Mix Things Up ⇨ Up Your Gains: Altering Loading Schemes in Every Session Accelerates the Strength Gains in 6-Week Study Involving 200 Experienced (5 Years+) Trainees

Looking for a new routine for your new-years gym resolution? This SuppVersity article offers suggestions that will pay off in form of strength gains. 

For the rookie, everything works. If you have more than five years of series training experience under your belt, however, you will be progressing much slower - often frustratingly slow(er)... This is why the results of a a soon-to-be-published study in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research are particularly interesting. In contrast to your average resistance training study, the subjects of this study belonged to previously described group of experienced trainees. With a mean training experience of more than 5 years, the initially more than 300 volunteers were thus significantly more representative of the average SuppVersity reader than the "recreationally trained" subject who goes for a jog once a month.

The method used int he study is an alternative to classic periodization schemes.

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!

What was likewise remarkable about the study at hand is the number of participants. Ok, after 67 dropouts, there were only 200 subjects left when the author, Christoph Eifler from the Department of Applied Training Science at the German University of Applied Sciences for Prevention and Health Management (DHfPG) in Saarbrücken, Germany, kicked out another 33 subjects to get identical sample sizes and a homogenous gender distribution in all study groups. N=200, however, is still far from what the average resistance training study has to offer.

Table 1: Study design: constant and variable loading parameters (Eifler. 2015).

Overall, this means we have N=50 participants in each of the 4 samples in which the subjects trained as shown in Table 1:

• CL - constant load and constant volume of repetitions over 6 weeks.
• IL - increases in load and decreasing volume of repetitions made every 2 weeks.
• DL - decreases in load and increasing volume of repetitions made every 2 weeks.
• DCL - daily changing load and volume of repetitions.

The total number of repetitions were identical between samples. In addition, both within- and between-set rest was standardized between samples, to isolate the variables of interest (i.e. intensity and volume).

What's the mechanism? While we cannot tell for sure what triggered the increased strength gains in the study at hand, the author's suggestion that "[i]t is possible, that the ongoing alteration between training intensity and training volume prevents habituation effects, at least in short-term resistance training periods" (Eifler. 2015) constitutes a very convincing hypothesis, also in view of the fact that we may assume that "this loading scheme [DCL] places greater stress on the neuromuscular system, so greater strength gains are the result" (ibid.). Supporting evidence for this hypothesis comes from Rhea et al. (2002) who reported as early as in 2002 that DCL-like loading periodization-schemes support a greater adaption of the neuromuscular system.

To asses the effect of the different approaches to "periodize" the subjects' workout regimen, the author used a standardized 10-RM- and 1-RM-test that was performed before and at the end of the 6-week intervention:

"Both 10-RM-testing and 1-RM-testing were designed with the following procedure: 5 minute general warm-up with an intensity of 60% of the theoretical maximum heart rate; one warm-up set with 50% of the load in the first test set; performance of 3 at most test sets to quantify RM (trial and error principle) by 3 minutes rest interval between test sets. Pre- and post-testing occurred at the same time of day to eliminate the potential influence circadian rhythm on strength. The documentation of the test results followed standardized test protocols. At each date of testing, all participants were interviewed about their current state of motivation and their form of the day. Moreover, the temporal gap between the last resistance training session and the presence of muscle soreness and muscle stiffness were recorded" (Eifler. 2015).

Familiarization sessions were unnecessary as subjects had recent experience with all exercises, i.e. horizontal leg presses, chest presses, butterfly, lat pulldowns, horizontal rows, dumbbell shoulder press, cable triceps pushdowns, and dumbbell biceps curls, they had to perform in the given order and over the full range of motion (ROM) in each of their workouts.

Figure 1: Effect sizes of the 6-week training intervention with different loading schemes (Eifler. 2015); * denotes significant differences compared to all other groups - in short: only the DCL workout made a significant difference.

