MASS - Volume 4 - Issue 3 - Monthly Applications in Strength Sport

109 Pages·2020·7.661 MB·English

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

VOLUME 4, ISSUE 3 MARCH 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 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 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.
2
Table of Contents
5 B Y G R E G N U C K O L S
Is it More Important to Train to Failure with Light Loads?
A recent study compared four conditions: training to failure with high loads (80% 1RM), training to failure
with low loads (30% 1RM), stopping shy of failure with high loads, and stopping shy of failure with low
loads. Its design wasn’t what I was hoping for, and some of the results are genuinely confusing, but it’s
an interesting study nonetheless.
14 B Y T H E M A S S T E A M
Bonus: Reps in Reserve and Hypertrophy
This month, we had a pretty lively discussion about one of Greg’s articles during the review process,
so we thought you may be interested in a) getting a little glimpse into how our review process
works, and b) “overhearing” a discussion of a topic about which we slightly disagree: how close to
failure you need to be to maximize muscle growth.
22 B Y M I C H A E L C . Z O U R D O S
Back-to-Back Champs: The Agonist-Antagonist Superset
Previously, Dr. Helms termed bench press and rows as the “sensible superset.” A new study
seems to confirm the sensibility. This article provides an update on the topic and lays out specific
recommendations on how to implement sensible supersets into your training.
32 B Y E R I C H E L M S
The Effect of Macronutrient Distribution on Sleep Quality
We know both sleep and nutrition are important for health, performance, and body composition.
What is still being investigated, however, is how these variables impact one another. This systematic
review and meta-regression reported that those eating higher protein diets sleep better. Read on to
see why this might be, and what implications these findings have.
44 B Y E R I C T R E X L E R
Losing Fat-Free Mass During Weight Loss: Bad Now, Bad Later
Whether you’re losing weight to enhance your health, your performance, or your physique, we
already know that it’s advantageous to prevent the loss of fat-free mass. A new study suggests
that fat-free mass loss can also affect your likelihood of regaining weight after the diet. Read on to
find out how to set yourself up for sustainable weight loss success.
3
56 B Y G R E G N U C K O L S
The Effects of Range of Motion on Muscle Growth: The Current State of
the Literature
We’ve discussed the effects of range of motion on muscle growth before in MASS, but all of our
previous articles have covered individual studies. A recent systematic review summarized the state of
the literature on the subject. This article breaks down the results.
66 B Y M I C H A E L C . Z O U R D O S
A Thorough Analysis of Daily Readiness Indicators
It seems logical that recovery of velocity would be an indicator of readiness. However, there is
surprisingly little evidence to support that claim, and this study does that argument no favors.
So, what does have support as a readiness indicator? This article provides a thorough analysis.
81 B Y E R I C T R E X L E R
Beetroot Juice Enhances Bench Press Power and Strength Endurance
A 2016 study showed that beetroot juice enhanced bench press strength endurance, but we’ve been
waiting for confirmation ever since. We’ve finally got a second study reporting enhanced bench press
strength endurance, along with increased bar velocity and power. Read on to find out if beetroot juice
supplementation might be right for you.
92 B Y G R E G N U C K O L S
Can You Maximize Strength Gains While Training Far From Failure?
A recent study found that leaving more reps in the tank while training prone-grip pull-ups led to larger
strength gains than pushing closer to failure, even with sets equated. It’s not the first study with these
results. So, how can you use that information when planning your training? Read on to find out.
103 B Y M I C H A E L C . Z O U R D O S
VIDEO: Postactivation Potentiation
Postactivation potentiation has been around for many years; however, research on lifting performance
has only been around for two years. This video analyzes both studies on the topic and provides an
in-depth look at how to implement postactivation potentiation in your program.
