Synergistic or Non-Synergistic Split Training - Is Intl. Chest + Biceps Monday Dead? Quite the Opposite, Study Says

Yes, we are talking about a study in trained individuals, bros :-)

This is not the first SuppVersity article to address the usefulness and efficacy of different split routines (learn more). What makes the study at hand special, though, is that it addressed the issue in previously resistance trained subjects with at least 2 years of regular training under their weight lifting belts.

The study that has been published ahead of print in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (Castanheira. 2015) does, therefore, join the ranks of the few scientific studies that have not been conducted in rookies, for whom literally "everything works".

No matter which split you like, it always makes sense to use periodization schemes.

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

Mix Things Up to Make Extra-Gains

Linear vs. Undulating Periodization

12% Body Fat in 12 Weeks W/ Periodization

Detraining + Periodization - How to?

Tapering 101 - Learn How It's Done!

After initial testing that involved height and body mass assessment, familiarization with the procedures of the study, and 10 maximum repetitions (RM) loads assessment, the subjects randomly performed three split training routines on subsequent visits:

• pull-pull exercise (synergist routine, SN): 6 sets of 10RM seated row exercise followed by 4 sets of 10 repetitions of preacher biceps curl exercise using an isokinetic dynamometer, 
• push-pull exercise (non-synergist routine, NS): 6 sets of 10RM of bench press exercise followed by 4 sets of 10RM of preacher biceps curl exercise using an isokinetic dynamometer, and 
• control: 4 sets of 10RM of preacher biceps curl exercise using an isokinetic dynamometer. 

In the context of the study, a "synergist muscle" was considered a group of muscles that assist the agonist muscle in producing the same joint movement - for the biceps that's almost every back exercise, or the triceps it would be almost every upper body (shoulder or chest) press movement.

Figure 1: Muscle activity of the biceps, measured by EMG during the three training conditions (Castanheira. 2016).

The scientists' hypothesis before doing the study was "[...] that there will be no differences in elbow flexor neuromuscular performance between the synergist and non-synergist split training routines" (Castanheira. 2016).

Figure 2: Total work (J); control, non-synergistic (NS) and synergistic (SN | Castanheira. 2016)

A minor problem with the design was that the biceps curl exercise was performed using an isokinetic dynamometer instead of the isoinertial free weight exercise. Thus, the authors wanted to "allow more precise measurements of decreases in torque, work, fatigue, muscle activation, and performance within each repetition and throughout the sets" (Castanheira. 2016), but obviously also made their training routine less realistic.

Figure 3: Peak torque (N/m); control, non-synergistic (NS) and synergistic (SN | Castanheira. 2016)

As Castanheira et al. point out, "[t]he main purpose of the split training system is to maximize training volume within a training session and to allow appropriate muscle recovery" (Castanheira. 2016). In this regard, their experiment yielded unambiguous results: the force production, volume, and recovery were greater in the non-synergistic (NS) than the synergist (SN) condition. What the experiment cannot tell us, however, is whether a real-world approach with three workouts per week would yield additional gains. After all, the increased volume comes at the cost of reduced recovery times between workouts, because the biceps would be hammered directly on a chest + biceps day and afterward indirectly during a back workout on another day.

SuppVersity Suggested: "Go Slow to Grow: Almost 3x Bigger Biceps W/ Slow Reps". Muscle activity, not the number on the dumbbell you through around, counts, bro! | read it!

So, what's the takeaway? You have previously read that we'd need to have a long-term study measuring both, strength and size gains to answer the question for the practical implications conclusively. Based on the data we have, I can subscribe to the authors' own decision that "a push and pull non-synergist split routine [should be] recommended to maximize elbow flexor training performance (i.e. lower acute loading effect) in trained subjects", but I would also like to point out that the increased total volume is probably only going to benefit you if you still allow for adequate rest of ideally 48h+ before you hammer your biceps (directly or indirectly) again | Comment!

References:

• Castanheira, RPM et al. "Effects Of Synergist Vs. Non-Synergist Split Resistance Training Routines On Acute Neuromuscular Performance In Resistance Trained Men." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2016): ahead of print | doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001762

GVT -- Too Much Volume!? Only Trunk / Legs, and Triceps, not Pecs, Biceps or Back Benefit from Doing 10 vs. 5 Sets

Bad news, bros. The biceps suffers when you increase your volume. Your legs, however, need extra hammering.

