variety of training sessions.
average estimated bench max was a little
over 1.1 times bodyweight, so these guys
Research Questions
were reasonably well-trained.
1) Would Effort Index correlate with
changes in bar velocity with a fixed load
Design
pre- to post-training?
Each participant completed 18 study vis-
2) Would Effort Index correlate with
its. The first visit was just a familiarization
post-training blood lactate levels?
session to ensure the participants under-
3) Would the correlations between Ef- stood proper technique. Both squat and
fort Index and these markers of fatigue bench press were performed on a Smith
be stronger than the correlations between machine (ensuring a perfectly linear bar
these markers of fatigue and velocity loss path makes it a bit easier to measure ve-
during the training session? locity), each bench press rep required a
one-second pause on the chest, all squats
4) Would there be different responses to
were performed ass-to-grass, and all con-
squat and bench press sessions with the
centrics were performed as fast as possible
same Effort Index?
for both exercises. In the second session,
the participants established load-veloci-
Hypotheses
ty profiles by working up on the squat or
No hypotheses are directly stated, but
bench press in 10kg increments until mean
the wording of the introduction implies
concentric velocity for the bench press fell
that the authors thought the Effort Index
below 0.4 m/s, or mean concentric velocity
will do a better job predicting acute fatigue
8
Figure 1 Schematic Representation of Study Design
Familiarization Training Sessions
Initial Strength Assessment
3-days 1 wk
A
~72h
Warm-up Exercise sets Lactate Blood Sampling
Testing load
B 0s 10s 90s
4 min
(A) General structure of descriptive study of the acute response to 16 different training sessions; (B) Scheme of each training session
indicating the mechanical and metabolic measurements to analyze the degree of induced fatigue.
for the squat fell below 0.6 m/s. Training bench press. Loads were assigned based
loads in all subsequent experimental train- on velocity targets for the day, and the
ing sessions were assigned based on ve- number of reps per set was determined by
locity, so knowing the lifters’ load-velocity a velocity loss target for the day. The par-
profiles aided in load selection. ticipants rested four minutes between sets.
Immediately after the last set, the bar was
For the last 16 sessions, the participants
reloaded to the testing load, and he’d per-
completed 16 different workouts, assigned
form three more reps with that load. One
in a random order. In each session, the lift-
minute after completing this final set of
er first worked up to a load he could move
three reps with the testing load, the re-
at approximately 1 m/s for three reps (I’ll
searchers took a capillary blood sample to
refer to this as the testing load). Then, he
measure blood lactate. Figure 1 depicts the
performed three sets of either squat or
9
Figure 2 Example Training Session with 0.98 m/s initial target velocity, with 30% velocity loss target per set
3 x 0.98 [30%]
-29.5%
S1 S2 S3 Testing load
-30.0% -27.3% -31.3%
1.2
0.97
-1m·s) 1.0 0.96 0.98 0.94 -20.2%
y (
ocit 0.8 0.78
el 0.69 0.71
V
e 0.66
siv 0.6
ul
p
o
n Pr 0.4 4 min 4 min
a
e
M
0.2
0
1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3
Example of monitoring velocity loss (VL) during the training sets and quantification of percentage of change in MPV pre-post exercise attained against the testing load
after 3 sets with 60% 1RM and 30% VL in the set (3 x ~0.98 [30%] REP) for a representative participant in the SQ exercise.
MPV = mean propulsive velocity; RM = repetition maximum; REP = resistance exercise protocol; SQ = squat
flow of a single training session. repetitions in reserve, and they’d observed
that greater velocity loss was needed in the
Each session had a different initial ve-
bench press to accomplish that (i.e. 45%
locity target and a different velocity loss
velocity loss may coincide with two reps
target. For the squat, initial velocity tar-
in reserve for squat, but a velocity loss of
gets were 1.13 m/s, 0.98 m/s, 0.82 m/s,
55% may be necessary to reach two reps in
and 0.68 m/s. For the bench press, initial
reserve for bench).
velocity targets were 0.93 m/s, 0.79 m/s,
0.63 m/s, and 0.47 m/s. These velocity tar- Effort Index was defined as the prod-
gets were intended to coincide with ap- uct of the maximum concentric velocity
proximately 50%, 60%, 70%, and 80% of attained during the session (usually the
1RM. For the squat, velocity loss targets first rep) and the average relative veloc-
were 10%, 20%, 30%, and 45%, and for ity loss during the three training sets.
the bench press, velocity loss targets were So, if the fastest rep moved at 0.8 m/s,
15%, 25%, 40%, and 55%. Velocity loss and average velocity loss on each set was
targets differed between exercises, because 30%, the Effort Index for that workout
the researchers wanted to roughly equate would be 0.8 x 30% = 24. Thus, all else
10