Weightlifting Shoes: What Does Research Tell Us About WL-Shoes' Effect on Performance, Form & Muscle Activity?

Nice gimmick or must have gym equipment? Answer: "it depends".

People are investing more in gym-gear than ever before. $150, for example, for 25% discounted Adidas Weightlifting Shoes - is that a bargain or just a waste of money? Today's SuppVersity review will help you decide if weightlifting or O-lifting shoes, of which Bloomberg writes that they are among the fastest growing markets in sportswear (Bloomberg 2017), are a good or useless investment.

The distinguishing feature of all weightlifting shoes is the raised heel: the exact heights differ, but range from three-quarters of an inch to one inch and are implemented by solid wood or another hard, rigid material. With laces and a strap to tighten and narrow the fit, the shoes facilitate an optimal transfer of force to the ground... that's at least what the theory and shiny adds will tell us.

Unlike weightlifting shoes, creatine will boost your squat performance

Age, Meat and Cr Non-Responders

Creatine Loading = Unnecessary

Creatine Pre or After Workouts?

1st Benefits of Creatine-HCL

The Real Bioavai-lability of Crea

No Ill Effect of Cre on CNS

Practically speaking, however, there's astonishingly little research to support a general advantage of weightlifting- over running-, or minimalist shoes for gymgoers. "Little" is not none, though, and thus reason enough for me to summarize the "little" science we have.

With the majority of the research involving squats, it makes sense to focus, at least for this basic research overview, on studies in which the squat performance, biomechanics and muscle activation with running shoes and/or minimalist/no shoes were compared to weightlifting shoes.

Table 1: Overview of studies comparing squatting in weightlifting shoes to other shoes/barefoot.

All in all, I was able to dig up 14 studies with 7-32 subjects (both male, female and mixed), each. Almost all subjects had previous squatting/weightlifting/strength training experience, were normal-weight and healthy. The various weightlifting shoes (as you would have expected, brands and models differed significantly) were mostly compared to running shoes and/or squatting barefoot. Alternatively, some studies used Vibrams or similar minimalist shoes as a comparison. A medium intensity (~60% 1RM) was chosen in most studies to prevent that high weights would compromise the form.

The study outcomes included 2D/3D kinematic analyses of the actual squat, measurements of the EMG activity of the subjects' leg (and in some cases trunk) muscles, the force (re-)distribution during the squat (measured with force plates = scales that can determine the gravitational force different parts of your feet exert on the ground), and direct measurements of the joint angles (vs. 2D/3D video analysis) by the means of electrogoniometers... all that with very heterogeneous results, I've briefly summarized for each of the N=14 studies in Table 1.

Let's take a look at some of the results to give you an idea of how much of a difference we're talking about

What the tabular overview in Table 1 doesn't really give you, though, is a visual representation of the differences that were observed in some studies. That's a problem because not every statistically significant difference is also practically relevant. Let's take a look at Fortenbaugh et al.  (2010; Figure 1), for example.

Figure 1: Comparison of squat kinematics between running and weightlifting shoes (Fortenbaugh 2010).

In their study, the scientists observed significant effects on horizontal trunk displacement and ankle peak flexion. With a quantitative difference of only 10% and 3%, respectively, and in the absence of measured shear forces, it is yet difficult to tell how practically relevant the "more vertical shank position and erect posture during squatting" (Fortenbaugh 2010) actually is. The fact that the optimal biomechanics will also depend on your individual physique (e.g. the ratio of leg to torso length, etc.) and variables like bar-positioning were often not even standardized within the individual studies (let alone between studies), doesn't make it easier to interpret the results.

Knees behind the toes? Not for everyone! And not thanks to weightlifting shoes. It is not necessarily a bummer that weightlifting shoes don't seem to have the general ability to allow lifters to keep their knees behind the toes while squatting. In fact, Legg et al. (2017) highlight that "limiting or restricting anterior knee translation results in compensatory movements at the hip and trunk"; changes of which coaches should know that they are, for some individuals, far more undesirable (e.g. greater trunk leaning = higher strain on the lower back) than the anterior shift of the knee.

The same goes for the results of a more recent study by Legg et al. (2017) whose 3D motion capturing study was more state of the art, but observe likewise only small magnitudes of changes in knee and ankle joint moments - and that without the often-advertised reduced chance of having your knees pass past your toes when squatting w/ the right gear: when depth and knee movement were unrestricted, the knees would very well be moving anteriorly beyond the toes during the squat movement, albeit with high inter-individual differences.

Heterogenous study design, heterogeneous outcomes

Even if we focus only on the more recent 3D (vs. older 2D) analyses of the movement patterns while squatting, studies by Wilkins et al. (2016), Sinclair et al. (2014) or Lee et al. (2017) report conflicting or null results with respect to the effect of using weightlifting shoes on the stability of the subjects' center of pressure. The same can be said for the results of EMG measurements, which reveal (in most cases) no relevant effect on trunk/leg muscle activation.

That some studies found (at least statistically) significant differences, while others didn't can be explained by dozens of confounding variables - with the three most important ones probably being:

• differences in the weightlifting and control shoes that were used
• the effect of training load which differed between studies (25-80% 1RM)
• subject variables such as habituation to footwear, squat technique etc.

The number of studies is too small and direct comparisons (e.g. studies comparing different weightlifting shoes) as will as relevant data about the subjects (bar placement, habituation, etc.) are missing. Accordingly, I cannot make any definitive statements about the individual relevance of these and/or other factors with respect to null/conflicting results.

Let's assume there's a benefit. Who's most likely to see it?

While we have to handpick our studies to speculate about benefits, Legg's 2017 study suggests that people with limited hip mobility and those who are limited by their anthropometry (long legs) may benefit most from weightlifting shoes as these tools will allow them to squat deeper without having to compensate by leaning forward extensively (any heel wedge would probably do the same, though | cf. Charlton 2017 who used a 2.5-cm wooden block). The photo from

The more upright trunk position Legg et al. observed only in the unloaded trials and in novice athletes, though, could also be associated with a reduction of the strain on the lower back and makes weightlifting shoes attractive for people with pre-existing musculoskeletal problems. That the previously referenced study by Legg et al. confirmed that only for novice lifters, does yet put a bold question mark behind the practical relevance of this observation for the average SuppVersity reader.

Focus on quads?

Finally, it's also worth mentioning that the increase in knee flexion and thus quad involvement may come handy for athletes competing in sports where that's the muscle which makes the difference between victory and defeat.

On the other hand, we should not forget that anterior-/posterior-chain muscle imbalances (which usually favor the anterior chain) are pretty common. People who are already "quad dominant" will not necessarily want to increase their problem even more by squatting with weightlifting shoes.

Squats burn >35kcal+/min - regardless of the shoes you're wearing | more

What's the verdict, then? Long legs, problems w/ squatting deep and no muscular imbalances (quats >> glutes, hamstrings)? If that describes you well, you can but don't have to give weightlifting shoes a try. Overall, the changes in exercise kinematics seem to be small and consistent increases in performance and/or EMG activity haven't been recorded.

