Intensity or Exercises Switching? What's More Effective to Build Muscle And Strength - Switching Exercises Yields 20% Higher Strength & 5% Higher + Balanced Muscle Gains!

Intensity or exercises switching what's more effective to build muscle and strength - or is it best to do both?

Let's be honest: When was the last time you've switched up your exercise regimen? Kicked out the old boring bench presses and squats and did something totally different? You don't remember? Well, what if I tell you that the latest study from the University of São Paulo, the University of Tampa and Delboni Auriemo Diagnostic Imaging Sector shows that not switching up your exercises is what's keeping you from making the gains you deserve?

Shocker? Well in that case I highly suggest you read the rest of today's article, before you go back to the drawing board and revamp your training regimen.

Learn more about building muscle at www.suppversity.com

Tri- or Multi-Set Training for Body Recomp.?

Alternating Squat & Blood Pressure - Productive?

Pre-Exhaustion Exhausts Your Growth Potential

Full ROM ➯ Full Gains - Form Counts!

Battle the Rope to Get Ripped & Strong

Study Indicates Cut the Volume Make the Gains!

The actual purpose of the study, the results of which are soon going to be published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research was...

"to investigate the effects of different combinations of training intensities and exercises selection, as well as the combination of both, on muscle strength and CSA." (Fonseca. 2014)

Base on the authors previous findings (Lamas. 2012; Laurentino. 2012; Wallerstein. 2012), Fonseca et al. hypothesized that muscle hypertrophy would not be affected by the different loading schemes and exercise variation; however, the differences in motor unit recruitment provided by the exercise variation would produce superior gains in muscle strength.

A secondary purpose of the present study was thus to identify if the loading scheme and exercises variation would produce differences in the hypertrophy response of the quadriceps muscle heads.

Figure 1:  Vastus lateralis (VL), vastus medialis (VM), vastus intermedius (VI), and rectus femoris (RF) cross sectional area (mm²) for the constant exercise-constant intensity (CICE), constant intensity-varied exercise (CIVE), varied intensity-constant exercise (VICE), and varied intensity-varied exercise (VIVE) groups, pre- and post-training (Fonseca. 2014)

Speaking of muscle heads, the two letter acronyms in Figure 1 represent vastus lateralis (VL), vastus medialis (VM), vastus intermedius (VI), and rectus femoris (RF) and as you can see the hypertrophy response was affected by the different loading schemes and exercise variation.

Chest	Biceps	Back	Core	Legs	Triceps	Shoulders
Navigate the SuppVersity EMG Series - Click on the desired body part to see the optimal exercises.

Based on the caption of Figure 1 you will already have gathered that the study protocol involved 4 different conditions (+ control; not shown in Figure 1).

Maybe it's not just about the exercises, but also about which exercises you rotate in... This is something you should keep in mind, when you look aat the results of the study at hand. Ok, squats may be the best exercise for legs, but is it surprising that adding in some leg presses and deadlifts will yield even better results? I don't think so - do you?

Table 1: Overview of the Training protocols; CICE= constant intensity and constant exercise, CIVE= constant int. varying exercise, VICE= varying int. and constant ex. VIVE= varying int. and varying ex (Fonseca. 2014).

I would have to waste a thousand words to explain exactly how the exercise regimen differed.

Therefore I decided to simply give you the overview of the 12 training weeks from the original paper in which you can see that there were two parameters Fonseca et al. varied, i.e.

• intensity as in higher reps, lower weight vs. lower reps, higher weight and 
• exercise, i.e. did the subjects to the same stuff all the time or did they switch from one exercise to the next,

And eventually, both of them influenced the training outcome, with varying exercises producing a "more homogeneous muscle hypertrophy response" (Fonseca. 2014). 

In terms of strength gains, it's ~20% less efficient to vary only the intensity on the same exercise (Fonseca. 2014).

Bottom line: As the scientists point out, future studies will have to elucidate,"whether highly trained individuals would be able to handle a high degree of training variations (i.e. intensity and exercises) and achieve greater strength gains when compared to a program that only varies the exercises." (Fonseca. 2014)

In the mean time, the Brazilian / US research team is yet spot on, when they say that "variations in training intensity are not critical to produce strength and muscle hypertrophy gains in the initial phase of a ST program." (Fonseca. 2014).