Even though using trained and highly motivated subjects obviously has its advantages, the author adds for consideration there may be selection effects caused by voluntary participation or Hawthorne effects (Macefield. 2007). More specifically, the volunteers in the study at hand were probably (just like you ;-) more likely to comply to changes in behavior and to put maximal physical effort in testing and training. In addition, even though the subjects were told to refrain from additional physical activity and to maintain their regular diets, not all confounding variables, such as differences in nutritional intakes, prior sleep, or interferences caused by other fitness club customers, could be eliminated in this field test study.

Figure 2: Relative strength increases in the four study groups (Eifler. 2015); due to the large inter-individual differences, evidenced by the long error bars, the DCL advantage was not statistically significant.

As Eifler rightly points out, though, "the probability of occurrence of these confounding variables, selection effects or Hawthorne effects, is equal in all samples" (Eifler. 2015), which is why they should average out when you compare the inter-group effect sizes and relative strength increases based on the pre vs. post 1-RM and 10-RM strength test (see Figures 1 & 2).

Overall, there's thus little reason to doubt the results of the study at hand. Results that clearly suggest an advantage of the daily changing load regimen when it comes to maximizing strength increases in trained individuals over the course of a six-week period - and that in spite of the fact that Eifler failed to detect statistically significant effects for the relative strength increases due to the large inter-personal differences (see Figure 2).

This is not the first SuppVersity article discussing evidence in favor of "changing up things more frequently". Back in 2012 I already discussed Spinetti's linear vs. undulating periodization studies w/ similar benefits on the subjects' strength gains.

So what's the verdict, then? Just as the author says, while DCL is widely known, the fact that it is rarely practiced may have average and extraordinary gymrats miss out on a "potential for improving resistance training in commercial fitness clubs" (Eifler. 2015). After all, there's little doubt that the data from the study at hand "indicates that resistance training following DCL is more effective for advanced recreational athletes than" (ibid.) more conventional loading patters, i.e. CL, IL, DL.

Whether the benefits are due to a novelty effect that would be lost over long(er) training periods and whether the same or similar benefits could be achieved in untrained subjects will have to be determined in future research, for the time being however, daily changing load (DCL) and volume of repetitions appears to be worth adding to your list of things to try in the gym in 2016 | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Eifler, Christoph. "Short-term effects of different loading schemes in fitness-related resistance training." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research (2015).
• Macefield, Ritch. "Usability studies and the Hawthorne Effect." Journal of Usability Studies 2.3 (2007): 145-154.
• Rhea, Matthew R., et al. "A comparison of linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume and intensity for strength." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 16.2 (2002): 250-255.

Meta Analysis Confirms: Strength Gains Depend on Training Status, Age, Workout Frequency, Rest Intervals & More

Image 1: Johanna Quas (86), "Germany's Fittest Granny"; check out this video of her on the high bar to see an extraordinary exception proving the rule - everybody who believes he/she could rival Johanna's gymnastic skills, could try that at the next world cup, where she probably will be competing again.

"Rodents are no little human beings", you will probably have heard or read this sentence at least a hundred times by now, but have you heard someone say "3 sets are not 1 set", "women are not men" or "8 weeks are not 16 weeks"? No, well in that case, a recently published meta-analysis of 45 primary strength training studies involving 1712 participants by Michael Fröhlich, Lutz Links and Andrea Pieter, is for you (Fröhlich. 2012).

Age, sex, training status, ... a hell lot of things to consider

The scientists from the University of Saarland and the Deutsche Hochschule für Prävention  und Gesundheitsmanagementin Saarbrücken conducted an extensive analysis of the respective training outcomes depending on individual preconditions of the subjects and study specific methodological variables like

training status,  gender,  age,   duration of the study,

total number of workouts, training frequency, periodization, number of sets, rest times between sets

and came up with a whole host of interesting results. And though the main utility of the effect sizes the researchers calculated based on data that was pre-coded according to an adapted scheme from Rustenbach (2003) probably is to enable other scientists to design trials that will yield significant results, the dependence of the "distinctness" of the study outcomes on one or more of the aforementioned parameters could also tell you something about how to interpret study data and maybe even about the efficiency of your own strength training routine.