One thing we must not forget, though, is that everybody is different. Which is why the high inter-study and intra-study (inter-participant) differences are not surprising but rather in support of the importance of personal preference, as well as individual biomechanics. These will eventually determine if you're wasting your money or investing in a safer and more effective squat w/ weightlifting shoes for $100-250 | Comment!

References:

• Beckham, G. K., Sato, K., Reed, J. P., Sands, W. A., & Land, D. H. (2014, May). EMG Activity Of Leg Musculature During The Back Squat With Weightlifting And Running Shoes. In MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE (Vol. 46, No. 5, pp. 822-822). 530 WALNUT ST, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106-3621 USA: LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS.
• Charlton, J. M., Hammond, C. A., Cochrane, C. K., Hatfield, G. L., & Hunt, M. A. (2017). The Effects of a Heel Wedge on Hip, Pelvis and Trunk Biomechanics During Squatting in Resistance Trained Individuals. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 31(6), 1678-1687.
• Fortenbaugh, D., Sato, K., & Hitt, J. (2010). The effects of weightlifting shoes on squat kinematics. In ISBS-Conference Proceedings Archive (Vol. 1, No. 1).
• Hughes, G., & Prescott, S. (2016, May). EFFECTS OF FOOTWEAR ON SAGITTAL PLANE KINEMATICS AND CENTRE OF PRESSURE EXCURSION DURING THE BARBELL BACK SQUAT. In ISBS-Conference Proceedings Archive (Vol. 33, No. 1).
• Josefsson, A. (2016). The Kinematic Differences Between a Barbell Back Squat Wearing Weightlifting Shoes and Barefoot.
• Lee, S. P., Gillis, C., Ibarra, J. J., Oldroyd, D., & Zane, R. (2017). Heel-Raised Foot Posture Do Not Affect Trunk And Lower Extremity Biomechanics During A Barbell Back Squat In Recreational Weightlifters. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.
• Legg, H. S., Glaister, M., Cleather, D. J., & Goodwin, J. E. (2017). The effect of weightlifting shoes on the kinetics and kinematics of the back squat. Journal of sports sciences, 35(5), 508-515.
• Nielsen, S. R. (2015). Posterior pelvic tilt in Barbell back squats: a biomechanical analysis (Master's thesis). 
• Pilkinton, A. W. (2016). INVESTIGATION INTO THE BARBELL BACKSQUAT COMPARING WEIGHTLIFTING SHOES TO BAREFOOT CONDITIONS.
• Sato, K., Fortenbaugh, D., & Hydock, D. S. (2012). Kinematic changes using weightlifting shoes on barbell back squat. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 26(1), 28-33.
• Schermoly TP, Hough IG, Senchina DS. (2015). "The Effects of Footwear on Force Production during Barbell Back Squats. Journal of Undergraduate Kinesiology Research." Journal of Undergraduate Kinesiology Research 10 (2): 42-51.
• Sinclair, J., McCarthy, D., Bentley, I., Hurst, H. T., & Atkins, S. (2015). The influence of different footwear on 3-D kinematics and muscle activation during the barbell back squat in males. European journal of sport science, 15(7), 583-590.
• Southwell, D. J., Petersen, S. A., Beach, T. A., & Graham, R. B. (2016). The effects of squatting footwear on three-dimensional lower limb and spine kinetics. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 31, 111-118.
• Teal, A. N. (2016) "The Effect of Sex and Footwear on Dynamic Changes during the Loaded Barbell Back Squat."  Masters Theses. 475.  http://commons.lib.jmu.edu/master201019/475
• Whitting, J. W., Meir, R. A., Crowley-McHattan, Z. J., & Holding, R. C. (2016). Influence of Footwear Type on Barbell Back Squat Using 50, 70, and 90% of One Repetition Maximum: A Biomechanical Analysis. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 30(4), 1085-1092.
• Wilkins, A. A., McLean, S. P., & Smith, J. (2016). Effects of Footwear on Performance in a Barbell Backsquat. In International Journal of Exercise Science: Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2, No. 8, p. 61).

Update on GAINZ: More Muscle & Strength W/ Exercises You Like | Deadlifting Unshoed NO Power Booster | 50% Sugar NOT Anti-Anabolic | Cryotherapy NO Recovery Boost

No, bro - Losing your shoes won't allow you to magically lift thrice your BW when your current 1-RM is only twice your BW.

Who would have thought that? If trained subjects are allowed to chose their 'favorite' exercises (or those they deem most productive) they gain 63% more lean mass in a realistic 9-week study (difference short of sign., though). I guess compared to this result from a recent study from the University of Tampa, the realizations that deadlifting unshoed doesn't seem to provide a systematic benefit, that sugar does not - if protein intake is adequate - negatively affect anabolism, and that local cryotherapy doesn't just threaten the adaptational processes that occur after your workouts are rather expected results... results that were IMHO still worth summarizing in this October 2017 Suppversity "Update on GAINZ" ;-)

If you want to update YOUR gains, try creatine-monohydrate - safe and proven!

Creatine Doubles 'Ur GainZ!

Creatine Loading = Unnecessary

Creatine Pre or After Workouts?

1st Benefits of Creatine-HCL

The Real Bioavai-lability of Crea

Anti-Cre GAA Better Than Cre?

• Deadlifting unshod changes rate of force development and the medio-lateral center of pressure - albeit with unclear effects on deadlift performance (Hammer 2017).
  
  "While the unshod condition may have produced changes in RFD and ML-COP compared with the shod condition, there is only limited evidence in the current study to support this lifting technique for the conventional deadlift," that's the unfortunately very unspecific conclusion of a recent study in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. Before I am going to tell you that the authors are right, though, "[f]urther investigation is required to clarify any possible implications of this result and its benefit to lifters", let's at least check out what Mark E. Hammer et al. did, observed, and concluded.
  
  For their study, the scientists recruited 10 strong male participants (mean ± SD, age = 27.0 ± 5.8 years; weight = 78.7 ± 11.5 kg; deadlift = 155.8 ± 25.8 kg) with a minimum training history of 2 years. A counterbalanced, crossover experimental design was used with different loads (60% and 80% 1RM). Four sets of four repetitions were prescribed per session with two sets per shoe and with each shoe condition involving one set per load.

  

  Figure 1: Overview of the study results; all values expressed relative to 60% 1RM shoed; statistically significant effects of wearing / not wearing shoes were observed only where %-ages given (Hammer 2017).

  Peak vertical force (PF), rate of force development (RFD), time to peak force (TPF), anterior posterior (COP-AP) and medio-lateral (COP-ML) center of pressure excursion, and barbell peak power (PP) data were recorded during all repetitions. Except for RFD (F = 6.389; p = 0.045; ƞp2 = 0.516) and ML-COP (F = 6.696; p = 0.041; ƞp2 = 0.527), there were no other significant main effects of shoe.
  
  What did matter, obviously, was the load; with significant main effects for PF (p < 0.05), COP-AP (p = 0.011), TPF (p = 0.018) and COP AP (p = 0.011), but there was no interaction between session, shoe and load (p range from 0.944 to 0.086).
  