German Volume Training (GVT), or the "10 sets method", has been used for decades by weightlifters to increase muscle mass. I've used it before and I guess many of you will have tried this allegedly tried and proven method, as well.

"Allegedly proven"? Yes, you read me right. In spite of the fact that it has been around for decades, Amirthalingam et al., the authors of a soon-to-be-published paper in the Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research claim that, "to date, no study has directly examined the training adaptations following GVT" (Amirthalingam. 2016). The purpose of Amirthalingam's latest study was thus to investigate the effect of a modified GVT intervention on muscular hypertrophy and strength.

Looking for more cutting edge exercise and supplementation science?

Vitargo, Red Bull, Creatine & More | ISSN'15 #1

Pump Supps & Synephrine & X | ISSN'15 #2

High Protein, Body Comp & X | ISSN'15 #3

Keto Diet Re- search Update | ISSN'15 #4

The Misquantified Self & More | ISSN'15 #5

BCAA, Cholos-trum, Probiotics & Co | ISSN'15 #6

Nineteen healthy males were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of 10 or 5 sets of 10 repetitions (or as many reps as possible before failing) for specific compound resistance exercises included in a split-routine performed 3 times per week (workout details in Table 1):

Table 1: Overview of the two workout programs (Amirthalingam. 2016).

Mind the fact that, as it is in the original GVT protocol, only the primary movers, the bench press, lat pulldown, leg press, dumbbell lunge, shoulder press and upright row were performed for 10, the auxiliary exercises for 4x10 reps. Before and after the training program, total and regional lean body mass, muscle thickness, and muscle strength were measured by DEXA and ultrasound, as well as standardized strength tests. 

Figure 1: Changes in body composition and body-part specific (individual) gains in percent increase from baseline; the p-values indicate that only the inter-group difference for the trunk mass (green) was stat. sign. (Amirthalingam. 2016).

As you can see in Figure 1, there were significant increases in lean body mass measures across the groups. However, a significantly greater increases in trunk (p = 0.043; ES = -0.21) and arm (p = 0.083; ES = -0.25) lean body mass favored the 5-SET and thus the lower volume group.

Figure 2: Relative changes in muscle thickness and strength (Amirthalingam. 2016).

Similar results were observed for muscular strength, with greater increases in the 5-SET group for bench press (p = 0.014; ES = -0.43) and lat pull-down (p = 0.003; ES = -0.54). That's surprising - at least in view of the results of the latest reviews of the effects training volume on muscle and strength gains - reviews that suggest that volume is the key to your gains.

Advanced Trainees Benefit from Increased Training Volume | more

So, doing only 5 sets it is, then!? Since no increases and even a non-significant decrease was found for the subjects' leg lean body mass, another modification of the program in the form of doing 10 sets only for body parts that benefit (legs, triceps) and only 5 sets for the upper body could be the key to maximal gains... and it could be something to investigate in a future study, which may then provide a less generalizing conclusion than the study at hand: "GVT program is no more effective than performing 5 sets per exercise for increasing muscle hypertrophy and strength. To maximize hypertrophic training effects it is recommended that 4-6 sets per exercise be performed, as it appears gains will plateau beyond this set range and may even regress due to overtraining" (Behringer. 2016) | Comment!

References:

• Amirthalingam, et al. "Effects of a Modified German Volume Training Program on Muscular Hypertrophy and Strength." Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research: Post Acceptance: November 25, 2016 | doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001747.

Full-Body vs. Split Workouts: Body Composition Changes Favor Volume-Equated FB Workouts in Trained Athletes

I guess that most of you will be training according to a split workout, right? You can do so many great bench press and biceps curl variations on "International Chest + Biceps"-Monday... awesome, right? Ok, enough of the sarcasm and back to the science. In this case, a recent study by scientists from the National Research Institute in Warsaw, the Sports Performance Research Institute New Zealand, the Bond University in Australia and the University of the Sunshine Coast.

Said study was conducted by Crewther et al. and published recently in the Biology of Sport. It examined the effects of two equal-volume resistance-training protocols upon strength, body composition and salivary hormones in male rugby union players.

You can also incorporate full body training into your periodization schemes.

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

Mix Things Up to Make Extra-Gains

Linear vs. Undulating Periodizationt

12% Body Fat in 12 Weeks W/ Periodizatoin

Detraining + Periodization - How to?

Tapering 101 - Learn How It's Done!

