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

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.

Each Body Part Once or Thrice per Week / as Split or Total Body What's Best for Gains? Plus: Kettlebells for Aerobics?

Strength, size and conditioning, you want them all, this article has it all.

Alright, the latest issue of the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research is out and I am going to give you the elevator pitch on what I found to be the most interesting articles in the July 2015 issue.

The first one is Brad Schoenfelds 3x1-day full body vs. 3-day split training comparison in well-trained athletes with interesting, but not mind-blowing results. The second one is a study in which scientists from the San José State University prove that Kettlebell training can be an effective aerobic training even in trained rather endurance-oriented athletes like female collegiate division I soccer players.

No matter what your goal is. You will achieve it faster if you periodize appropriately!

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!

• Influence of Resistance Training Frequency on Muscular Adaptations in Well-Trained Men (Schoenfeld. 2015) - In essence, Schoenfeld's study was designed to answer the often-asked question, whether SPLIT training is superior to TOTAL body training.
  
  One of the many strengths of the study is that Schoenfeld et al. recruited well-trained subjects, who had been resistance training a minimum of 3 days-per-week for at least 1 year, with a mean lifting experience of 4.5 ± 3.1 years. In addition, the subjects were not just randomly assigned to the two study groups, but initially pair matched according to baseline strength and then randomly assigned to 1 of the 2 experimental groups:

  

  Table 1: Overview of the training protocols (Schoenfeld. 2015)

  "a SPLIT, where multiple exercises were performed for a specific muscle group in a session with 2–3 muscle groups trained per session (n = 10) or a TOTAL, where 1 exercise was performed per muscle group in a session with all muscle groups trained in each session (n = 10)" (Schoenfeld. 2015).

  All in all, the subjects performed 21 exercises targeting the major muscle groups, thus training "all" muscles once a week in the SPLIT and thrice a week in the TOTAL group. I would like to point out, though, that Schoenfeld et al. were clever enough to modify the TOTAL workout for day 1-3. While all TOTAL workouts were full body workouts, the exercises the subjects did were different (see Table 1).
  

  

  Figure 1: A brief glimpse should suffice to tell that the biceps, triceps and vastus lateralis (from left to right) gains didn't differ between the SPLIT and the TOTAL group (Schoenfeld. 2015).

  Speaking of details, as previously stated both groups trained thrice a week on nonconsecutive days for 8 weeks. Both groups performed 2 to 3 sets per exercise for a total of 18 sets per session. The sets in both groups involved 8–12 repetitions with 90 seconds of rest afforded between sets (cadence was controlled concentric, 2s eccentric). In both groups, sets were carried out to the point of momentary concentric muscular failure (defined as the inability to perform another concentric repetition while maintaining proper form). In both groups the load was adjusted for each exercise as needed on successive sets to ensure that subjects achieve failure in the target repetition range. So, what do you conclude from all the "both"s? Yes, that's right. Schoenfeld et al. really did a good job isolating the variable they wanted to instigate.
  

  

  Figure 2: Changes in 1-RM bench (left) and squat (right) performance (Schoenfeld. 2015) - Again, the workout routines worked their magic, but there's no statistically significant difference for these values.

  Against that background you will probably agree that the answer to the longstanding question which is better: SPLIT or TOTAL is "NONE" - assuming all other variables are kept "constant",... well, unless you want to make your forearm flexors grow, i.e. the biceps, because that's (not shown in Figure 1-2), where Schoenfeld et al. found a significant difference after adjusting for baseline - in this case for the TOTAL body workout. Against that background the overall conclusion that

  "[t]he findings suggest a potentially superior hypertrophic benefit to higher weekly resistance training frequencies" (Schoenfeld. 2015)

  is correct and using a split workout to train each muscle once a week is minimally inferior to full body training twice a week. The difference, however, is less significant than many of you may have suspected. One thing to keep in mind here is that the results may have been skewed by the novelty factor of changing programs. As Schoenfeld et al. highlight in the paper, 16 of the 19 subjects reported training with a split routine on a regular basis, in the pre-interview. As they rightly point out, the topic is not well studied, but

  "[...] there is some evidence to indicate that muscular adaptations are enhanced when program variables are altered outside of traditional norms. Thus, it is conceivable that those in TOTAL benefited from the unaccustomed stimulus of training more frequently" (Schoenfeld. 2015).