  So what's the verdict, then? Eventually, we do thus arrive at the previously cited conclusion that "[f]urther investigation is required to clarify any possible implications of this result and its benefit to lifters." That's bad? Well, not really. If you personally like deadlifting without shoes, the study at hand does at least tell you that it doesn't mess with your power... you don't get why one would do that? Well as Hammer et al. point out, it's an "observed practice within the strength and conditioning field" to lose your shoes, because people expect that being unshod during the deadlift exercise can significantly improve your deadlifting performance... for the average experienced deadlifters, this is probably not the case; with the inter-personal differences Hammer et al. observed, though, it may work for you, personally, though.

• No ill effects of sugar-overfeeding w/ amounts equivalent to 50% of the daily energy requirements on protein anabolism in (young healthy) men and women if protein intake is adequate (Jegatheesan 2017).
  
  The dreaded reduction in IGF-1 and leucine and protein synthesis from sugar overfeeding, here an extra 50% of the subjects (12 healthy young male and female volunteers ) daily requirements (this means if you need 2000kcal, you got to eat 1000kcal extra... from 125g of pure sugar).
  
  French and Swiss scientists observed the "low protein" phenomenon, when they supplemented compared diets that were already high in carbohydrates (45% starch) with tons of sugar (delivering a 50% kcal surplus) and either 37.5% lipid and 7.5% protein (HSLP) or 15% lipid and 30% protein (HSHP) for 7-days and analyzed and compared fasting and postprandial plasma insulin, glucagon, and IGF1 concentrations were assessed before and after each intervention, and fasting plasma AAs level.

  "The increase in Ala elicited by sucrose overfeeding was blunted with HSHP (249 ± 18 vs 386 ± 11 μM, p < 0.001) compared to HSLP (251 ± 20 vs 464 ± 33 μM). Leu concentration decreased (130 ± 4 vs 116 ± 5 μM) after HSLP, but not after HSHP (139 ± 6 vs 140 ± 7 μM). Compared to HSLP, plasma BCAA, Phe, Tyr, and Pro were significantly higher with HSHP than HSLP. Fasting IGF1 concentration increased (174 ± 18 vs 208 ± 15 μg/dl) after HSHP and decreased (212 ± 13 vs 173 ± 12 μg/dl) after HSLP (p = 0.04)" (Jegatheesan 2017).

  So what's the verdict, then? As previously highlighted, the results clearly indicate that "sucrose overfeeding decreases IGF1 and Leu level [only] when associated with a LP [low protein] intake" (Jegatheesan 2017). No reason to go overboard on sugar, but at least an 'all-clear' for the occasional CHO refeed.

• Local cryotherapy is ineffective in accelerating recovery from exercise-induced muscle damage on biceps brachii (Lima 2017)
  
  From previous articles at the SuppVersity, you know that cryotherapy can impair the long-time size and strength gains of athletes. Against that background, it is all the more problematic that cryotherapy does not, as most people assume, accelerate recovery from every form of exercise-induced muscle damage ... no matter what.
  
  The reality of a recent study in nineteen untrained women proves this assumption wrong. After having performed an eccentric protocol of damage induction (2 sets of 10 repetitions) in both arms, the cryotherapy was applied for 20 min, twice per day, for 4 days following the eccentric exercise. Randomly, one of the subject’s arms was assigned as intervention and received cryotherapy, the opposite arm served as control. As muscle damage indirect markers, we collected muscle thickness, and echo intensity, delayed onset muscle soreness, and peak torque at baseline (PRE), and at 24, 48, 72, and 96 h.
  

  

  Figure 2: Neither the most important (=strength/torque) nor the auxiliary marker DOMs improved (Lima 2017).

  The muscle soreness markers increased in both, the experimental and the control arms, significantly compared to the PRE value at 24, 48, and 72 h. In a similar vein, the peak Torque of both experimental and control arm was significantly reduced and the scientists didn't find changes in any of the indirect markers of muscle damage between arms at any moment (p > 0.05).
  
  So what's the verdict, then? While they do risk a long(er) term reduction in gains in strength and size. Rookies will not be able to control their muscle soreness or improve their exercise recovery with local cryotherapy.

• More than 60% increase in average lean mass gains when experienced trainees are allowed to auto-regulate (=self-select) exercises (Rauch 2017).
  
  In contrast to previous studies on auto-regulation of training parameters, the study at hand did not allow its subjects, N=32 strength-trained volunteers, who were able to squat and bench 1.75 and 1.3 times their body mass, did not primarily address quantitative resistance training variables (e.g., volume, intensity, rest interval), but allowed the subjects to modify their exercise selection - a qualitative variable about which there is, according to Rauch et al. "a paucity of data" (Rauch 2017).
  
  Dietary intake was monitored using MyFitnessPal, subjects consumed used a pre-workout (Dymatize M.Pact) and 25g of whey (Dymatize Elite Whey Protein, 4g leucine) before and after workouts, respectively. Total protein intake was required to be >1.5g/kg per day if any subject’s protein intake fell short of this goal, they were given additional nutritional guidance from a certified sports nutritionist. Body composition was assessed using DXA.
  
  The workout the subjects had to follow was a full body-training regimen (3d per week, 9 weeks total). Each workout consisted of six different exercises. A 90-120 second rest interval was allowed between sets while two minutes were respected between exercises.
  

  "A daily undulating periodization model was implemented for both groups as follows: Day 1: 6-8RM, Day 2: 12- 14RM and Day 3: 18-20RM. The training regimen was divided into three mesocycles, the number of sets progressed in each mesocycle; Mesocycle 1: four sets per exercise, Mesocycle 2: five sets per exercise, and Mesocycle 3: six sets per compound exercise and five sets per accessory exercise. [...] Four certified strength and conditioning specialist were present for every training session, providing verbal encouragement and ensuring the proper amount of sets and repetitions were being performed" (Rauch 2017).

  The only difference between conditions was the exercises performed. The fixed exercise selection group (FES) group was handed a workout sheet with seven predetermined exercises.

  

  Table 1: Overview of the fixed exercise order and selection in the FES group (Rauch 2017).

  The auto-regulatory exercise selection (AES) group, on the other hand, was handed a workout sheet in which they had to select one exercise per muscle group... a small change that made a significant differences you can see in Figure 3  (note: with 15 dropouts, the scientists had to resort to a 95% confidence analysis to establish potential inter-group differences, though):
  

  

  Figure 3: Workout volume(s) and strength parameters in the 17 out of initially 32 trained subjects (>3y experience) who made it through the 9-week study without falling off the wagon (Rauch 2017)

  With the total volume load being significantly higher during mesocycle 2 and 3 when the subjects were allowed to auto-select their exercises (AES: 573,288kg ± 67,505, FES: 464,600 ± 95,595, p=0.0240), it is also not exactly completely surprising that the intra-group confidence interval analysis (95%CIdiff | analysis for conducted only within groups, because the inter-group difference was too small) Rauch et al. conducted suggests that only AES significantly increased LBM (AES: 2.47%, ES: 0.35, 95% CIdiff [0.030kg: 3.197kg], FES: 1.37 %, ES: 0.21, 95% CIdiff [-0.500kg: 2.475kg]) - the relative difference in changes in lean mass between treatments was 63% (1.6 kg vs. 0.98 kg), practically relevant, but statistically not significant (probably at least also because 15 subjects dropped out for unknown reasons).

