Low vs. High Load Resistance Training - Yes, You Can Gain Muscle W/ "Low" Loads - Non-Significantly More Even!

It turns out, the biceps may even benefit from higher rep, lower weight training.

You probably remember my Facebook post about Brad Schoenfeld's then unpublished study which proves that you can gain muscle using low(er) weights, as well. Now, that the study has eventually been published, it would appear to be about time to take a closer look at the procedure and results in order to determine how relevant, the finding Schoenfeld, Peterson, Ogborn, Contreras and Sommez present in their not yet printed, but peer-reviewed and accepted paper in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.

The purpose of the study, and that should be obvious considering what I already gave away, was to compare the effect of low- versus high-load resistance training (RT) on muscular adaptations in well-trained subjects.

According to the results of this study you better periodize to benefit from high & low loads!

30% More on the Big Three: Squat, DL, BP!

Block Periodization Done Right

Linear vs. Undulating Periodizationt

12% Body Fat in 12 Weeks W/ Periodizatoin

Detraining + Periodization - How to?

Tapering 101 - Learn How It's Done!

Schoenfeld et al. recruited eighteen young men who were - important fact! - "experienced in RT". More specifically, ...

"[s]ubjects were between the ages of 18-35, did not have any existing musculoskeletal disorders, were free from consumption of anabolic steroids or any other illegal agents known to increase muscle size for the previous year, and were experienced lifters (i.e., defined as consistently lifting weights at least 3 times per week for a minimum of 1 year, and regularly performing the bench press and squat). The range of lifting experience for all subjects was between 1.5 and 9 years of consistent training" (Schoenfeld. 2015).

The subjects were matched according to baseline strength, and then randomly assigned to 1 of 2
experimental groups:

• a low-load + high rep resistance training routine (LL) where 25-35 repetitions were performed per set per exercise (n = 9), or
• a high-load RT + normal rep routine (HL) where 8-12 repetitions were performed per set per exercise (n = 9). 

During each session, subjects in both groups performed 3 sets of 7 different exercises representing all major muscles. Training was carried out 3 times per week on non-consecutive days, for 8 total weeks (not other high intensity exercise was allowed during the study period;; dietary intake was monitored and didn't show sign. inter-group differences). The exercises performed were: flat barbell press, barbell military press, wide grip lat pulldown, seated cable row, barbell back squat, machine leg press, and machine leg extension. As Schoenfeld et al. point out, the "exercises were chosen based on their common inclusion in bodybuilding- and strength-type RT programs" (Schoenfeld. 2015).

The results of the study at hand put a question mark behind some, but not all of the recommendations in Kramer's paper. The ones on exercise order and workout structure (see above) are still valuable (Kramer. 2004)

So how can low load training build muscle? While it has long been shown that low(er) reps and higher weight are superior when it comes to building maximal strength and despite the fact that strength is an important prerequisite to induce the overload that's required to trigger adaptational changes in the form of skeletal muscle growth in response to resistance training, it is by no means clear that the latter, i.e. the induction of continuous progressive overload to trigger muscle growth wouldn't be possible with low reps - irrespective of the fact that Kraemer & Ratamess claim in their often cited paper about the "Fundamentals of resistance training: progression and exercise prescription" (Kraemer. 2004) that the high load was necessary, because it was required to recruit all motor units and thus fully activate the muscle and its growth potential.

Since even light load exercises can recruit a maximum amount of motor units if they are performed to failure, this argument is yet only relevant if we are talking about light load  + no-failure training. It is thus not surprising that previous studies comparing the muscular adaptations in low- versus high-load training programs yielded conflicting results. Results that were mostly generated in untrained subjects and are thus, much in contrast to the study at hand, pretty irrelevant for most of you.

"To facilitate recovery", the researchers provided the subjects with a supplement on training days containing 24g protein and 1g carbohydrate (Iso100 Hydrolyzed Whey Protein Isolate, Dymatize Nutrition, Farmers Branch, TX) which was consumed within one hour post-exercise, as this time frame has been purported to help potentiate increases in muscle protein synthesis after the workouts (cf. Aragon. 2013).