  If that's the case, this is just another argument in favor or training periodization, i.e. mixing split and full-body routines, high volume, lower intensity with high intensity, lower volume training up in regular cycles, to keep a certain degree of novelty over a long(er) time frame. 
  
• Effects of Kettlebell Training on Aerobic Capacity (Falatic. 2015) - In the past decade, kettlebell (KB) training has gained popularity in the United States and become a viable option for strength training and conditioning. Kettlebells are an ideal tool for ballistic full-body exercises using high muscle forces, making them potentially useful for improving muscular strength and cardiorespiratory fitness. Even I have written about it before, although, I personally don't like doing it ;-)
  
  In a recent study, researchers from the San José State University tested the effect of kettlebell training on seventeen female National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I soccer players (age: 19.7 ± 1.0 years, height: 166.1 ± 6.4 cm, weight: 64.2 ± 8.2 kg).
  
  • Both groups trained 3 days a week for 4 weeks in addition to their off-season strength and conditioning program. All workouts lasted 20 minutes.
  • The KB group performed the 15:15 MVO2 protocol (20 minutes of kettlebell snatching with 15 seconds of work and rest intervals; they were instructed to perform their snatches as fast as possible.
  • The CWT group performed multiple free-weight and dynamic body-weight exercises as part of a continuous circuit program for 20 minutes.
  The results show that only the 15:15 MVO2 kettle-bell protocol significantly increased VO2max the already above average VO2max of the subject by an average 2.3 ml/kg/min, or approximately a 6%.
  

  

  Figure 3: Changes in body weight (n.s.) and VO2max (significant only for KB | Falatic. 2015).

  This does also mean that there were no significant change in VO2max in the CWT free qeight + body weight exercise control group. So, if you want to "pimp" your conditioning with weights, kettle-bells are the better choice.

SuppVersity Suggested Read: "Training for Size & Strength - Does the Rest Matter? Study Finds 7-9% Greater Increase in Muscle Size With Decreasing Rest Periods" | read more

So, which study do you like best? The Schoenfeld study, right? Me, too. Also because in my humble opinion it just confirms that the one thing that really counts is that you bust your a** in the gym. So, unless you're making some of the fundamental mistakes, like not trying to lift more weight ASAP, messing around with your form, overtraining and/or undereating, not sleeping and not getting enough protein, you're going to gain and training three times per week with either a versatile full body workout (remember we are not talking about doing the exact same workout thrice per week) or a "classic" split training program will eventually have you end up at the "same" strength and very similar size gains with the biceps being the muscle that's most likely to benefit from higher training frequencies (although the demise of the novelty factor may ruin this benefit over time)  | Comment! 

References:

• Falatic et al. "Effects of Kettlebell Training on Aerobic Capacity." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 29(7): 1943–1947.
• Schoenfeld et al. "Influence of Resistance Training Frequency on Muscular Adaptations in Well-Trained Men." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 29(7): 1821–1829.

Intra-Set Rest Periods Boost Power (+38%) & Strength Gains (+65%) Without Hampering Muscle Hypertrophy

Up your strength /check! Up your power /check! Up your muscle gains in the long term /likely!

Intra-Set Rest Periods? No, that's not identical to "clustering" or "cluster training", although it may appear as if it was. Ok, let's briefly summarize what IRS / clustering is: Basically the idea is to perform the exact same amount of reps and thus work with a heavier weight than usual to induce greater gains (usually strength gains). Now how can you do that? Well, one possibility would be to simply add another set, so that you would now be doing 4 set of 10 reps instead of the usual 3 sets of 10 reps. Unfortunately, this is yet nothing but another instance of the notorious more helps more approach of which you should by now have realized that it is pointless and ineffective.