  

  Figure 4: The changes in lean mass show a clear advantage for the AES group - in particularly in view of the fact that only one subject in the AES group (vs. 4 in FES) lost lean mass over the 9-wk period (Rauch 2017).

  We are, after all, talking about already trained individuals who are not going to pack on slabs of muscles within 8 weeks and for whom Figueiredo et al. (2017) have only recently pointed out that 'more helps more' - with the currently available evidence not suggesting a high likelihood of overtraining and reduced gains w/ increasing volume.
  
  Significant effects on bench-press strength (95% confidence analysis) were likewise observed only for the AES group (AES: 6.48%, ES: 0.50, 95% CIdiff [0.312kg: 11.42kg; FES: 5.14%, ES: 0.43 95%CIdiff [-0.311kg: 11.42kg]) while for back squats the 1RM responses were similar between groups, (AES: 9.55%, ES: 0.76 95% CIdiff [0.04kg: 28.37kg], FES: 11.54%, ES: 0.80, 95%CIdiff [1.8kg: 28.5kg]).
  
  So what's the verdict, then? It remains to be seen if the significant increase in training volume was a physiological or psychological effect. What seems to be certain, however, is that it's the mechanism which eventually drove the increase in lean mass and bench press gains in the AES group... a result that clearly refutes the over-generalized notion that the "exercises you tend to avoid will build the most muscle" (broscience).
  
  In that it may be worth mentioning and important to point out that (a) the effect on training volume occurred only in the 2nd and 3rd mesocycle, i.e. when the subjects' volume was already high, and that (b) the average lean mass increase of 1.6kg (see Figure 4) may not seem like much, but you should keep in mind that the guys in the study have been busting their a%% on the grind for years. So you cannot expect newbie gains of 2lbs per week. Plus: Only one subject in the AES group, but four subjects in the FES group actually lost muscle mass over the course of the 9-wk study period... makes you wonder if the inter-group difference had achieved significance if all N=32 subjects had made it from week one to week nine (15 dropped out and thus reduced the statistical power of the study significantly).

Even if done 5x/wk "weights" won't trigger the female athlete triad - that's your beloved "cardio", ladies.

You still want more? Well, what about this one, then: Ikezoe, et al. (2017) report in their latest paper in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (once again) that low load high rep training will produce the same gains as high load low rep training - this time, albeit even if the subjects didn't go to failure... cool? Well, not really: the subjects were, after all, untrained. Just like most subjects in studies like these. Schoenfeld et al.'s 2016 meta-analysis highlighted that and a "trend [...] for superiority of heavy loading" in their latest meta-analysis (2016): " | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Figueiredo, V. C., de Salles, B. F., & Trajano, G. S. (2017). Volume for Muscle Hypertrophy and Health Outcomes: The Most Effective Variable in Resistance Training. Sports Medicine, 1-7.
• Hammer, M. E., Meir, R., Whitting, J., & Crowley-McHatten, Z. (2017). Shod versus barefoot effects on force and power development during a conventional deadlift. Footwear Science, 9(suppl. 1), 99.
• Ikezoe, T., Kobayashi, T., Nakamura, M., & Ichihashi, N. (2017). Effects of low-load, higher-repetition versus high-load, lower-repetition resistance training not performed to failure on muscle strength, mass, and echo intensity in healthy young men: a time-course study. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.
• Jegatheesan, P., Surowska, A., Campos, V., Cros, J., Stefanoni, N., Rey, V., ... & Tappy, L. (2017). MON-P291: Dietary Protein Content Modulates the Amino-Acid and IGF1 Responses to Sucrose Overfeeding in Humans. Clinical Nutrition, 36, S285-S286.
• Lima, et al. (2017) "Local cryotherapy is ineffective in accelerating recovery from exercise-induced muscle damage on biceps brachii." Sport Sciences for Health. August, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 287–293
• Rauch, J. T., Ugrinowitsch, C., Barakat, C. I., Alvarez, M. R., Brummert, D. L., Aube, D. W., ... & De Souza, E. O. (2017). Auto-regulated exercise selection training regimen produces small increases in lean body mass and maximal strength adaptations in strength-trained individuals. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.
• Schoenfeld, B. J., Wilson, J. M., Lowery, R. P., & Krieger, J. W. (2016). Muscular adaptations in low-versus high-load resistance training: A meta-analysis. European journal of sport science, 16(1), 1-10.

Energy Requirements of Resistance Training: Training Legs Burns 2x More Energy Than Biceps, Squatting 35kcal+/min

Squats feel like and are energy hungry.

I don't know if you own a fitness tracker. If you do, however, you will know that the number it's going to give you when you've been working out (as in lifting weight) is random and usually completely off what you'd estimate you burned in the gym... speaking of which: What's your estimate? How much are you going to burn on that biceps curls and during those squats?

Today's SuppVersity article is going to help you estimate how much energy your workouts really require by providing you with a concise, commented summary of the latest study from the University of Trás-os-Montes & Alto Douro in Vila Real, Portugal (Reis 2017). A summary that will also address how accurate and reliable the results of the study are.

What will affect your energy expenditure and how much energy do you expend?

Intermittent Fasting Boosts Energy Exp. (EE)

3 Revelations About EE While Lifting

How Dieting Reduces Your EE via the CNS

Reduced EE in Contest Prep of Figure Comp.

Synergistic or Antagonistic for Max EE

Up the Volume to Up Your Energy Expenditure

The scientists were interested in filling a gap in contemporary research, which lack studies with thorough investigations of the energy cost during isolated resistance exercise performed at various intensities. All we have are...

• Robergs et al. (2007) based their estimation on a different hypothesis, unlike Reis et al. they used an exponential model to approximate the energy expenditure during squat and bench press (11-18 kcal/min and 8-16 kcal/min for high rep 40% vs. lower rep 70% 1-RM training),
• Scott et al. (2011, 2014) presented a series of studies on isolated exercises, in which they combine aerobic estimates from gas exchange with anaerobic estimates from blood lactate (results 3-16 kcal/min for bench presses, 3-7 kcal/min for biceps curls; and 6-9 kcal/min for leg presses; all from 50-90% 1RM respectively)

With the exception of these studies, there's, as Reis et al. point out, virtually no reliable data on the rate-based energy cost measurements in isolated resistance training - especially, at low-intensity loads, which are of great relevance for mainstream exercise interventions targeted, among others, at the elderly. Accordingly, ...

"The aim of the present study was to estimate the energy cost across various low-intensities at eight popular resistance exercises: half squat, 45° inclined leg press, seated leg extension, horizontal bench press, 45° inclined bench press, wide grip front lat pull down, standing triceps extension on high-pulley and seated arm curl in Scott bench with Z bar. This was achieved by combining measurements of oxygen uptake and anaerobic estimates by the accumulated oxygen deficit method. It was hypothesized that energy cost would be higher in lower body exercises and that it would rise linearly with intensity" (Reis 2017).