Figure 1: Overview of all relevant study results. Only the changes in squat strength and strength endurance as measure by 50% bench presses were statistical significant, there was a trend for greater increases in 1RM BP (Schoenfeld. 2015) 

As the data in Figure 1  tells you, both resistance training protocols yielded significant increases in biceps and triceps size. For biceps, the high rep training had a measurable, but non-significant edge producing 8.6% vs. 5.3% increases in biceps size (remember how people train their biceps, that's often ballistic, i.e. they are throwing high weights around, so maybe the benefits are simply a result of improved form).

For the triceps, the quadriceps (9.5% vs. 9.3%) and the biceps' antagonist, the triceps (5.2% vs. 6.0%) the differences were marginal and likewise non-significant. Now, it would be revealing, but boring if the results of high rep + low load and low rep + high load training were identical, right? Well, luckily, Schoenfeld et al. did find differences, as well. More specifically, they observed that the

"[i]mprovements in back squat strength were significantly greater for HL compared to LL (19.6 vs. 8.8%, respectively) and there was a trend for greater increases in 1RM bench press (6.5 vs. 2.0%, respectively)" (Schoenfeld. 2015).

In addition, and not much to your surprise, I guess, the upper body muscle endurance (assessed by the bench press at 50% 1RM to failure) improved to a greater extent in the low load (LL) compared to high load (HL) group (16.6% vs. -1.2%, respectively).

If there was a novelty effect that skews the results, this would only mean that you must periodize appropriately..

Overall, there's little to add to the authors' conclusion that their "findings indicate that both HL and LL [low load, high rep] training to failure can elicit significant increases in muscle hypertrophy among well-trained young men; however, HL training is superior for maximizing strength adaptations" (Schoenfeld. 2015); and while the latter is hardly news, the study is of particular significance in view of the ongoing debate about "go heavy or go home" as it proves a significant gain in muscle size can be achieved with both "going heavy" or "going light", as long as you don't go home, but train to failure.

What remains to be seen, though, is whether the high rep, low load training had the bonus of a novelty effect. After all, it can be expected that none of the subjects trained in a 25-35 rep range before they participated in the study. If that's the case and there is a novelty effect that bolstered the size gains, this wouldn't mean, though, that high rep training was useless. What it would mean, however, is that you'd have another reason to periodize your training properly - don't you think so? | Tell me about your experience and give me your thoughts. Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Aragon, Alan Albert, and Brad Jon Schoenfeld. "Nutrient timing revisited: is there a post-exercise anabolic window." J Int Soc Sports Nutr 10.1 (2013): 5.
• Kraemer, William J., and Nicholas A. Ratamess. "Fundamentals of resistance training: progression and exercise prescription." Medicine and science in sports and exercise 36.4 (2004): 674-688.
• Schoenfeld, et al. "Effects of Low- Versus High-Load Resistance Training on Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy in Well-Trained Men." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Publish Ahead of Print. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000958

Lower Rep Numbers Power Up Strength Gains Without Compromising Hypertrophy: Study Compares Volume-Equated 3x10 vs. 7x3 Resistance Training Regimen

Higher reps, don't prevent muscle gain, ladies (img. fighterdiet.com)

As a SuppVersity reader you know that the number of studies with reliable and above all relevant information about the differential effects of high vs. low rep training is scarce. Compared to the number of studies which deals with question like "Is it better I perform 10x3 or rather only 7x3 reps x sets of bench presses?", their number is still pretty high, though.

With their latest paper in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Brad Schoenfeld et al. actually break ground: A study with trainees with on average 4.2 ± 2.4 years of training experience (range of 1.5 to 10 years) that deals with the aforementioned question whether 3x10 or 7x3 would be the optimal set x rep range for strength and size gains has yet - at least as far as I recall - not been conducted.