Specifically for rapid mass and even more so strength gains beginners and early advanced trainees (instead of trainees who hadn't touched a weight regular for at least 6 months, as it was the case in the study at hand), varying the the exercises and thus the stimulus mode instead of its intensity will yield significant gains and "seems to produce a more  complete  muscle  activation  hypertrophying  all  of  the  heads  of  multi-pennate muscles." (Fonseca. 2014)

References:

• Fonseca, RM, et al. "Changes in exercises are more effective than in loading schemes to improve muscle strength." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2014). Published Ahead of Print.
• Lamas, Leonardo, et al. "Effects of strength and power training on neuromuscular adaptations and jumping movement pattern and performance." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 26.12 (2012): 3335-3344.
• Laurentino, Gilberto Candido, et al. "Strength training with blood flow restriction diminishes myostatin gene expression." Med Sci Sports Exerc 44.3 (2012): 406-412.
• Wallerstein, Lilian França, et al. "Effects of strength and power training on neuromuscular variables in older adults." Journal of aging and physical activity 20.2 (2012): 171-85.

Strongman Training is as Effective as Traditional Resistance Training in Improving Body Comp, Muscular Function & Performance, Study Claims - The Data Suggests Otherwise

This image of heavy sled pulls was taken during one of the strongmen training sessions in the study at hand - for the full protocol see Table 1 (Winwood. 2014)

Brad Schoenfeld's recent study on the differential effects of 3x10 vs. 7x3 rep x set resistance training regimen (reread corresponding SuppVersity Article) took much of the wind óut of the sails of the proponents of classic hypertrophy training (3-4 sets of 8-12 reps) as the one and only training method for anyone thriving for maximal muscle gains.

An even more recent study by Paul Winwood et al. that's about to be published in the upcoming issue of the #1 journal for everything strength training, i.e. the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, does not just support the findings of Schoenfeld et al. it claims "that short term strongman training programs are as effective as traditional resistance training programs in improving aspects of body composition, muscular function and performance." (Winwood. 2014)

Maybe adding some HIIT training compensates the body fat gain with strongman training

Never Train To Burn Calories!

Tabata = 14.2kcal /min ≠ Fat Loss

30s Intervals + 2:1 Work/Rec.

Making HIIT a Hit Part I/II

Making HIIT a Hit Part II/II

HIIT Increases Post-Workout GH

Next to the fact that the two protocols in the study at hand were neither volume-matched nor based on the same exercises, there is yet another highly significant difference between the study at hand and the aforementioned powerlifting vs. classic resistance training study by Schoenfeld et al. the conclusion of the Winwood study is only "statistically correct". From a practical point of view, on the other hand, the body composition part of it is total bullshit.

If you take a look at the actual "body composition" data, even a blind man sees that the strongman protocol that consisted seven weeks /two obligatory training sessions per week) of the resistance training protocols outlined in Table 1 and two facultative, non-supervised and recorded sessions of prehabilition exercises, as well as two cardiovascular training sessions per week.

Table 1: Outline of the training protocols; * indicates that the exercise is performed explosively (Winwood. 2014)

The first thing you should realize after taking a look at the "traditional" protocol is that it's traditional, but not the protocol you would traditionally use if your main goal was to build muscle. The number of repetitions is too low there is no individual training for the arms - both of which are characteristics most hypertrophy regimens share.

Published ahead of print warning: I am not 100% sure that the data in the tables of the full text are accurate. The changes in strength parameters, for example are all negative. The article, on the other hand, speaks of increases, which is why I simply removed the "-", when I plotted the graph in Figure 1, which is now in line with the results discussed in the text.

This alone wouldn't be that bad, if the conclusion that both training regimen had identical effects on the body composition of the subjects wasn't simply flawed.

Figure 1: Changes in body composition and strength (Winwood. 2014)

Ok, the differences may not be statistically significant, but if one regimen, i.e. the "traditional" training improves, while the strongman training compromises the body composition of young men, I would be very hesitant to state that "strongman training programs are as effective as traditional resistance training programs in improving aspects of body composition" (Winwood. 2014).

If the trend the researchers must obviously have overlooked (or ignored) continues, the guys in the "traditional group" will soon look like ripped men's fitness cover models, while the guys in the strongmen group will develop a pot belly. Not exactly what anyone could want. Even if you don't care about being jacked, looking at the effects on body fat, the "traditional" strength training protocol would also classify as the healthier training regimen.

Suggested read: "Want to Get Ripped & Strong? "Battling the Rope" Could be THE Exercise to Do! The "Battle" is More Demanding Than Squats, Lunges and Deadlifts - Only Burpees Come Close" | more

Bottom line: Although the study does not, as the researchers claim, provide evidence for the efficacy of strongmen training as body composition improvers, the two regimen are in fact equally effective in improving strength and performance variables.

If you are more into increases your 1RM squat and deadlift (ES = 0.66), change of direction (COD) turning ability and total COD time, horizontal jump, and sled push performance you should gravitate towards traditional training. If, on the other hand, you are looking to improve your 1RM bent over row, 5 m sprint performance and COD acceleration, strongmen training should be your first choice.