Luckily, the scientists did not recruit grandmas and grandpas, but a total of 58 young men (27.5 ± 4.9 years, 1.78 ± 0.06 m height, 78.67 ± 10.7 kg body mass and 11.4 ± 4.1% estimated body fat), who, and that's another plus, engaged in RE training for at least one year with three or more training sessions per week. During the study period, however, no other resistance training was allowed.

What did the scientists do?

Briefly, the subjects were randomly assigned to two exercises. That's "bad" because not everyone did every exercise. Rather than that, "only" 15 subjects performed each exercise. Obviously, that's more practical and will still allow for statistically significant results, but having all subjects do all exercises would obviously have produced a more significant data set.

On the first day, anthropometric measurements were conducted and 1-RM tests were performed twice, on day one and day two.

"On the third to the sixth visit (with 48-hour intervals), the subjects performed (on each visit) two bouts of 4-min constant-intensity exercise -one bout for each of the two assigned exercises [no warm up]. Exercise order for each individual was random and so was the intensity. At each and every RE four intensities were used: 12%, 16%, 20% and 24% 1-RM, amounting a total of four bouts for each exercise All exercises [namely half squat, 45° inclined leg press, seated leg extension, horizontal bench press, 45° inclined bench press, wide grip front lat pull down, standing triceps extension on high-pulley and seated arm curl in Scott bench with Z bar] were performed with trademark standardized machines (Panatta Sport, Apiro, Italy)" (Reis 2017).

What you will probably consider more important, though is that on their last visit (48 hours later) the subjects performed exhaustive bouts at 80% 1-RM (2x in the same two exercises (in random order and with 1-hour recovery between them | this time with 2x15 reps at 24% 1-RM as a warm-up 20 and 10-min before the experiment).

Figure 1 Energy expenditure during half squat, 45° inclined leg press, seated leg extension, horizontal bench press, 45° inclined bench press, wide grip front lat pull down, standing triceps extension on high-pulley and seated arm curl in Scott bench with Z bar; with 80% 1RM (left) and 12-24% 1RM (right | plotted based on Reis 2017).

The scientists analyzed the expired gases by the means of an open air circuit analyzer (COSMED® K4b2, Rome, Italy) and calculated the corresponding energy expenditure as described in Reis et al. (2010 | if you're interested, the file is on ResearchGate).

The study at hand and the previously cited studies calculated divergent values for the energy expenditure during squats and bench presses; note, the %-age behind the value in kcal/min indicates the difference io the mean values for BP and HS (Robergs 2007; Scott 2011; Reis 2017).

How reliable is this measurement? The way the scientists extrapolated the energy expenditure at 80% of the 1RM relies on the highly questionable assumption that VO2 and thus the energy expenditure increases linearly with the amount of effort during strength training. As the authors, themselves, admit it likely that this is not the case. Especially the value for the half-squat, which deviates by a whopping 100% from the previously cited study by Robergs et al. (36kcal/min vs. 18kcal/min) appears questionable. On the other hand, Robergs et al. didn't measure the energy expenditure during 80%1RM exercises, either. They extrapolated the data, albeit non-linearly (mono-exponential fitting), from 5-min measurements at 31-57% of the intensity.

The statistical analyses of the data revealed three key observations (Reis 2017), namely...

• energy cost increased steadily with exercise intensity in every exercise (see Figure 1, right | sign. intensity effect: F(4, 416) = 796.337; p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.88);
• the lowest mean values were found in biceps curl and the highest in half squat exercise (see Figure 1, left | sign. exercise effect: F(7, 104) = 62.451; p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.81);
• a significant interaction exercise x intensity was also found (F(28, 416) = 37.077; p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.71). 

As you can see in Figure 1, the half squat (some people say parallel squat as you never go past parallel) showed statistically significantly (p<0.001) and practically relevantly higher values of energy cost in all intensities, when compared with the remaining exercises.

Be careful with interpretations: this doesn't mean that your 1h leg workout burns 2156.26 kcal!

One has to keep in mind, though, that the energy expenditure was calculated estimated based on last 30 s of exercise with 10 s averaging procedures. In other words: your energy expenditure during the rest times I am sure you will have during your leg workouts are not included.

Figure 2: Average time under tension (in s) until failure in the different exercise (Reis 2017).

If you do, e.g. half-squats, leg presses, and leg extensions for 4, 3 and 2 sets training to failure with 80% of your 1RM, the data in Figure 2 tells you that you will be actively lifting weights for only 348 seconds, i.e. 5.8 minutes. That's a bummer, right? After all, that's only 151kcal in total. Obviously, you'd have to account for the extra energy expenditure (on top of your basal metabolic rate) while you're resting for ~18 minutes (assuming you rest for 2 minutes).

How much energy do you really expend? A study by Melby et al. (1993) suggests that the total energy expenditure during inter-set rest (BMR + EPOC) may be ca. 2x higher than the basal metabolic rate which can be estimated with the Cunningham Equation, i.e. 500 + 22 x Fat-Free mass(kg). For our examplary leg workout (half-squats, leg presses, and leg extensions for 4, 3 and 2 sets training to failure with 80% of your 1RM, 2 min. rest), the estimated energy expenditure for someone with a lean mass of 60kg would thus be the 151kcal that our examplary lifter expends during the actual lifts + 45.5kcal he'd spend during the rest periods.

Figure 3: Most exercises will indeed mostly burn glucose, biceps curls and pull-downs, however, are mostly aerobic (burn fat)

What the study at hand appears to confirm, though, is that intense strength training (80% 1RM) is mostly, but by no means exclusively anaerobic. However, aerobic energy was predominant in biceps curl and in front lat pull down.

The common assumption that it would necessarily fully deplete your glycogen stores, on the other hand, is - although not tested in the study at hand - another bro-scientific myth. You just have to take a look at what scientists have to do to actually deplete muscle glycogen to a decent extent (never fully) to know that your workouts will challenge, but not deplete your muscle glycogen stores. Because of the short time-under-tension, high-intensity endurance exercise is much more suitable to deplete glycogen (Gollnick 1974) than resistance training, anyway.

Three Surprising Revelations About the Energetic Costs of Weight Training | Effects of Intensity, Rest, Speed & More | read this SV Classic

Bottom line: While the estimates of the average bro may be exaggerated, the energy expenditure during the actual act of resistance training, i.e. only the time spent lifting, excluding rest, can be impressive (on certain exercises).

You do yet have to keep in mind that the study at hand measured the energy expenditure only during the lift and that the previously discussed assumption that the energy expenditure would increase linearly with increasing %-ages of 1RM is (at least) questionable. The real-world energy expenditure of a 60 min leg workout (including rest times) is thus never going to be 1500-2000kcal | Comment!

References:

• Melby, C., et al. "Effect of acute resistance exercise on postexercise energy expenditure and resting metabolic rate." Journal of Applied Physiology 75.4 (1993): 1847-1853.
• Reis, Victor Machado, et al. "Examining the accumulated oxygen deficit method in breaststroke swimming." European journal of applied physiology 109.6 (2010): 1129-1135.
• Robergs, Robert A., et al. "Energy expenditure during bench press and squat exercises." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 21.1 (2007): 123.
• Scott, Christopher B., et al. "Aerobic, anaerobic, and excess postexercise oxygen consumption energy expenditure of muscular endurance and strength: 1-set of bench press to muscular fatigue." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 25.4 (2011): 903-908.
• Scott, Christopher B., and Victor M. Reis. "Steady state models provide an invalid estimate of intermittent resistance-exercise energy costs." European Journal of Human Movement 33 (2014): 70-78.