The average training routine performed by an average trainee

If we take a look at the "average study" from Fröhlich et al. comprehensive dataset, we can identify the following characteristics:

• average exercises: 5 exercises
• average duration of the study: 12.5 weeks
• average number of workouts: 36.25 workouts total
• average number of workouts / week: 2.62 workouts/ week

The average subject was a 26.9 year old untrained (66% of the studies) male human being and had to perform leg extensions, leg presses or squats for the lower and bench presses, biceps curls and lat pulldowns for the upper body (exercises in order of frequency).

What if...? Personal, intervention and workout specifics influence the effect sizes

Even non-experts should not be surprised that Fröhlich et al. found significant effects (p < 0.001) for both the total study duration, as well as the total number of workouts:

Figure 1: Effect sizes according to training status, subject age, no. of workouts per week, no. of sets per exercise, and rest between sets (data adapted from Fröhlich. 2012)

As figure 1 goes to show, there were yet a number of other significant (*p < 0.05) or highly significant (**p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001) parameters which may be regarded as being predictive of the significance of the study outcomes, or - put more simply - whether or not the training intervention yielded a measurable effect.

A tale of trained and untrained subjects and different training regimen

Image 2: While sex doesn't matter for rookies, trained women are having a harder time gaining strength than men.

In addition to the data in figure one, Fröhlich et al. identified a couple of other interesting cross-dependences, such as:

• a significant difference between the effect sizes in trained men (F=1.5) vs. women (F=1.19), despite no difference for all subjects
• there was no significant difference between hypertrophy (F=1.01), strength-endurance (F=0.97) and coordinative strength training (1-4 reps a 70%-100%; F=1.23) as far as improvements in strength across all subject groups were concerned; despite their non-significance the data does thusly confirm conventional training wisdom about
• contrary to the global analysis the sub-analysis of untrained subjects revealed a statistically significant  influence of periodization on the effect sizes, with F=1.00 for non-periodized and 1.37 for periodized protocols

Of particular importance in the context of the ongoing discussion about the value of studies involving previously untrained subjects is also the following translated statement from the discussion of the results: 

[...] the strength increase in untrained subjects is very high at the beginning of the study. In the course of the training intervention, it is more or less continuous, but the performance increase per time unit is [...] continuously decreasing. This means that the adaptation curve is flattening out as the level of performance increases.

Now, this is not a new result, yet still one, why you, someone with say 3 years of regular strength training under his/her belt cannot expect the exact same +10% increase in bench press performance after 1-week of supplementation with Supplement X as Mr Trainingsnoob from study A, the producer of supplement X is referring to in his write-up.

Don't compare apples and oranges

Even in the absence of supplementation untrained subjects can achieve an average increase in strength of 25%-30% within the first 6 months, before they hit their first plateau (ACSM. 2009). You better take this, as well as the influence of other confounding variables into account, whenever you compare your own results with other people from the gym, or the anonymous subjects of scientific studies, if you do want to do yourself justice... that this also implies that you must have done something wrong, if you are / once you were a male scrawny beginner in the prime of his life and your bench or squat did not go up from say 100lbs to 130lbs within the first 6 months of your training, should be self-evident, right?

Step By Step Guide to Your Own Workout Routine - Part I: Fitting the "Right" Number Training Days, Rest Days, Strength and Conditioning Workouts Into Your Schedule

Image 1: The foundation of every training plan is a realistic schedule. Your work, your private life, your training experience, your goals, all must be taken into account, when lay this foundation.