105 B Y E R I C H E L M S
VIDEO: Understanding Specificity
Everytime you squat, you’re belted, in the low-bar position, and in your squat shoes, even when
you do a set of 10 reps. Is this really that much more specific to a 1RM squat than a set of 10 on
leg press? Or, your goal is strength, you train heavy, and you do tricep pushdowns for sets of 4-6. Is
this really that much more specific to a 1RM bench than 15-20 reps? Watch this video for answers.
4
Study Reviewed: Muscle Failure Promotes Greater Muscle Hypertrophy in Low-Load
but Not in High-Load Resistance Training. Lasevicius et al. (2019)
Is it More Important to Train
to Failure with Light Loads?
B Y G R E G N U C K O L S

A recent study compared four conditions: training to failure with high
loads (80% 1RM), training to failure with low loads (30% 1RM), stopping
shy of failure with high loads, and stopping shy of failure with low
loads. Its design wasn’t what I was hoping for, and some of the results
are genuinely confusing, but it’s an interesting study nonetheless.
5
KEY POINTS
1. This study compared four conditions: training to failure with high loads (80%
1RM), training to failure with low loads (30% 1RM), stopping shy of failure with
high loads, and stopping shy of failure with low loads. In the conditions where
subjects stopped shy of failure, subjects performed 60% as many reps per set as
the failure conditions, and performed extra sets in order to equate volume load.
2. The high-load conditions led to the largest strength gains, unsurprisingly.
3. Hypertrophy was similar in both high-load conditions and the low-load failure
condition. The low-load non-failure condition led to less growth.
4. The confusing aspect of this study was how the high-load non-failure condition
led to so much hypertrophy. Subjects likely had 7+ reps in the tank on all sets.
I’m honestly not sure how to explain it.
igh-load versus low-load train- formed during the failure sets. Unsur-
H
ing and the effects of proximity prisingly, heavier training led to larger
to failure on muscle growth are strength gains, but surprisingly, the high-
two subjects we’ve covered in MASS load non-failure condition led to just as
before (one, two, three, four, five, six, much muscle growth as the two failure
seven, eight, nine, ten). They’re rele- conditions (while the low-load non-fail-
vant to the MASS readership, however ure condition experienced very lack-
(especially proximity to failure), and it luster hypertrophy results). This was a
seems like they’re the subject of a hefty surprising finding because the high-load
proportion of training studies that have non-failure condition wasn’t just train-
been published in the past few years. ing 2 or 3 reps shy of failure – they prob-
So today, dear reader, we’re looking at ably had 7+ reps in the tank. Read on
these topics once more. The presently as I slowly descend into madness while
reviewed study (1) is interesting, how- trying to interpret these results.
ever, because it addresses both topics at
once.
Purpose and Hypotheses
Over eight weeks, subjects trained uni-
lateral knee extensions with either high
Purpose
(80% 1RM) or low (30% 1RM) loads.
Subjects trained one leg with three sets The purpose of this study was to com-
to failure, and trained the other leg with pare the effects of intensity and prox-
60% of the average number of reps per- imity to failure on muscle growth and
6
strength gains when equating for vol- conditions: one leg trained to failure,
ume load. and the other leg matched volume load
but trained shy of failure. For the failure
Hypotheses conditions, subjects simply performed
three sets of unilateral knee extensions
The authors hypothesized that prox-
to failure, with two minutes between
imity to failure wouldn’t impact muscle
sets. Then, the researchers calculated
growth or strength gains when training
the average number of reps per set, and
at higher intensities (in other words, that
the subjects completed 60% as many
training to failure or not to failure would
reps per set on their non-failure leg (still
have similar effects), but that training
with two minutes between sets) until
to failure would lead to more muscle
they equated volume load between legs.
growth and larger strength gains when
So, for example, if a subject performed
training with low intensities.