Now things are getting a little complicated, because contrary to a classic clustering regimen, where you would add weight to the bar, do say 8 reps, take 10 breaths and rep out the other two, the intra-set rest (IRS) period protocol in the Oliver study employed a tightly controlled and not an "ad hoc" variety of "clustering". Contrary to the control group who performed a regular 4x10 routine, the IRS group broke their 4 sets of 10 with 120s rest between sets up to eight sets of five with only 60s of rest in-between the exercises (see table 1 for more details)

Table 1: Overview over the workout program (adapted based on Oliver 2013)

It's easy to see, there is no black magic involved. Same lifts, same plan, same progression, but different set x rep scheme and inter-set rest for the STD vs. ISR groups. In the fourth unloading week, tests were conducted and the same protocol was repeated with accordingly increased weights. All sessions were supervised and the compliance was 95% over the whole 3x4 week study period.

Remember: This is not "clustering"! When you "cluster" your training volume will increase, the IRS protocol, on the other hand, is standardized in a way that the total workload will (and in in the study at hand did) remain the same.

The participants of the study had all been doing upper + lower body resistance training for at least 2 years and were thus familiar with the basics of strength training, before the study they received nutritional counseling which is probably the reason that all of them increased their protein intake significantly (ca. +50g to ~190-200g/day; no inter-group difference).

The same goes for the changes in muscle fiber and body composition. All subjects experience an increase in MHC-IIa fibers (glycolytic) and gained lean mass continuously. Unfortunately, they also gained body fat, so that the body fat % (DEXA measured) did not change at all.

The power and strength advantage

What did however react to the modified rest times were the changes in strength and power on all the major lifts. According to Oliver, et al.

Table 2: Effect size and qual. inferences on intergroup difference; (t)rivial, s - (s)mall, (m)edium., (l)arge (Oilver. 2013).

"Only subjects in ISR experienced an increase [in 1RM bench press & squats] at 4, 8 and 12 weeks. This corresponded to greater increases at 4 (ISR, 6.6±6.6 kg; STD, -1.4±6.2 kg; p= 0.012), 8 (ISR, 9.9±6.8 kg; STD, 2.9±5.8 kg, p = 0.016) and 12 (ISR, 15.1±8.3 kg; STD, 9.1±3.7 kg; p = 0.051) weeks.

[...] Again, only ISR increased at 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Greater percent increase from baseline was observed in ISR at 4 and 8 weeks (p = 0.017 and 0.034, respectively), with 12 weeks approaching significance (p = 0.082)." (Oliver. 2013)

Similar differences were observed on the power output strength, where the group difference at both 8 weeks (ISR, 151.0±74.0 W; STD, 97.5±60.9 W; p = 0.084) and 12 weeks (ISR, 282.1±104.1 W; STD, 204.9±70.2 W; p = 0.063) approached significance with subjects in ISR showing a greater increase. Interestingly, the advantage became even more obvious, when the changes for normalized for the subjects' body weight (from p = 0.084 to p = 0.016 and p = 0.063 to p = 0.038 after 8 and 12 weeks, respectively - that means what may be at best a trend on an absolute level is a statistically significant advantage if you take the muscle mass into account, as well)

---

Bottom line: It sure looks as if IRS would in fact be a viable training strategy for anyone training for muscle hypertrophy, strength and power. Neither the workload, nor the workout time changes and still the results improve. And I can hardly phrase it better than Oliver et al. did:

Suggested read: "Training for Size & Strength: Does Rest Matter? Study Finds 7-9% Greater Increase in Muscle Size With Decreasing Rest Periods." (read more)

"Based on these results, it could be suggested the incorporation of ISR in the hypertrophic phase of a traditional or non-traditional periodized training program would allow for greater improvements  in strength and power. 

Whether these improvements would result in greater gains in strength and power output over an entire mesocycle is unknown, but hypothetically entering the strength and power phases of a training mesocycle at higher performance ability (strength and power) would allow a continued improvement above that achieved during traditional training models." (Oliver. 2013)

What? Oh, yes... I will tell you if the researchers ever conduct this study. To be honest, I am yet pretty sure that this is not going to happen. After all, the results won't be patentable and since we are dealing with healthy people (worse athletes!) the governments of the Western Obesity Belt are more likely to burn a few additional millions to find new pharmacological methods to prolong the misery of the increasingly obese majority of their citizens - I mean, who would vote for them if they told people that we already had the solution to the obesity epidemic, but it was not available in convenient pill form?