If we assume you actually do the facilitative cardio sessions (I assume the lazy study participants didn't because it wasn't controlled), you may even achieve the same improvements in body composition (-0.4% body fat) on the strongman regimen. Furthermore we should not forget: Abs are made in the kitchen, not in the gym (learn more) - without reliable data on the quantity & quality of the food the subjects consumed the changes in body composition are hard to ascribe (solely) to the different training regimen.

Reference:

• Winwood, PW, et al. "Strongman  versus  traditional  resistance  training  effects  on  muscular  function  and  performance." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (2014). Publish Ahead of Print. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000629

Isn't High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) For Everyone? Study Puts "!" Behind "Personalized Training" - Fitness, Fatness, Age & More Determine Its Effective- & Usefulness

Isn't HIIT for everyone? Study suggests: Effective- and usefulness of high intensity interval training depend on age and fitness level.

You will remember the two-part article serious about HIIT training "Making HIIT a HIT!" (Part I, Part II) I wrote back in 2012... you didn't well, although I would suggest you read it now, you will understand the idea of personalized HIIT training and there being no single optimal training regimen that works for everyone, anyways - right?

Good! Accordingly, you are not surprised that researchers from tie California State University San Marcos and the Griffith University at the Gold Coast in Queensland, Australia, teamed up to identify individual HIIT-responders and HIIT-non-responders.

You can learn more about HIIT at the SuppVersity

Never Train To Burn Calories!

Tabata = 14.2kcal /min ≠ Fat Loss

30s Intervals + 2:1 Work/Rec.

Making HIIT a Hit Part I/II

Making HIIT a Hit Part II/II

Triple Your Energy Exp.

The idea was to test whether there would be common denominators in those who do and those who don't respond with improvements in VO2max and lipid oxidation, as well as heart function and heart rate two commonly used modalities of interval training which have been previously-employed in the scientists lab.

"It was hypothesized that frequency of ‘‘non-responders’’ would be less than that typically reported after endurance training" (Astorino. 2014)

The ultimate goal obviously is the development of individualized exercise prescription which may help optimize responses to training and overall health status of various individuals.

In this particular case this meant determining whether the 20 habitually-active men and women who participated in part 1 of the study would show inter-individual as well as inter-group differences compared to the 20 non-obese sedentary women from part 2 of the study.

• In study 1, recreationally-active men and women underwent 2 wk of Wingate-based standardized interval treatment. At baseline and after completion of training, measures of VO2max, HR, and lipid oxidation were determined on separate days at least 24 h apart. Participants were required to maintain their habitual training status which was confirmed with a training log, and time of day was standardized within subjects across all trials. 

• 

  SuppVersity Suggested Read: "More HMB Free Acid Science: Now It's Also Good For High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) Says the Latest Sponsored Trial W/Out Calcium HMB Control in Young Men & Women" | read more

  In study 2, sedentary young women completed 12 wk of a more tolerable form of interval training at intensities equal to 60–80% or 80–90%Wmax, during which these variables were assessed at baseline and every 3 wk of the study over two separate sessions. They were required to refrain from additional physical activity other than activities of daily living outside of the study. Exercise was performed at approximately the same time of day (#60 min) within participants. In both studies, body composition was assessed pre- and post-training using waist:hip ratio and sum of threeskinfolds (chest, abdomen, thigh for men and triceps, suprailiac, and thigh for women) following standardized procedures.

The fact that we are comparing the short-term effects (4–6 per day at intensities = 200–300%Wmax) over a 2 wk period.) in healthy trained men and women to the long-term effects of 3 d/wk of interval training for 12 wk (six to ten 1 min bouts of cycling at work rates equal to 60–80%Wmax or 80–90%Wmax) in untrained, but still healthy women is allegedly not 100% logical and reduces the significance of the results.

Figure 1: Changes in HR and fat oxidation in trained (left, part 1) & untrained (right, part 2) individuals (Astorino. 2014)

The latter is yet only true for the inter-group, yet not the intra-group comparisons, of which the data in Figure 1 leaves no doubt that it confirms the existance of responsers and non-responders to both regimen:

"Frequency of improved fat oxidation was similar (60–65%) across regimens. Only one participant across both interventions showed nonresponse for all variables." (Astorino. 2014)

Interestingly, the vaseline values of VO2 max, exercise HR, respiratory exchange ratio, and body fat were significant predictors of adaptations to interval training:

• Positive predictors of increases in VO2max were low baseline fitness (difficult to improve what's already top) and high effort during the wingate test.
• Positive predictors of improved heart rate was a high age and a high baseline heart rate
• Positive predictors of increases in fat oxidation were a low baseline physical activity and a low age.