Barbell Squats - Research Update: Bar Placement, ROM and Muscle Activation | Plus: What's 'Best' for Strength & Size?

Where on your traps you place the bar makes a huge difference in biomechanics.

This is not the first article in which I try to shed the light of science on the effects of full vs. partial squats. The effect of where you place the bar during the barbell back squat, however, hasn't been addressed in detail in previous SuppVersity articles.

In fact, I would guess that the novices among the SuppVersity readers may not even be aware that where you place the bar on your traps may significantly affect your biomechanics and, eventually, your training outcomes.

Learn more about the squat and related exercises at the SuppVersity

Partial Squat = Full Strength

100 Body Weight Squats ➯ Jacked

Discontinue Sets Up Your Gais

Full ROM ➯ Full Gains!

Full-Body vs. Split for Athletes

Squat, Bench, Deadlift for Gainz

As Glassbrook et al. (2017) point out in their latest paper, there are two different variations of the back-squat, differentiated by the placement of the barbell on the trapezius musculature. More specifically, there's

• the traditional “high-bar” back-squat (HBBS) which is performed with the barbell placed across the top of the trapezius, just below the process of the C7 vertebra, and is commonly used by Olympic weightlifters to simulate the catch position of the Olympic weightlifting competition lifts; the snatch and clean and jerk and, conversely...
• the “low-bar” back squat (LBBS) where you place the barbell on the lower trapezius, just over the posterior deltoid and along the spine of the scapula, and which is commonly used in competitive powerlifting as it may enable higher loads to be lifted (32).

If you've paid attention in your physics classes at school, you will know that the bar-placement will directly affect your body's center of mass. With the LBBS squat maximizing the posterior displacement of the hips, and increased force through the hip joints in comparison to the knee joints. Details about the potentially far-reaching effects of the modified center of mass are scarce. Glassbrook et al. even go so far to say that "there is no consensus as to the differences between the two back-squat barbell positional variations". Accordingly, the goal of their study was to "compare and contrast the differences in joint angles and Fv of the HBBS and LBBS, up to and including maximal effort, in an effort to create a full profile of the two BBS variations in groups both well versed and newly introduced to these movements" (Glassbrook 2017).

Where you place the bar depends on your sport.

For their study, the scientists from the  Sports Performance Research Institute New Zealand  and the High Performance Sport New Zealand recruited six male powerlifters (height: 179.2 ± 7.8 cm; bodyweight: 87.1 ± 8.0 kg; age: 27.3 ± 4.2 years) of international level, six male Olympic weightlifters (height: 176.7 ± 7.7 cm; bodyweight: 83.1 ± 13 kg; age: 25.3 ± 3.1 years) of national level, and six recreationally trained male athletes (height: 181.9 ± 8.7 cm; bodyweight: 87.9 ± 15.3 kg; age: 27.7 ± 3.8 years). All subjects performed the LBBS, HBBS, and both LBBS and HBBS (respectively) with weight up to and including 100% of their individual 1RM. 

Figure 1: Representation of the order of familiarization and testing dates for the comparison group (Glassbrook 2017).

As the authors point out, only a small to moderate (d = 0.2-0.5) effect size difference was observed between the powerlifters and Olympic weightlifters in joint angles and ground reaction forces (Fv) -with none of them achieving statistical significance. 

Figure 2:  Distance of center of pressure to bar results at 74-100% 1RM; negative numbers indicate a distance behind the center of pressure; the higher this number the greater the involvement of the posterior chain and the lower the contribution of the knee musculature; note: for Gymrats the difference is much smaller than for the extremes, i.e. the Olympic lifters with their high bar and the powerlifters with their low bar placement (Glassbrook 2017).

The latter is in contrast to the significant difference between pros (O-lifters and powerlifters) and recreational athletes where the joint angles and thus the positioning of the bar relative to the center of gravity differed significantly. This observation clearly underlines the effect of resistance training experience and technical proficiency but does not contribute significantly to the scientists' conclusions that ...

Effects of bar placement (originally by Mark Rippetoe).

• practitioners seeking to place em-phasis on the stronger hip musculature should consider placing the bar in the lower position (LBBS) to increase the distance to the center of mass.
• practitioners who want to lift the greatest load possible should likewise prefer LBBS 
• practitioners who train for sports with a more upright torso position (such as the snatch and clean) should rely on the high bar placement and thus a lower distance between bar and the center of mass, which will emphasize the musculature of the knee joint

Similar practically relevant conclusions can also be derived from da Silva's 2017 paper on the muscle activation during the partial and full back squat. As previously pointed out, it is by no means the first investigation into the differential muscle activity of full (or deep) and partial barbell squats, but there's something that makes it particularly interesting.

How deep you should squat depends on your goals.

In contrast to other studies, da Silva, et al. (2017) decided to accommodate for the changes in external load (you can obviously lift much more on the partial squat), which would, in turn, affect and thus mess with the EMG results. In their study, the comparison was, therefore, load-equated and should thus give us an excellent idea of the individual effect of doing full vs. partial squats irrespective of the increased load you can lift if you don't go all the way down.

"Our study utilized a randomized and counterbalanced design with repeated measures to evaluate muscle activation between the partial and full back squat exercise with relative external load equated between conditions. All subjects performed a ten repetition maximum (10RM) test equated for each back squat condition (partial and full back squat). The range of motion was determined by an electrogoniometer on the knee oint, and all subjects performed both conditions in a self-selected cadence. Surface electromyography was measured from the vastus lateralis (VL), vastus medialis (VM), rectus femoris (RF), biceps femoris (BF), semitendinosus (ST), erector spinae (ES), soleus (SL), and gluteus maximus (GM). All electromyographic data were defined by the electrogoniometer data, characterizing both the concentric and eccentric phase of each repetition. The rating of perceived exertion (RPE) was evaluated after each back squat condition" (da Silva. 2017)

With 3-7 years of strength training experience, the 15 subjects in da Silva's study were also better trained than the participants in a lot of other studies - a fact of which the previously discussed paper by Glassbrook showed that it can make a significant difference in terms of how the squat is performed and thus how the individual muscle activity is affected on the testing day, when the subjects performed one set of 10RM for each back squat condition:

• partial back squats with 0-90° knee flexion and 
• full squats squats with 0-140° knee flexion.

The subjects’ feet were positioned at hip width and vertically aligned with the barbell position. The barbell was positioned on the shoulders (high-bar position) for all subjects and experimental conditions. A rest period of 30-min was provided between conditions.

Figure 3: Mean and standard deviation of RMS EMG in different back squat conditions (partial and full). *Means significantly less between amplitudes, p < 0.05 (da Silva. 2017), vastus lateralis (VL), medialis (VM), rectus femoris (RF), gluteus maximus (GM), biceps femoris (BF), semitendinosus (ST), soleus (SL), erector spinae (ES).