References:

• Oliver JM, Jagim AR, Sanchez AC, Mardock MA, Kelly KA, Meredith HJ, Smith GL, Greenwood M, Parker JL, Riechman SE, Fluckey JD, Crouse SF, Kreider RB. Greater Gains In Strength And Power With Intra-Set Rest Intervals In Hypertrophic Training. J Strength Cond Res. 2013 Jun 3. [Epub ahead of print]
   

"Just One More Set" (2/2): Three Sets of Three Exercises Three Times Per Week - High Volume Can Work. With Appropriate Rest Also to Build Strength & Power

High , not insane (!) volume training can be productive.

I hope that you have already being waiting for this post, so I'll try to cut myself short and get right to the facts. In yesterday's first part of "Just One More Rep" it turned out that a higher training volume sucks, when it comes to what is often thought would be its prerogative, i.e. using strength training to induce excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC) and lean out.

In view of these results you could argue that it would be totally logical that a higher training volume cannot be ideal for muscle gains either. After all those require energy and if the RMR does not go up, this would suggest that there was little to repair and supercompensate. A recent study (Naclerio. 2012) does yet refute this already intrinsically non-stringent considerations.

High volume can work! As long as it's high, and not simply insane.

The study was conducted by researchers from the University of Greenwich, the College of New Jersey, the European University of Madrid and the Appalachian State University and it has one caveat I don't want to hold back to the discussion of the results at the end of this post (although it will reappear and be addressed there): Though we are dealing with college athletes (20 male soccer and 12 female volleyball college players)  none of them had previous strength training experience. This may not be exactly representative of a dumb- & barbell god like you are *rofl*, but is at least better than taking totally untrained participants, where you never know if the the higher volume was too demanding for their musculature or their overall conditioning.

Moreover, the separate analysis of upper and lower body strength gains could shed some more light on whether or not legs do in fact need some more hammering to adapt than the smaller musculature of the upper body (cf. "Three is more than one").

Who and at which intensity for how many sets and reps?

The 32 athletes (age = 23.1± 1.57 yrs, injury free) with at least 3 years of experience as regular team sports practitioner were randomly assigned to one of four groups (all performed 8 reps at 75% of their 1-RM max per set!):

• low volume(LV), 1 set per exercise and 3 sets per muscle group per session;
• moderate volume (MV), 2 sets per exercise and 6 sets per muscle group per session;   
• high volume (HV), 3 sets per exercise and 9 sets per muscle group; 

and of course, the obligatory non-exercise control group (this leaves us with only 8 subjects per group, so don't expect all too meaningful p-values). Before and after the 6 week each subject underwent a progressive resistance test aimed to determine the 1RM and the maximal average power produced from light to heavy weights on two upper body exercises (bench press (BP) and upright row (UR)) and one lower body exercise (parallel squat (SQ)). The individual tests, were structured as follows:

"After a standardized warm up, each subject started the PRT  which consisted of 8 sets of 2 repetitions performed with maximal acceleration, alternating with rest periods between 2 min for the light load, 3 to 4 min for the moderate load and 5 minutes for the higher load. The 1st and 2nd sets were performed with a light weight (~25 to 45% of estimated 1RM), the 3rd and 4th sets with a medium weight (~50% to 65% of estimated 1RM), the 5th and 6th sets with a medium to heavy weight (~ 70% to 80% of estimated 1RM), and the 7th and 8th sets with a maximum or near maximum weight (~85% to 100% of estimated 1RM)." (Naclerio. 2012)

For the subsequent analysis the scientists picked those sets and reps, on which the subjects had lifted with the greatest average power (no sure whether this was the best idea, but alas).

The workouts - chest, shoulders, biceps + legs, back, triceps

It stands to reason that the exercises that were part of the testing procedure, i.e. bench presses (BP) and upright rows (UR), which were performed using Olympic bars and plates, as well as the classic back squat (till thighs were parallel to the floor, SQ), which was performed on a Smith machine, "in order to standardize exercise", were also the core exercises of the  actual workouts, the participants performed during the 6-week training phase.

Day 1 (chest, shoulders, biceps)	Day 2 (legs, back, triceps)
Bench press Incline Bench press Dumbbell Fly Upright Row Lateral Raise Posterior Lateral Raise Barbell Biceps Curl Dumbbell Biceps Curl Machine Biceps Curl	Smith Machine Parallel Squat Leg Press Knee Extension Lat Pull down Seated Row 1 Arm Dumbbell Row Machine Triceps Extension Standing Triceps Pushdown 1 Arm Triceps Extension
Table 1: Workout schedule, for set and rep scheme see text above .