In other words, the short-term wingate protocol (intense HIIT) is most beneficial for the lazy ones, in general and helps the elderly with heart health, and the young with increasing their fat oxidation. For the low intensity chronic regimen things were similar: Body fatness was another non-fitness related positive predictor of increases in VO2max and improvements in heart rate and fat oxidation.

I can only repeat my recommendations: If you are sedentary and obese, go slowly, it's likely you benefit much more from chronic low intensity interval training or even steady state exercise. If you are lean and athletic, HIIT it hard, but be careful! If you are also lifting weights, it may make more sense to do some regular cardio (LISS) and one or another plyometrics workout if ultimate leanness and the perfect body are your goals.

Bottom line: The study at hand does not deliver the promised experimental evidence one could use to program a personalized training regimen. In the end, it the design is just too limited to provide the corresponding information.

What the study did do, though, is confirm the already well-known associations between current effort and previous laziness with respect to the effective "gain" you can make in the gym or wherever else you may be working out: The lower your baseline fitness, the higher your fatness and the lower your activity levels the greater the impact of both: Low intensity long-term and high intensity short-term HIIT training. If you are the lean athletic type you will thus have to go really "high" on the intensity side to trigger a response... And maybe, just maybe, doing some LISS + weights is the better idea to get the body you're dreaming of, anyways. For me personally,it is the more sustainable way of training.

References:

• Astorino TA, Schubert MM (2014) Individual Responses to Completion of Short-Term and Chronic Interval Training: A Retrospective Study. PLoS ONE 9(5): e97638.

Trying to Build Strength? Periodized Training Yields 30% / 34% / 77% Increases in Bench Press, Squat and Deadlift Performance in Elite(!) Powerlifters over 16 Weeks

With the huge success of Crossfit more and more women are "hitting the weights"

Almost 80% increase in deadlift performance in "elite powerlifters" with 7 ± 3 yrs of training experience and a mean age of 34 ± 5 yrs and a mean body mass of 94.4 ± 16.7 kg? That's catching your attention, right? Now, what would you say that there was no magic supplement involved and that the periodization routine the researchers prescribed to their 9 male study participants is far from being revolutionary?

You're still interested to learn more? Even if I tell you that the baseline lifts don't look very elite, rather average, though? Let's see, then, what the subjects had to do during their three weekly 120min training sessions.

Want to get stronger? Don't take creatine? Huge mistake! Learn why at the SuppVersity

Creatine Doubles 'Ur GainZ!

Creatine, DHT & Broscience

Creatine Better After Workout

ALA + Creatine = Max Uptake?

Creatine Blunts Fat Loss?

Build 'Ur Own Buffered Creatine

As the graphical overview in Figure 1 shows, the subjects trained in four mesocycles, each of them lasting for four weeks (although the fulltext does not mention this, I assume that the subjects did all three exercises in all sessions - how else would you spend 120 training minutes?).

Figure 1: Overview of the study protocol and assessment points 1-5 (Simão. 2014)

Well, if we are honest, this is not 100% exact. The last of the four mesocycles was actually further devided into two 2-week and one 1-week microcycles... but I guess, it's best you check out the details in Table 1 for yourself.

Table 1. Periodization of 4 Powerlifting Training Mesocycles. Explanation of the acronyms: MESO: mesocycle; MICRO: microcycle; No. SER: number of sets; No. REP: number of repetitions; ID: rest interval; RM%: percentage of 1 repetition maximum; CT: Workload (the product of sets x reps)

I am not sure how familiar you are with classic powerlifting programs, but I personally wouldn't call the above scheme "revolutionary". What I would do, though, is call the results it produced over the course of the 16-week study period "damn impressive!".

Figure 2: Strength development from one assessment (AS) to the other (Simão. 2014)

Overall the researchers recorded highly significant strength increases of 31.7kg, 45.0kg and 101.7kg in the three major powerlifting exercises, the bench press, the squat and the deadlift, respectively.

Tapering is a must for professional athletes before an event like the Olympic games - learn how to do it in a previous SuppVersity article.

Bottom line: Assuming that strength (not size - that may need a higher volume and lower rest times) is your main goal, you may want to spend the next four months doing exactly what Table 1 tells you to do.

Assuming that you're eating clean (and enough), it would be a real stroke of bad luck if you didn't increase all your major lifts... well, a stroke of bad luck or the inability to recognize that the real "strength explosion" occurs only, when you are reducing volume and intensity of at the end of mesocycle four and the subsequent ignorance towards the worth of layoff phases and weeks of well-deserved rest.