I have been talking with Adelfo about his new training plan earlier today. In the course of our conversation I did realize that even for someone with his expertise it is not always easy to come up with a plan. In fact, his first "blueprint" reminded me of my post on the "(Over-)Motivational Roots of Overtraining" from last Sunday and your frequent requests for more practical information here at the SuppVersity. So, without forestalling Adelfo's up-coming blogpost with all the details on his new routine, I want to provide you with a more general guide on how to structure your workouts. As with the "Three Simple Rules of Sensible Supplementation", I will try to take you through a number of steps of which I believe that they are more or less universal. Ready? Well, then let's go!

1. Find / make time for your workouts

It may sound funny, but one of the commonest reasons a given training program fails actually is a real or perceived lack of time. The first step to a functional routine is thusly to take stock of how much time you actually have available, how much of this time you are actually willing to invest into your workouts and how much time you actually need to achieve your goals. 

Let's first take a look at the time you will be spending on an actual workout:

• Strength training: 20-60min
• High intensity interval training: 10-25min
• Steady state "cardio" training: 35-60min

Image 2: I know, if this is you at the age of five it may be difficult to imagine that it is not normal to watch TV at least 2.7h of TV per day (figures according to United States Department of Labors. 2010)

Depending on where you perform your workouts you will obviously have to add somewhere between 5min, for say a HIIT session in your backyard, and 30-60min, for a weight lifting session at you local gym (including driving to the gym, showering etc.). This means that the minimal time you will have to invest on a workout will be ~20min for a brief HIIT conditioning workout. In view of the fact that three "workouts" per week are an absolute must if you want to make changes to the way you look, feel and perform, this means that you do not even need to read further if you are not willing to invest at least 3x20 minutes of the valuable time many of your fellow human beings will be wasting in front of the television or on social networks into your health, your performance and your physique.

Tip #1: Don't discard working out before you go to work and don't fool yourself into believing that it would be normal to go home after work and watch TV for the rest of the evening. Setting the alarm clock and switching off the television are the best ways to make time for your workouts. On the other hand, you will have to acknowledge, that there will be days, where you will really have no time and if you have to decide between doing a 60min workout and getting 5h vs. 6h of sleep your choice should be easy: SLEEP!

2. Schedule your training and rest (!) days

Before you even think about what type of exercises you do, you will have to actually decide on the days on which you want to train and the type of training you are going to perform.

It stands to reason that you will resort to the results of (1) and don't schedule a training day on Tuesday, when you know that you have to work the 24h shift at the hospital. That being said, it is of paramount importance to try and spread your workouts evenly across the week. Now with the aforementioned "minimalist" approach of three workout days per week this could look as follows:

Image 2:If you are still not convinced that resting two days too much is way better than resting one day too little, you better read up on the "(Over-)Motivational Roots of Overtraining"!

• Workout days: Monday, Wednesday, Friday
• Rest days: Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday, Sunday

A 5-day workout routine for someone like Adelfo, on the other hand would look like this:

• Workout days: Mon, Tue, Wed, Fri, Sat
• Rest days: Thursday, Sunday

You probably did not notice that, but I deliberately chose the words "rest day" instead of "day off" or something like that, because the latter implies that those days would be unnecessary or even counterproductive, when the exact opposite is actually the case.

The margin "between not enough" and "already too much" is very narrow and according to my personal experience, the amount of strenuous exercise (strength training or high intensity conditioning work) that will yield "optimal" results is above all a function of your individual conditioning and training experience, with the following rule of thumb applying in a situation of at best minimal caloric restriction and adequate (we will address that in a future installment) protein and carbohydrate intake:

• 3x per week - less than one year of training experience and no previous engagement in any physically demanding athletic activities like football, basketball, track and field etc. (no, not on the Playstation)
   
• 4x per week - more than one year of regular training or previous engagement in physically demanding athletic activities
   
• 5x per week - more than three years of regular training and a lifestyle that prioritizes further progress in the gym over your other hobbies
   