Overall each subject took part in 18 training session, i.e. 3 per week. The training sessions were scheduled on non-consecutive days in a day 1 v.s day 2 fashion, with day 1 being 'chest + shoulder + biceps day ' and day 2 being 'legs + back  + triceps day'. Given the aforementioned volume prescriptions you see that the actual routines were actually more or less representative of what you will see the relatively sane part of the trainees actually do at the gym.

Figure 1: Relative change (in % of baseline) in 1RM and maximal average power during the 6-week intervention period (Naclerio. 2012)

If you take into account that these were the first real lifting sessions for most of the study participants, the same can be said of the strength gains I plotted relative to the respective baseline levels in figure 1. In fact, the multivariate analysis the scientists conducted showed that all training protocols yielded statistically significant increases in strength.

When gains are the goal: Volume (or stimulus?) does count!

In contrast to the EPOC values, of which we have learned yesterday that they do by no means benefit from increases in total workout volume, Naclerio et al. did actually observe a clear trend toward greater improvement in strength and power with the high vs. the low and even the medium volume protocol (at a similar overall volume, though with different exercises in a classic split routine). Thte most evident downsides to the lower volume programs, were

• no significant increases in the 1-RM squat in both the low and medium volume group, and
• no significant increases in the average power during the bench press,

where both, the medium (MV) and high volume (HV) protocols achieved significant before vs. after differences of 10% and 16%, respectively.

If you look at the overall pattern in figure 1 once more, there is still no clearcut picture emerging. While it does in fact appear as if the high volume routine appears to be in front in the majority of 1-to-1 comparisons, this is mainly based on an analysis of the improvements in maximum strength. With respect to the average power measurements, on the other hand, the authors are (partly) right to point out that you could argue in favor of both the low and medium volume protocols as being "better strategies for enhancing lower body or upper body average power performance." (Naclerio. 2012)

So is high volume the way to go - or no?

For the subjects who participated in this study (and maybe some of you), the last mentioned equivalence, if not superiority of the low(er) volume routines (1-2 sets per exercise) the low and medium volume training do in fact appear to be superior to support their regular sports specific training program. After all, mere strength is not so much of an issue in either soccer or volleyball; and given the fact that at least for soccer the lower limb power is what really counts, a low volume strength training approach would, aside from obviously being highly economic, also yield the most pronounced sport specific performance increases.

It stands to reason: If neither brute strength nor tons of muscle are your goal and strength training is just an adjunct to your sports-specific training, high volume sucks!

Whether the surprising superiority of the low volume routine as a 'average strength builder'  for soccer and volleyball players does mean that legs need less, rather than more work than the chest, which appears to like the constant hammering, is however highly questionable. In fact, this is where the bias of previous training comes into play. For both volleyball and soccer players, the latter does obviously include a hell lot of 'leg work' and while you do push-ups in soccer (and I guess volleyball as well), there is no training component that would correspond to the sprinting and HIIT exercises that involve the legs only. Now, of the latter you know that they can in fact have 'anabolic' effects on skeletal muscle. These may not be so immediate as they would be for someone doing a BB-like hypertrophy training, but they accumulate over time; and with three years of more or less 'professional' training in their respective sports, we may savely assume that all participants had their share of muscular hypertrophy in the quads, glutes and hams.

Moroever, skeletal muscle hypertrophy and strength gains require a certain degree of overload. Allegedly, when the training induced or the overall stress becomes too much, your training won't yield the desired results either. For someone whose main goals are skeletal muscle hypertrophy and strength gains, and who does not compete in any other sports that requires separate training,  the data from the study at hand would yet still support Arnold's way of doing "just one more set " - as long, as this is done in conjunction with adequate rest not just in-between sets, but in-between workouts, as well!

I can however guarantee you that doing 27 sets today and another 27 tomorrow, just to follow that up by some HIIT on day 3, in order to have a "day off" without a guilty conscience and to be "recovered" to do chest shoulders and biceps, your day 1 on day 4 again (thus starting another "cycle"), will yield neither muscle, nor strength gains. It will simply burn you out and pave your way right into the Athletes' Triad.