Squatting will always remain the most versatile muscle builder & fat shredder

Optimizing Rest for Size and Strength Gains

Alternating Squat & BP - Productive?

Farmer's Walk or Squat? Is Strong- men T. For You?

Full ROM ➯ Full Gains - Form Counts!

Battle the Rope to Get Ripped & Strong

Up Your Squat by 25% With Sodium Bicarbonate

To compare the two loading strategies, the 20 male study participants were randomly assigned to one of the two types of resistance training routines they had to follow for 8 weeks to the figurative "T" in the study (Schoenfeld. 2014):

• a strength-type resistance training routine (ST)
• a hypertrophy-type resistance training routine (HT)

To ensure adequate protein intake, the participants were provided with a free protein supplement on training days. The product (Iso100 Hydrolyzed Whey Protein Isolate, Dymatize Nutrition) contained 24g protein and ony 1g carbohydrate and had to be consumed within one hour post-exercise.

Table 2: Overview of the exercise selection and sequence (Schoenfeld. 2014)

The hypertrophy workout was a split routine where multiple exercises were performed for a specific muscle group in a session, with only 1 muscle group trained per session (see Table 1).

Scientifically accurate, but maybe not 100% realistic: Usually you will see trainees train with an overall higher volume, when they are using 3x10 vs. 7x3 routines. As logical and necessary the standardized volume may be - from a practical point of view it's not realistic to equate both arms for volume-load. This does not mean that the results of the study at hand are irrelevant, but it does mean that they don't necessarily reflect the way advanced trainees train.

A moderate number of repetitions (target of 10 repetitions per set within a range of 8-12 repetitions) were performed with rest periods of 90 seconds afforded between sets and exercises. The load was adjusted for each exercise as  needed on successive sets to ensure that subjects achieved momentary muscular exhaustion within the target repetition range.

Figure 1: Pre- vs. post changes (%) in biceps thickness, bench press and squat performance (Schoenfeld. 2014)

As you can see in Figure 1, the total exercise volume which was kept identical to make the two training regimen comparable, the increase in biceps size is another variable that did not differ in-between the groups.

The latter cannot be said of the 1-RM and bench press and most significantly the 1-RM squat performance which (obviously?) benefits from a lower rep range - at least at a fixed volume.

What's special about this study? The subjects are trained individuals, the differences between the two protocols tested are smaller than in previous studies (e.g. 6x4 vs. 3x10 in Chestnut & Docherty. 1999) and the results implicate that >75% of the trainees could be compromising their strength gains by training with too many reps - and why all that? Because bro-science says: 10-12 reps is optimal for hypertrophy and bigger muscles are "sexier" than stronger ones ;-)

Apropos "fixed volume": While it makes sense from a science point of view to compare 7x3 (ST) and 3x10 (HT) regimen at identical volumes, trainees will usually train at a higher volume on 3x10 rep vs. 7x3 rep regimen.

With respect to the advanced strength gains, I am pretty sure that the volume "restriction" (compared to what we'd see in the real world) in the HT group is not the reason that 7x3 is superior to 3x10, when it comes to building muscle. Rather than that, I would be curious to see, whether a higher volume, higher rep regimen with 3x10 would not induce greater gains in muscle size. The fact that it is already on par with the ST regimen - in spite of significantly lower strength increases - would speak in favor of this hypothesis. Without an additional study, though, the corresponding question cannot be answered.

References:

• Chestnut, James L., and David Docherty. "The effects of 4 and 10 repetition maximum weight-training protocols on neuromuscular adaptations in untrained men." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 13.4 (1999): 353-359.
• Schoenfeld, B. et al. "Effects of different volume-equated resistance training loading strategies on muscular adaptations in well-trained men." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2014). Publish Ahead of Print

Strength ⇧ | Size ⇩ - After 7 Weeks With Three Additional Sets of Blood Flow Restricted High Rep + Low Intensity Squats & Bench Presses in Well-Trained Athletes

Strength and size don't always go hand in hand... and BFR training appears to be better suited for strength than size gains.