• limitations (updated 25-03): ProudDaddy reminded me that I (once again, and I am sorry for that) forgot about the "older" trainees out there. It stands to reason that a young body does not need as much time to recover as an older one (although I assume that ProudDaddy has a better recovery time than many Pizza eating, Coke binging twens). If you belong to this group of "golden agers", it is important to
1. to keep intense (strength & HIIT) workouts short
2. to increase your training volume by increasing workout frequency not duration
3. to cycle metabolically demanding and recuperative workouts*
4. to have 24h+ of (active) rest after every intense workout*

Assuming that you are still really fit, an adapted 5x a week workout could look like this:


1. Upper body (<30min),
2. LISS cardio (30min), 
3. Lower body (<30min),
4. Rest
5. Full body / functional movements (30min)
6. HIIT or LISS (10min or 30min)
7. Rest

If you would conduct an interview at your local gym, I would estimate that, according to these criteria, at least 50% of the trainees are overtraining. If you add another 10% for the week-end warrior faction and consider the ~15% of people who are going "whenever they feel like training" you know why 75% of the people in the gym stagnate after the initial adaptation phase.

Tip #2: If you want to do more, go on a bike ride with friends or family. Go to the basketball court in your neighborhood. Take the stairs, go for a walk in the park and lead an active life. Trust me, nothing will promote your overall health, your performance and the improvements in your physique more than these leisure time activities.

3. Allocate specific workouts to your training days

Now that you know on which days you are going to train and how much time you have available you will eventually envoke your personal aims, of which I will exemplary discuss general health, weight loss and muscle/strength gain.

We will again start out with the most fundamental distinction, i.e. the one between strength and conditioning work, with all types of weight lifting belonging to the former and all types of "cardio" training belonging to the latter realm, this reduces the first step in this process to a simple decision on ratios:

• focus on general health - ratio of strength to conditioning work: 3/2
   
• focus on weight / fat loss - ratio of strength to conditioning work: 2/3
   
• focus on gaining muscle/strength - ratio of strength to conditioning work: 4/1  

This is obviously another rule of thumb and one of which I would believe that its implications become clear only if I give you a couple of examples:. Based on what you have learned so far, ...

Image 3: Unless you are in identical shape and condition as Adelfo you'd better not simply copy his routine.

• a trainee who starts to work out and has a focus on overall health will train three times a week and perform two strength and one conditioning workout
   
• a trainee with 2 years of training experience and a focus on losing fat will train four times a week and perform two strength and two conditioning workouts
   
• a trainee with 4 years of training experience and a focus on building muscle will train five times a week and perform four strength and one conditioning workouts

For all trainees it is possible to add some "classic cardio" training in the form of either 15 minutes walking on an incline treadmill (or similar) to the end of any strength workout that is <60min or to do a similarly paced type of regenerative exercise on "rest days". Within the bodybuilding and fitness community, the recuperative aspect of modest physical activity is unfortunately still largely overlooked, and that despite the fact that it is a staple of almost every other group of professional athletes, where the day after a match or meeting is a "rest day" in the sense that you do not train intensely, but still give your muscles a chance to clear the metabolic waste from the day before.

Tip #3: If you have a "hypertrophy and fat loss" focus (please be aware that if you are doing everything right, the scale is not going to move!), you may want to consider adding in an additional workout day, and/or performing your conditioning workouts, either in the morning or right after your workouts. While the former option is probably best for the "rookie", the latter one, i.e. cardio either in the morning or right after your strength workout is the most reasonable option for the highly advanced trainee, who will still need his two days off to recuperate.

Coming up next: Training splits, exercise selection, set and rep schemes

To decide how you pair individual muscle groups and how to place the conditioning and strength workouts within the framework you have worked out today is going to be the next step on your way to a workout that has been custom-tailored to your individual demands by the word's leading expert in your belongings - you, yourself! So, don't forget to come back tomorrow for the second part of the "Step By Step Guide to Your Own Workout Routine" series, here at the SuppVersity.