References:

• Naclerio F, Faigenbaum AD, Larumbe-Zabala E, Perez-Bibao T, Kang J, Ratamess NA, Triplett NT. Effects of different resistance training volumes on strength and power in team sport athletes: a pilot study. J Strength Cond Res. 2012 Oct 5.

Adelfo Cerame - Back on the Grind! Introducing the World's First Hypertrophy-EDT-5x5 Alternate Cross-Over Regimen!

Image 1: A classic physique, but a novel routine.

I guess, I don't have to tell you that our mutual friend Adelfo is fired up to get back to the gym. I guess if it had not been for the intermediate famine phase after the post-contest binge, he would hardly have endured the one week without drudgery, but alas, the time of laziness is over now and Adelfo is about to return to the gym. Yet not without a detailed plan of attack, not as "voluminous" (in the literal sense) as he had intended before our conversation, last weekend, but still a ton of grindingly hard work - exactly the kind of thing Adelfo loves and what helped him build, what may not be the most muscular, but certainly the most aesthetic physique I have ever seen on a wheelchair bodybuilder (let alone other athlete). But I guess, I will just let him tell you how he is planning to take this superlative to yet another level.

Back on the grind! But not without a few tweaks

"After taking a week off, your boy is back at it again for another 14 weeks!" *lol* Today is training day. No food, just weights - or put more simply: I will focus on the exercise part of my plan of attack for the next show. As Adel, aka Dr. Andro, already gave away in Part II of his "Step by Step Guide To Your Own Workout Routine" series (click here for Part I) I will give you the run-down on the training protocol we have workout out on the last weekend. It's more or less a work in progress, with a tried and proven workout-base, which has worked for me in the past, and some additions that are intended to make it even better. If that sounds confusing, just bear with me, you will soon understand, what I mean.

Image 2: If you have not seen them already, you better make sure to go to either RXMuscle.com or Adelfo's Facebook page to check out the pics Dave Palumbo's crew shot at the 2012 Sunshine Classics

Those of you, who have been following the "Road to Wheelchair Nationals" series, here at the SuppVersity, know that I have found some success in increasing my strength and lean muscle utilizing an EDT and 5x5 training type regimen even though I was on a caloric deficit for the most part of my prep. Up to now, I have never used this regimen on a "bulk", i.e. in a phase, where I consumed at least slightly more calories than I needed, but judged by my previous results, the results should be scary - obviously, in a positive sense ;-) For now, this will yet have to wait to the off-season. After all, the time to my next competition (~15 weeks) is not that long that I could afford to go really overboard calorie-wise.

Given my past experiences with this regimen, I would yet be a fool to skip the EDT + 5x5 regimen completely. So, I decided that it would be prudent to stick to what has worked and try to come up with a set of modification that would make it even more efficient. 

The thing I have come up with is basically a "cross-over regimen" (sounds funky, right? I guess I should patent the training system and sell it, then ;-) with a two-day 5x5 strength core that is combined alternately with two-day escalating density regimen or a newly developed three-day hypertophy protocol.

The key points and main changes of / in my new regimen:

• I threw out the static holds and added another EDT exercise to make it a total of 3 EDT exercises in 1 workout session, equaling 60 minutes total. I did this, because I felt the cost-benefit, in terms of the time I spent doing the statics and the results strength and size-wise were not worth, given that at this point of my prep I will still be consuming enough food to cope with a third escalating density superset, which would otherwise have extended my workouts into the 70min+ realm.
   
• I wanted to add hypertrophy-type workout into my regimen. Something I could alternate with the EDT workouts every other week. Firstly, to avoid overtraining on the metabolically demanding 2x60 min EDT sessions per week and secondly to add another unfamiliar growth stimulus. It has been some time that I did a "normal" bodybuilding split) and as much as I love low reps and lifting heavy, I feel that hypertrophy style training also has its benefits. When I’m lifting real heavy, my intensity and focus is just on strength and moving the weight. It’s really hard to focus on the mind to muscle connection, and the stretch and squeeze, when you’re trying to lift a lot of weight. This is where a hypertrophy style training excels. It allows you to focus on good form, the mind to muscle connection, and the stretch and the squeeze. I also feel that it’s a good confidence builder, because it allows you to appreciate the strength gains you make, from lifting heavy all the time - well, at least that is what it is for me: The way the weight suddenly feel so light, when you transition from the low reps with heavy weight, to a high(er) rep protocol with moderately heavy weight just makes me feel good.
   