"A Seven-week Practical Blood Flow Restriction Program on Well-trained Collegiate Athletes", this does not just sound awesome, this is awesome, because it is the title of a soon-to-be-published paper in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. Conducted by researchers from the Emporia University and the University of Kansas, the corresponding seven week trial that involved 62 participants is yet not the first study to examine the effects of blood flow restriction (BFR) used in conjunction with a traditional weight training program on measures of muscular strength and size in athletes (collegiate American football players).

The protocol used in this investigation was modeled after a practical BFR study conducted by Yamanaka et al. (2002) - a 4-week study with 32, instead of 62 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division IA football players as subjects, which already found "improved muscular hypertrophy and muscular strength" (Yamanaka. 2002) in response to a twice-a-week lower body vs. upper body workout (Mo, Tue - Thur, Fri):

Table 1: Overview of the the 2-day upper / lower body split the subjects in the study performed (Luebbers. 2014)

The experiment took place during the team's off-season, as a part of their strength and conditioning program and the scientists speculated that they would see similar increases in strength and size gains as Yamanaka et al. in those athletes who did the additional 3 sets with cuffs .

Four, not just two groups - that's an important difference

To investigate if it's not the blood flow restriction, but simply the addition of 3 sets of high rep (1x30, 2x20), low intensity (20% or 1RM) bench presses and squats (see Table 1) to the end of the workout that yields the performance benefits, the scientists randomized their initial 72 study participants to four, not just two groups, that performed different combinations of

• 

  "Resting Done Right: Passive Rest or Active Recovery to Get the Most Out Of Your Workouts?" | more

  traditional high intensity training (H) - all the exercises in Table 1 except for the orange bonus at the bottom
• modified medium intensity training (M) identical to (H) but without the high intensity squats and bench presses at the beginning of the workout
• supplemental 20% 1RM Lifting Protocol (S) additional high rep, low intensity bench presses and squats, but without blood flow restriction
• supplemental BFR restricted training (R) additional high rep, low intensity bench presses and squats, but without blood flow restriction

You can see the result in Table 2. Eventually, the the letter-combinations in the "group" column do yet already give away what the participants in the individual groups are doing. Right?

Table 2: Overview of the different groups in the study (Luebbers. 2014)

It goes without saying, that the "H/S/R" group is the one we are most interested in. It is, after all, the group, in which the participants did the blood flow restriction training as an adjunct to a "full" high intensity workout program.

Figure 1: Relative changes in lean mass and strength over the 7-week study period (Luebbers. 2014)

Well, I am not sure if you feel the same, but if I take a look at the data in Figure 1, I am kind of disappointed. Ok, if you want to boast of being a "master squatter", it's probably worth to bandage yourself up at the end of every workout, if you want to get bigger, on the other hand, you better refrain from any type of additional high rep + low intensity exercises towards the end of your workout - irrespective of whether or not you're planning to to them with cuffs.

The study at hand does not refute that BFR training could be a valuable way to make progress in size and strength if you can't train intensely, because of injuries or whatever | learn more

Bottom line: While blood flow restriction appears to be a worthwhile addition to a high intensity strength training regimen that's designed to deliver maximal strength increases it blunts the corresponding increases in muscle size.

In the case of the pectoralis major, the additional three sets of high rep (1x 30, 2x 20 reps) work even led to a measurable, albeit statistically non-significant decrease in chest circumference. If your main goal is muscle size, not strength, the results of the study at hand would clearly suggest that you better stay away from both blood flow restriction and additional low intensity, high rep work (aka pump sets) at the end of the workout.

References:

• Luebecke et al. "The Effects of a Seven-week Practical Blood Flow Restriction Program on Well-trained Collegiate Athletes." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Publish Ahead of Print. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000385
• Yamanaka, Tetsuo, Richard S. Farley, and Jennifer L. Caputo. "Occlusion training increases muscular strength in division Ia football players." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 26.9 (2012): 2523-2529.