The data-analysis showed similar overall muscle activation patterns of the quadriceps femoris with both versions of the back squat. A significantly higher muscle activation of the gluteus maximus, biceps femoris, and erectors spinae, however, was noted in the partial versus full condition.

Contreras et al. (2016) recently com-pared the muscle activity in partial vs. full back vs. front squats. Going deep on both front and back squats increa-sed the vastus lateralis activity but decreases glute+hamstring activity.

Lower activity, greater gains? No, the results of the study at hand are not unique. Only recently Crontreras et al. saw a similar superior effect of partial squats on the peak and avg. activity of the lower glutes and hamstrings (see figure to the left). But don't worry: As explained below, the fact that the overall increase in leg lean mass tends to be greater in previous studies with the full squat could be due to (a) an increased total workload (measured as weight x distance the weight travels) and (b) training the muscle at long muscle lengths. The latter would be in line with the previously discussed observations from Drinkwater et al. (2016), who observed greater increases in muscle size, but smaller increases in strength (which rely at least partly on optimized muscle activation patterns and may thus be better predicted by EMG measures) in their 2016 study.

This may come as a surprise, as Bloomquist et al. (2013) and McMahon et al. (2014) "have shown superior muscular hypertrophy" (da Silva. 2017) when squatting through the full range of motion. Whether this effect is, in fact, a result of an increased muscle activity or, as da Silva et al. speculate, a simple consequence of an extension of the time under tension remains elusive because there's no muscle activation data available for the Bloomquist study. Accordingly, full squats wouldn't build more muscle because of an increased muscle activity, but despite a lower muscle activity and due to an increased training volume (measured as weight x distance across it was moved).

Figure 4: Total leg lean mass and individual CSA changes in the front and back thigh in the Bloomquist study.

In addition to the volume, the repeatedly observed superior hypertrophic response to full vs. partial squats may, as da Silva et al. likewise point out, as well be "be due to training at long muscle lengths, which has been shown to promote greater increases in cross-sectional area compared to training at shorter muscle lengths" (da Silva 2017; cf. Noorkõiv 2014). The latter may, in fact, have a profound effect on the adaptive response that overrides the already small benefits in muscle activity da Silva et al. observed in the study at hand.

The "optimal" squatting depth (and positioning of the bar) will always depend on your individual biomechanics, your squatting technique and - most importantly - your individual training goals. Drinkwater et al., for example, have shown in their 2016 study that found superior strength increases with partial vs. full squats. Their study should remind you that what's "optimal" will always depend on your individual biomechanics, your squatting technique and - most importantly - your individual training goals.

So what's the verdict, then? Training with a low bar position over the full range of motion will probably yield the greatest gains in total leg mass. That's at least what the individual results of the two studies at hand and the previously discussed evidence of a superior hypertrophy response to squatting over the full range of motion (Bloomquist 2013; McMahon 2014) suggest. With the increased muscle activity during the parietal (90°) squat and the results of the previously discussed study by Drinkwater, et al., however, there's partial squats, especially if they are done with the maximal weight you can lift for a given number of reps, may eventually be the better choice for athletes looking to maximize strength, not size gains.

Eventually, it is important to understand, though, that it would be dumb to assume that there's a 'single best way of squatting' that works for everyone. After all, individual biomechanics, your squatting technique and, most importantly, your training goals and the requirements of your sport will always determine what's "optimal" for you during a specific phase of your training | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Bloomquist, K., et al. "Effect of range of motion in heavy load squatting on muscle and tendon adaptations." European journal of applied physiology 113.8 (2013): 2133-2142.
• Contreras, Bret, et al. "A comparison of gluteus maximus, biceps femoris, and vastus lateralis electromyography amplitude in the parallel, full, and front squat variations in resistance-trained females." Journal of applied biomechanics 32.1 (2016): 16-22.
• da Silva, Josinaldo Jarbas, et al. "Muscle Activation Differs Between Partial And Full Back Squat Exercise With External Load Equated." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research (2017).
• Glassbrook, Daniel J., et al. "The high-bar and low-bar back-squats: A biomechanical analysis." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research (2017).
• McMahon, Gerard E., et al. "Impact of range of motion during ecologically valid resistance training protocols on muscle size, subcutaneous fat, and strength." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 28.1 (2014): 245-255.
• Noorkõiv, Marika, Kazunori Nosaka, and Anthony J. Blazevich. "Neuromuscular adaptations associated with knee joint angle-specific force change." Medicine and science in sports and exercise 46.8 (2014): 1525-1537.

20% Calorie Deficit + BB Split + Whey = Strength ↑, Fat ↓ + Muscle ↕ | Preconditioning and Cryotherapy for Strength

Whey protein can help you shed body fat while upping your PB on squats. 

If you're looking for the latest papers on building muscle, running faster, lifting more and getting jacked look no further, today's installment of the Strength and Conditioning Update (Feb'17) discusses all interesting papers from the latest / upcoming issues of the venerable Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. Papers that investigate the size and time-course of low-intensity 'pre-conditioning' that could make the difference between victory and defeat at the Olympic Games and elsewhere, the lean mass preserving, fat loss promoting and strength increasing effects of whey protein supplementation during diet phases and, last but not least the immediate strength boost of cooled muscles.

Read about exercise-related studies at the SuppVersity

TeaCrine®, Tribu-lus, Cordyceps, ALA, Sesamin...

Aug '15 Ex.Res. Upd.: Nitrate, Glycogen, and ...

Pre-Exhaustion Exhausts Your Growth Potential

Full ROM ➯ Full Gains - Form Counts!

BFR-Preconditio- ning Useless for Weights?

Study Indicates Cut the Volume Make the Gains!

• 24h-pre = optimal timing for performance enhancing low-intensity 'pre-conditioning' (Tsoukos. 2017) -- In their latest study, US and Greek researchers examined the often-overlooked delayed effects of a power type training session on explosive performance.
  
  Seventeen well-trained male power and team-sport athletes (age: 22.7+/-5.5 y, height: 181+/-8 cm, body mass: 80.7+/-8.6 kg, body fat: 9.2+/-1.7 %, 1-RM half-squat: 163+/-29 kg) performed four sessions (2 experimental and 2 control) one week apart in a randomized and counterbalanced order. Explosive performance was assessed before, 24 and 48 h following a low-volume, power-type training session (5 x 4 jump squats at 40% 1RM with 3 min rest), as well as before and after 24 and 48 h of rest (control).

  

  Figure 1: Time course of changes in countermovement jump (CMJ) performance (Tsoukos. 2017).

  If you're now asking yourself why it would be important to know that, following training, CMJ was improved by 5.1 +/- 1.0% and 3.0 +/- 1.0% at 24 and 48 h, respectively, you are probably no professional athlete or trainer. Those small, but significant performance gains you see 24h and 48h after the last training session could, after all, make the difference between winning the gold medal and flying home without a trophy for Olympic (and obviously other) athletes.
  