• I wanted to work on my "new" problem area, the shoulders, which I have decided were the body part, where Neil beat me in Florida. I must admit that just doing the classic push movements, I may have neglected my rear and side delts and the results were particularly visible, when I hit the rear double biceps pose. 

In fact my decision to add additional shoulder work was part of the reason to a) add another EDT superset and b) (re-)incorporate a "classic" hypertophy split into my regimen, the first rudimentary incarnation of which looks as follows:

Figure 1: Week A of my new alternate cross-over training regimen (2x EDT + 2x 5x5)

Basically, in the first the first week, I’m sticking to my bread and butter regimen, which is EDT & 5x5. Call it a strength and conditioning phase, if you will. In the subsequent week, I will then replace the two EDT days on Monday and Wednesday with a classic three-day bodybuilding split, so that week B is slightly more hypertrophy-oriented, and will look like that:

Figure 2: Week B of my new alternate cross-over training regimen (3x Bodybuilding Split + 2x 5x5)

Overall this regimen is - and this should apply to any of your new regimen, as well (don't forget to check out the past and future installments of the "Step By Step Guide to Your Own Workout Routine") - a "work in progress". I will stick to it for these first two weeks and think about adjustments, on either the training or the nutrition side of things, afterwards. Apropos, nutrition: If you are curious about what my intermediate "maximal muscle, minimal fat gain diet" is going to look like, I suggest you do not miss the next installment of my ongoing series, here at the SuppVersity!

If You Go "High Carb", You Better Go Really High! Seven Meals/Day, More than 800g of Carbs, Less Than 50g of Fat & 1000kcal Over Maintenance and Still "Lean Gains"!

Image 1: This picture of Lee Priest, in the "off-season" is a symbol for the classic "bulking" vs. "dieting" cycles. Yet while the artificially enhanced IFBB-pros use this practice to get more muscular every year, many amateurs use their "bulking phase" as an excuse to go totally havoc on food - and the results are identical to those of their sedentary peers: Obesity, diabetes, heart disease.

If the term "low carb flu" was not already used to refer to the (allegedly) transient state of weakness and general malaise, when people are switching from a "regular" (usually "high carb") to a low-, let alone no-carb diet, I would have used it to refer to an infectious brain disease. A disease that has befallen more and more formerly healthy, lean physical culturists who are now complaining about "chronic fatigue syndrome" and "adrenal burnout". It is a disease that is - yet again - the consequence of black-and-white thinking and one-size-fits-it-all "solutions" and its main feature is this little man in your ear telling you: "Mind you! All carbs are created [not equal, but...] evil!"

If you had told one of the forefathers of physical culture that he was not allowed to have oats with his raw eggs and that the milk he was adding had way too many carbs, what do you think he would have said? I guess, he either would have laughed at or pitied you (depending on whether you are already in the "chronic fatigue phase" of low-carb + high intensity training, or not), but he would certainly have complained if you had taken his oatmeal, his milk and his rice and substituted that with bacon, butter and cream - after all, he would have those whenever he felt like it, as well....

All carbs are not created evil and how evil they are largely depends on their consumer

But enough of these preambles let's face it: If you are already lean and want to stay sane while training heavy to maximize your gains and performance you need carbs! And while it certainly depends on the individual how much of those allegedly fattening molecules you can / should ingest on a daily bases, a recently published study from ??? suggests that, as a young (18-35y), yet still somewhat experienced strength trainee (>2y of training experience; body weight: 77kg; body fat: 16%) you can hardly get enough of them (Mendes-Netto. 2011).

Figure 1: Macronutrient composition of the habitual, "normal carb" and "high carb" diets (from Mendes-Netto. 2011)

In their randomized crossover study, Mendes-Netto and his colleagues put their 11 male subjects on one out of the two dietary regimen, the macronutrient content of which you can infer from figure 1. While both diets had an identical protein content of 1.5g/kg body weight, they differed by a factor of 2x with regard to the carbohydrate to fat ratio. Five of the subjects started out in the "normal carb" group [this is my appellation, the scientists simply called it "D1" ;-] consumed 3200kcal from carbohydrates and 800kcal from fat and switched to the "high carb" group (3500kcal from carbs; 414kcal from fat) in the second week, while the other six started with the "high carb" diet and switched to the "normal carb" diet in weeks 3-4 of the study.