12 reps on set 1, 10 reps on set 2, and 8
reps on set 3 with their failure leg, they
Subjects and Methods performed 30 reps in total, averaging 10
reps per set. Then, on their non-failure
leg, they’d perform sets of 6 reps until
Subjects
they’d equated volume load (sets x reps
25 subjects completed the study. They
x load) between legs. Depending on the
were all 19- to 34-year-old males who
strength differential between legs, that
were active, but who had not performed
means the non-failure leg performed
any resistance training for at least 6
either 5 sets (if the non-failure leg was
months prior to the study.
stronger or if both legs were of similar
strength) or 6 sets (if the failure leg was
Experimental Design
stronger), with the 6th set only consist-
Before and after eight weeks of train-
ing of a couple reps. Subjects rested for
ing, subjects tested their unilateral knee
two minutes between sets, and trained
extension 1RM with both legs, and
twice per week.
quadriceps cross-sectional area at the
30 minutes after each training session,
midpoint of the thigh was assessed us-
subjects were asked to provide an ef-
ing MRI.
fort-based rating of perceived exertion
The subjects were randomized into two
for each leg using a 0-10 scale (where
groups: One group performed unilateral
0 is no exertion whatsoever, and 10 is
knee extensions with 80% of 1RM, and
maximal exertion).
one group performed knee extensions
with 30% of 1RM. Furthermore, each
subject’s legs were randomized into two
7
Figure 1 Quadriceps cross-sectional area (CSA) and maximum dynamic strength (1RM) evaluated before and after 8 weeks
A B
110 150 HL-RF
HL-RNF
100
LL-RF
2m) 90 g) 100 LL-RNF
k
A (c 80 M (
S R
C 70 1 50
60
50 0
Pre Post Pre Post
HL-RF = High-load resistance training leading to repetition failure; HL-RNF = high-load resistance training not leading to repetition failure;
LL-RF = low-load resistance training leading to repetition failure; LL-RNF = low-load resistance training not leading to repetition failure
* = Significantly different compared with pre (p < 0.002); # = Significantly different when compared with LL-RF and LL-RNF (p < 0.002) RM = repetition maximum
load conditions (p = 0.001).
Findings
As would be expected, ratings of per-
In the high-load failure condition, sub-
ceived exertion were significantly higher
jects performed 12.4 ± 3.1 reps per set, on
(p < 0.05) during the failure conditions
average. In the corresponding non-fail-
than the non-failure conditions. Mean
ure condition, subjects performed 6.7 ±
session RPEs were largely between 5.5-
1.6 reps. In the low-load failure condi-
7.5 for the non-failure conditions, and
tion, subjects performed 34.4 ± 7.7 reps
9-10 for the failure conditions.
per set on average, compared to 19.6 ±
4.1 reps in the corresponding non-fail-
ure condition. As intended, total volume Interpretation
load was similar in both high-load con-
When I saw the title of this study, I
ditions and both low-load conditions.
initially got excited, because it seemed
Increases in quadriceps CSA were
like it might be the study to finally clari-
similar in all conditions (+7.5-7.9%) ex-
fy an important question about low-load
cept for the low-load nonfailure condi-
training: Is it more important to train to
tion (+2.6%), which caused significant-
failure when doing low-load training
ly (p ≤ 0.004) less muscle growth than
than when doing high-load training?
all other conditions. Gains in 1RM knee
At least a dozen times (conservatively)
extension strength were similar in both
over the past ~5ish years, I’ve seen stud-
high-load conditions (+31.5-32.4%) and
ies claim that it’s not necessary to go to
both low-load conditions (+17.2-22%),
failure when training with higher loads
but larger in the high-load than the low-
8
Figure 2 Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) evaluated in each training sessions
HL-RF
10
HL-RNF
9
LL-RF
) #
. 8 LL-RNF
U
.