  In that the scientists observations that, compared to baseline, the reactive strength index (RSI) improved by 10.7 +/- 2.1% only at 24 h, provides additional evidence that 'pre-conditioning' w/ a low volume workout 24h before a competition is the way to go "before competition or a high-quality training session to improve their performances" (Tsoukos. 2017).
• Whey for strength, no carbohydrate for endurance improvement while dieting? (Wesley. 2017) -- A recent study from the College of Charleston yielded not on, but two noteworthy results: (a) the pre- and post-supplementation with 2x28g of whey protein will non-significantly enhance your body fat loss (over isocaloric carbohydrate control) and help you maintain lean mass, and it will (b) also allow you to keep gaining strength while dieting.
  
  In their 8-week study, Wesley et al. put sixteen resistance trained men (24+/- 1.6 years of age), who had been on a regular, consistent resistance training for at least two years prior to the onset of the study, and were currently engaging in whole body resistance training, on a combined diet + exercise (bodybuilding split style resistance-training, 60-90 min 4 days per week | Chest/Triceps, Day 2: Legs, Day 3: shoulders, Day 4: Back/Biceps) regimen. All subjects...

  

  Table 1: Diet card for an off-day (Wesley. 2017).

  "[...] completed a 4 d/wk body building style split resistance training program for eight weeks in conjunction with a pre, peri-, and post-exercise ingestion of whey protein (WHEY) nutritional supplement or carbohydrate (CON) based nutritional supplement [while consuming a highly standardized diet containing] 30% carbohy-drates, 35% protein and 35% fat on training and 25%carbohydrates, 40% protein and 35% fat on off days" (Wesley. 2017)

  Each individual’s daily caloric and macronutrient intakes were determined using the Harris Benedict formula with an activity factor of 1.35 (lightly active individual engaging in light exercise 1-3 days/week) for workout days and 1.125 (sedentary individual) for off days. Practically speaking, the subjects did thus consume ~13% and 27% less, on the workout and off days, respectively, than they should need according to the Harris Benedict formula (the mean deficit on a weekly basis was thus 19%).
  

  

  Figure 2: Absolute changes (kg) in lean and fat mass (Wesley. 2017).

  As you'd expect in a well-designed study, there were no differences in body mass change between the WHEY and CON groups. Over the course of the study, this, and more importantly, the subjects' body composition changed: While both groups lost body mass (p<.05), the WHEY group maintained their lean mass (LBM) while the CON group lost (p<.05) lean mass, and the WHEY group lost FM (p>.05) and the CON group did not, though the change in FM between groups was not different.
  

  

  Figure 3: Changes in squat and bench press performance (Wesley. 2017).

  Furthermore, both the WHEY and CON (p<.05) groups significantly increased lower body strength, only the WHEY group, however, increased upper body strength (p<.05) while the CON group saw a non-significant decline in bench press strength (see Figure 3).
  
  So, whey is vastly superior? Well, I guess "vastly" would be too much. After all, not all differences are statistically significant and the higher CHO intake in the CON group even allowed for a statistically significant increase in lower body and upper body repetitions to fatigue in the CON group (p<.05). For people focussing on strength endurance, the 2x28g of whey protein are thus not necessarily the best choice. For almost all other variables gymrats are interested in (body composition, bench press & squat strength etc.), the provision of 2x28g of whey protein before and after workouts is yet the better of the two supplementation options.

• 

  Figure 4: In contrast to what you would expect from a study assessing the effects of cooling on handgrip strength, the scientists used an expensive whole body cryo-therapy device, the "Space Cabin" by the "Criomed Ltd" (de Nardi. 2017). 

  Cryotherapy before workouts or competitions could up your strength, study in healthy non-athletes claims, but... (De Nardi. 2017) -- Cooling is usually thought of as a means to recover faster - a means with sign. downsides as discussed in previous SuppVersity articles - it can yet also be used acutely right before a workout and/or competition; and if the results of the latest study from the Universities of Genoa and Turino translate from recreational athletes' handgrip strength to the average gymrats' and/or professional strength athletes' quads, biceps and other muscles this is a quite effective means to achieve potentially relevant strength increases in no time...
  
  Don't go mad if you don't own a "Space Cabin" (see Figure 2), it's not yet worth it. After all, the question whether the results translate to more relevant muscle parts is not the only issue one can have with the study at hand. With an inter-group difference of only 1.9kg (treatment) vs. 0.52 kg (no treatment), the absolute change is very small.
  
  But let's not get judgemental before we have at least looked at the study design: For practical reasons, the authors of the study at hand tested the change in maximum handgrip strength (JAMAR Hydraulic Hand dynamometer), not the previously mentioned quads or biceps in two-hundred healthy, who were randomly assigned to be treated with single partial-body cryotherapy (PBC) session before the test or no treatment [a placebo treatment would have been nice, but honestly, how would you do that - after all, the subjects would certainly have noticed if the Space Cabin by Criomed Ltd the scientists used (see Figure 4) was not even turned on, no?].
  

  

  Figure 5: Pre- (T0) vs. post-test (T1) handrgrip strength (de Nardi. 2017).

  When the authors compared the post-PBC strength test data to the previously measured initial handgrip strength, they found that a single 150 seconds session of PBC (temperature range between -130 and -160 *C; the subjects wore swimwear, a pair of gloves, woolen socks and wooden clogs to isolate the tested hand), they found a significant increase in handgrip strength in both groups - the effect that the T0 vs. T1 (pre vs. post) difference in the PBC group was higher, i.e. 39.48 kg vs. 40.01 kg in control and 39.61 kg vs. 41.34 kg, however, lead de Nardi, et al. to conclude that their study would "provide the first evidence that a single session of PBC leads to the improvement of muscle strength in healthy people" (de Nardi. 2017).
  
  In view of the fact that (a) grip strength is usually not the rate limiting parameter in sports, and that (b) the improvements are not exactly impressive, though, you may agree with me that the word "preliminary" are of great importance, here and that it is thus too early to conclude that "[t]he results of the study implies that PBC could be performed also before a training session or a sport competition" (de Nardi. 2017).

Can you even have too much whey? Find out in "Too Much Whey Today, Type II Diabetes Tomorrow " | more

So what do you have to remember? Whey protein works. It's as simple as that. After all, the study by Wesley et al. is only one in a long line of studies showing benefits not just during "cuts" (i.e. while you're trying to lose body fat), when it conserves lean mass and augments fat mass losses, but also during the various "bulk" or "maintenance" studies I have discussed in the 20+ articles about whey on the SuppVersity in the past years.

Whey does thus have something the strength pre-conditioning in Tsoukos- and, even more so, the cryotherapy in the De Nardy-study do not have. Ample of practically relevant evidence of its efficacy | Comment on Facebook! 

References:

• De Nardi, et al. "Acute effects of partial-body cryotherapy on isometric strength: maximum handgrip strength evaluation." Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research: Post Acceptance: January 20, 2017.
• Tsoukos, et al. "Delayed effects of a low volume, power-type resistance exercise session on explosive performance." Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research: Post Acceptance: January 24, 2017.
• Wesley, et al. "Effect of Whey Protein in Conjunction with a Caloric-Restricted Diet and Resistance Training." Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research: Post Acceptance: September 10, 2015