|It's one thing to make strength and mass gains, it's a whole different story to make them last - if possible, for the rest of your life! Study suggests: Training intense, may help.|
"Effect of acute detraining following two types of resistance training on strength performance and body composition in trained athletes" - that's the title of a paper that was published late last year but popped up in the major databases, only recently. In spite of the delay, the results Vahid Tadibi and his colleagues from the Razi University, the University of Kordestan and the Islamic Azad University present in this 5-pages paper are unquestionably well worth being covered.
In view of the limited evidence available for the effect of detraining on strength training with different intensity and volume, Tadibi et al. set out to
"determine the influences of short term detraining after two kinds of resistance training on strength performance and body composition in trained athletes." (Tadibi. 2013)To this ends, the Iranian researchers recruited 30 healthy men students recruited from
Razi University of Kermanshah. The subjects were divided into two experimental groups as follows:
- group (I) who performed resistance training with low intensity and high volume (GRI: n=15), weight 73.7±10.3 kg, height 174.5±7.5 m and age 24.7±1.4 years old and
- group (II) who performed low volume and high intensity (GRII: n=25), weight 63.2±6.2, height 175.8±5.5 and age 25.4±1 (years old).
- warm up, specific or related training and cool down.
circuit training: When you build a circuit training routine, don't forget: There are lot's of metabolically demanding kettle- bell exercises to spice things up. There are probably a dozen of reasons why people train. Many of them are really good: Wanting to stay healthy, to live longer, or to excel in your sports. Of others, however, I am not so sure whether they are actually worth pursuing, or do you think" - suggested read: "Circuit vs. Classic Strength Training, Which System is More Metabolically Demanding? What are the Energetic Costs and Where Does the Energy Come From, Fat or Glucose?" | read more.The actual intervention, i.e. the specific training part consisted of fast-paced circuit training workouts with 60 to 90 seconds rest between the following exercises:
Figure 1: Graphical overview of the two training regimen
- biceps curls,
- triceps extensions,
- shoulder press
"[s]ubjects performed 12– 15 maximal repetitions/set (55–60% 1RM) in group I, low intensity and high volume (LIHV protocol), and 5 maximal repetitions/set (85–90% 1RM) in the group II, low volume and high intensity (HILV protocol)" (Tadibi. 2013)In order to establish optimal progression the "1RM was retested in the end of every week so that resistance could be adjusted properly" (Tadibi. 2013).
TRAINING ➲ DETRAINING ➰ RESULTS?
Apropos progress, you will probably remember that the actual intention of the researchers was not to compare the muscle and strength gains during the six-week training program, but their persistence. Accordingly, the all-important question was what would happen, when the subjects resumed their normal active, but not necessarily resistance trained lifestyle after a 2-week lay-off of any type of systematic (training stoppage).
|Figure 1: Relative changes in max strength (left) and body comp (right) from pre- to post-detraining (Tadibi. 2013)|
- Contrary to what common wisdom would predict, the low intensity, high volume (LIHV) and the high intensity, low volume (HILV) regimen produce statistically identical strength gains over the course of the six-weeks training phased (not shown in Figure 1)
- The gains on the high intensity, low volume (HILV) regimen were - albeit not significantly - but visibly more persistent than those that were brought about by the high volume low intensity regimen.
- The high volume training turned out to have significant fat burning effects of the initially significant relative reduction in body fat % of 18% (from 12.15% to 9.73 in LIHV vs. 11.91% to 10.59% in the HILV group), there were yet only 7% left after 2 weeks of detraining (the BF% went back up from 9.73±3.12% to 11.27±3.37%).
- Häkkinen, K. "Neuromuscular adaptation during strength training, aging, detraining, and immobilization." Critical Reviews in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 6 (1994): 161-161.
- Tadibi, Vahid, et al. "Effect of acute detraining following two types of resistance training on strength performance and body composition in trained athletes." (2013).