A
( 7

E
P
R 6
5
4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Sessions
HL-RF = High-load resistance training leading to repetition failure; HL-RNF = high-load resistance training not leading to repetition failure;
LL-RF = low-load resistance training leading to repetition failure; LL-RNF = low-load resistance training not leading to repetition failure
# = Significantly different when compared with HL-RF and LL-RNF (p < 0.05)
(>60% 1RM), but that you must train to leave, say, 2-5 reps in the tank; they were
failure if you want to experience robust leaving 10+ reps in the tank. Thus, there
hypertrophy with low loads. Without hasn’t been a true comparison between
looking too hard at the literature, that challenging-but-non-failure low-load
seemed to be a reasonably well-sup- training and challenging-but-non-fail-
ported finding. There were quite a few ure high-load training. I was hoping this
studies showing similar hypertrophy study (1) would provide some clarity,
between high-load and low-load train- but alas, it did not.
ing when sets were taken to failure, and
In this study, once again, the low-load
there were also studies showing mini-
group trained way far from failure. On
mal hypertrophy with non-failure low-
paper, it looks like they stayed about
load training (2, 3). Case closed? Far
15 reps from failure. In practice, it was
from it. In the non-failure studies with
probably closer to 20 reps. The failure
low-load training, the low-load groups
condition averaged 34.4 reps per set, but
didn’t just stop sets shy of failure. They
since they took each set to failure, they
stopped sets way shy of failure. Low-
almost certainly performed more reps
load groups weren’t being instructed to
during their first set, perhaps performing
9
41 reps on the first set, 34 on the sec- failure. It’s not a totally fair comparison
ond, and 28 on the third, or something (at least if you’re interested in compar-
of that nature. Sets with at least 15+ reps ing things on a per-set basis), because
in the tank are unlikely to cause signifi- the non-failure group did a couple more
cant fatigue, so the low-load non-failure sets (4). But still, I was surprised that
condition in this study likely had at least hypertrophy was similar between condi-
15-20 reps in reserve on each set. So, tions. And if I’m being honest, I don’t
we now have even more evidence that have a good explanation for it. This
training with a whole heap of reps in re- study (1) is comparable to a prior study
serve isn’t ideal for hypertrophy, but we by Goto and colleagues which also used
still don’t know if you absolutely have knee extensions (5). Subjects performed
to train to failure to maximize hypertro- 3 sets of 10 to failure on one leg, and 3
phy with low-load training, or whether quasi-cluster sets of 10 reps on the other
you’re fine leaving a reasonable number leg, not to failure (they did 5 reps, rested
(i.e. <5) of reps in reserve. 30 seconds, and did 5 more; proximity
to failure wasn’t reported, but they like-
The more interesting results of this
ly had 3ish reps left in the tank at the end
study, to me at least, were those ob-
of the second mini-set each round). The
tained in the high-load group. Much like
group training to failure experienced
the low-load group, the mean number of
way more quad hypertrophy. I guess it’s
reps per set in the failure condition like-
possible that the two extra non-failure
ly underestimates the number of reps
sets in the present study were sufficient
the subjects could perform when fresh.
to equalize the stimulus, but … that
Rather than doing 12.4 reps per set, it
strikes me as unlikely. If I’m being hon-
was probably something closer to 15, 12,
est, this result is interesting, but it leaves
and 10. So, since the non-failure group,
me scratching my head. I’m comfort-
again, likely accrued little fatigue per
able with the idea of still maximizing
set, they were probably training mostly
hypertrophy while staying 2-3 reps from
at 7-8+ reps from failure. Thus, it’s in-
failure, but I’m not sure I’m comfortable
credibly striking that hypertrophy was
with the idea of still maximizing hyper-
similar between high-load conditions.
trophy with 7 reps in the tank. I’ll chalk
As I detailed on Stronger By Science,
this up to a possible false negative for
thus far, the literature has largely sup-
the between-conditions comparison that
ported training to failure for untrained
I’d really want to see replicated.
lifters, but not for trained lifters. This is
the first study on untrained lifters where I suppose it’s possible that I’m under-
training this far from failure led to sim- estimating the amount of fatigue caused
ilar growth when compared to going to by the high-load non-failure condition.
10