The scientists used a crossover design, involving 24 male rugby players (mean age 29.8 ± 6.8 years; height 179.5 ± 7.9 cm; body mass 92.9 ± 12.2 kg) with at least 2 years of resistance-training experience (3-4 times per week) who completed a 4-week full-body (FB) and split-body (SB) training protocol of equal volume during the competitive season.

"Both training approaches involved 3 weekly sessions (Monday, Wednesday and Friday) completed between 1600 to 1800 hours. Training involved 8 repetition maximum lifts for selected exercises, performed for 3-6 sets with rest periods of 60-90 seconds between sets and exercises. In the FB protocol, all muscle groups were ex ercised during each of the 3 weekly training sessions, while in the SB protocol only a sub-set of the muscle groups was exercised dur ing each session. The prescribed exercises included; back squats, leg curls, leg press, bench press, bent-over row, pull downs, shoulder press, bicep curls and calf raises. To equate for training volume, the total number of repetitions prescribed each week were identical (i.e. FB training = 21 exercises, 2-3 sets × 8 repetitions; SB training = 13 exercises, 3-6 sets × 8 repetitions). The 2 protocols are commonly used in research and practice and these were incorporated into the weekly schedule of the study population to improve the ecological validity of our findings. A standard warm-up was performed before all training sessions comprising of basic exercises performed with increasing intensities and stretching of the major muscle groups [18], with the athletes self-selecting the inten sity and duration of stretching" (Crewther. 2016).

One repetition maximum (1RM) strength, body composition via skinfold measurements and salivary testosterone (T) and cortisol (C) concentrations were assessed pre and post training.

Figure 1: Rel. changes in strength (1RM in bench presses and squats) and body composition (body mass, body fat (%), fat mass and fat free mass) during the FB and SB training phases (Crewther. 2016).

As you can see in Figure 1, the FB and SB protocols improved upper (7.3% and 7.4%) and lower body 1RM strength (7.4% and 5.4%) to a similar extend. The data in Figure 1 does yet also reveal that the full body workout had a slight edge in terms of its effects on the body fat percentage and total fat mass of the subjects and reduced the latter by 0.5% and 3.6% more than the split training.

Figure 2: Post training period (not immediately post-workout) changes in hormone concentration (Crewther. 2016).

Whether or not this is related to the hormonal changes in Figure 2 is questionable, but it is at least worth mentioning that the testosterone to cotrisol (T/C) increased only (+28%) after the FB training. As the scientists point out,

"slope testing on the individual responses identified positive associations (p ≤ 0.05) between T and C concentrations and absolute 1RM strength in stronger (squat 1RM = 150.5 kg), but not weaker (squat 1RM = 117.4 kg), men" (Crewther. 2016),

a result that does not exactly make it easier to decide whether the hormonal differences were corollary or causative for the differential effect on the body composition of the athletes. What is quite clear, though, is that even within a short window of training, both, FB and SB protocols, can improve strength and body composition in rugby players.

In that, the scientists rightly point out that "[t]he similar strength gains highlight training volume as a key adaptive stimulus" - a result we've encountered in numerous previous studies, as well. What is "news", though is that the program structure (i.e. FB or SB) had a measurable influence on the the body composition and hormonal outcomes, of which the latter were only partly (namely in the strong athletes) related to the strength gains.

Blood flow restriction could also have a place in your periodization plan.

Bottom line: If you are asking me if you should trash your split training routine now and switch to full-body workouts, my answer may surprise you: "No!" Even though, or rather because the study population is significantly more representative of the average SuppVersity reader than in many other studies... what? Well, you will probably train at a significantly higher volume per muscle part, when splitting (in the study this didn't change), the results could thus be completely different for you than they were for the subjects in this volume-equated FB to SB comparison.

Furthermore, we cannot exclude that the subjects benefited from a novelty effects that occurred, because the full body workout was a welcome change from their own regular split routines (we can safely assume that 90% of trainees with more than 2y training experience train according to a body part split). This, in turn, could yet be a reason to answer the previously stated question in the affirmative: "Yes, switch to a full body split, but do it not once and forever, but temporary, as part of a well-planned periodiziation routine." | What do you think? Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Crewther BT, Heke TOL, Keogh JWL. The effects of two equal-volume training protocols upon strength, body composition and salivary hormones in male rugby union players. Biol Sport. 2016;33(2):111–116.