In view of the "bulk-o-holic" total caloric intake of ~4,400kcal/day (remember: the subjects are drug-free trainees with an average body weight of 77kg), it was probably wise that the subjects had to consume 7 meals spread relatively equally across the day. And while there is no exact information on the composition and size of this meals, we could speculate that on a "per serving" base, the meals of the "normal carb" group contained ~115g of carbs and 13g of fat, while those of the "high carb" group contained ~125g and 7g of fat - in other words. This makes the difference between the groups appear much smaller than the 4 vs. 8 carb-to-fat ratios to which Mendes-Netto et al. keep referring in their evaluation of the data. More importantly, though, it makes clear that both diets were essentially "low fat" diets, one was just "lower" in fat than the other.

Eat, eat, eat and ... don't forget to train and sleep ;-)

During the whole 28day study period the subjects performed "identical" (obviously with different weights) workouts, the main features of which were as follows:

• training days per week: 4 - Mo, Tue, Thurs, Fri
• A-B, A-B split: A [chest, back, calf and abdomen], B [arms, shoulders, legs]
• exercises & sets: 3x exercises à four sets (only 2 exercises for arms and shoulders)
• repetitions: 12-10-8-6 - pyramiding up in weight (to failure); 15 reps for calves, 20-30 for abs
• rest periods: 60-90s between sets; 2-3min between exercises

Just as the scientists state a classic bodybuilding split, "aimed at maximal muscle hypertrophy". And if you take a look at what those trainees (remember, we are not talking about beginners, here) achieved withing 4 weeks, it is undebatable that this type of training works - well, as long as you make sure you go really high carb (cf. figure 2):

Figure 2: changes in body weight, muscle and fat mass (in kg) during the different phases of the 28-day study period and respective 24h nitrogen balance in the normal and high carb phases (data adapted from Mendes-Netto. 2011)

Now, you can certainly argue that a "real" low-carb diet, i.e. one where you eat 120g of carbs per day, not in each one of seven meals would produce even more favorable results; or, that the study design was - despite the cross-over somewhat questionable... all that are certainly valuable objections, but they that does not change that with - or, if you will - despite eating 1,000kcal/day over their maintenance diet and 7 meals with more than 125g of carbs in each of them every day, mass gains gains in the high carb phases of the trial were greater and the fat accumulation lower. This lead to an average +8% increase in the ratio of lean-to-fat mass in the high carb phase(s) and an -7% reduction of the latter in the "normal carb" phase(s) of the 28-day study period - now, you tell me which of these recomposition effects you like better.

Bulking still is a questionable idea, but if you do it, you better do it right

So, is the main message of this study that low carb will make you lose muscle and gain fat? The answer to this question is easy: NO! And the reason should be obvious: There was no low-carb group in this study. The actual main message of the study is thus that what has worked for generations of bodybuilders, i.e. a low fat, high carb diet, still appears to be the optimal to bulk rapidly.

Note: If I believed in the lipid hypothesis I would like to refer you to the statistically more pronounced increases in total and LDL cholesterol in the "high carb" group (total cholesterol:+12.2 vs. +3.19;  LDL +12.1 vs. -6.1), and would decry the +22ng/ml increase in total testosterone (vs. +6.75mg/ml in the "normal carb" bulkers; probably we have a typo here in the original text of the study, I suppose these are ng/dl - if we assume that this is the case, this would be a negligible +3% increase) as dangerous!

Whether the whole concept of eating bulking by increasing your caloric intake by ~33% for a short time is still state of the art, is yet another question and whether a more reasonable dietary regimen with a caloric surplus of max. 500kcal/day an overall higher protein intake (but not protein only!) and a carbohydrate intake of <40g per meal would not illicit less rapid, yet more favorable recomposition effects, will yet have to be the subject of another study, about the results of which you will obviously read right here, at the SuppVersity first (do I even have to mention that?)