Reference: 

• Simão, Aylton Figueira Junior. "Effect of 16 Weeks of Periodized Resistance Training on Strength Gains of Powerlifting Athletes." (2014).

Resting Done Right: Passive Rest or Active Recovery to Get the Most Out Of Your Workouts? Plus: How Do They Work?

Passive rest can be really enjoyable, but is it as productive?

An article by Alex Leaf (CPT)

In a typical training day, you may spend an hour in the gym training. Probably, you won't spend that whole hour pounding away at one muscle. Instead, you may focus on two or three muscle groups or perhaps even full-body with the burning desire to elicit a growth response that will take you one rep closer to your goals. From this perspective, the time you spend not training those muscles can be thought of as recovery time, and muscles need plenty of that. In fact, MacDougall, et al. (1995) found that muscle protein synthesis increases rapidly following resistance training (12 sets of 6- to 12-RM) and is nearly double baseline values at 24 hours post-exercise.

This was later expanded upon by Phillips, et al. (1997) who looked at both protein synthesis and protein breakdown following a session of resistance training (8 sets of 8RM) and found that the net protein synthesis was significantly elevated above baseline up to 48 hours following exercise. But exercise itself is catabolic, and to continuously strain your body will only diminish the potential for muscle growth and performance enhancement. So what to do during the recovery time? Eating right, getting adequate sleep, limiting life stressors are all great first steps and will undoubtedly help, but I’m talking activity wise.

Stetting the scene ⇒ Defining Terms

The idea of passive rest should be pretty straight forward: This is when you do nothing. You go about your normal day without doing much more than walking. When you think about it, passive rest is pretty much what the majority of the overweight and metabolically-impaired population is doing 24/7 x 365 years a day.

Passive rest vs. active recovery and rest between sets are two pairs of shoes. If you want to learn more about the latter, you may want to review Adel's True or False Article "True or False? Lower Rest Times Equate Lower Total Work Volume for a Given Workout. Plus: The Volume-Increasing Beauty of Progressive Exercise-To-Rest Ratios" | read more

In contrast, active recovery can be thought of as exercise performed at a reduced intensity and volume relative to the typical workout. It could be a light or easy day in the gym, or just being active in your leisure time. Context is key here, as a marathoner may just do a light jog, an Olympic lifter may do some technique work, and a totally unfit beginner exerciser may find anything beyond walking to be too stressful on the body to allow for recovery. The point is that active recovery should not be fatiguing and you should finish the workout or activity feeling better than when you started.

From Active Rest to Active Recovery

So what is the point of active recovery? There are at least three reasons why you and everyone else who is taking his or her training seriously may want to implement active recovery techniques into his or her training regimen - in a nutshell:

• Active recover may help you recover quicker and reduce soreness from the previous workout. 
• Depending on your goals and how you go about it, active recovery could also let you burn some calories and work on training technique. 
• And finally active recovery may serve some important psychological benefits not the least of which is that many people simply feel better when they exercise daily; movement is known to be able to elevate mood among other things. 

So with that in mind, let’s take a look at some of the actual pros and cons of active recovery.

• The main benefits of active recovery are actually a perfect example of where common sense and science get along: A light workout pumps some blood to the working muscles and can take advantage of this increased blood flow to deliver nutrients crucial for repair and growth while removing metabolic wastes.

Some may argue, though, that active recovery detracts from the recovery process through repartitioning nutrients towards fueling activity. In fact, Choi, et al. (1994) confirmed this: Light activity following a glycogen depleting workout does indeed lead to less net glycogen synthesis than passive rest and may even continue to lower glycogen levels if in a fasted state. And that last part is key.

Optimal glycogen repletion | more

How to counter the negative effects of active recovery on protein synthesis and glycogen repletion? Eat! Yes, it is as simple as eating beforehand. Performing light activity does not impede post-exercise glycogen resynthesis rates (Futre, et al. 1987), so whether you enjoy cycling away after a heavy leg session or playing some football with your friends the next day, just be sure to eat something first and reap the benefits of increased blood flow and nutrient delivery.

Although we possess the ability to partially recover glycogen stores via glycogenesis from both amino acids and lactate under fasting conditions (Fournier, et al. 2004), this is obviously not ideal and no one should hope to recover from intense training without eating. This is particularly true in view of the fact that fasting will limit the availability of nutrients that are necessary to enhance the protein synthetic response to exercise (Wolfe 2006).

	Protein (g/kg bodyweight)	Carbohydrates (g/kg bodyweight)
Weight Training	0.3-0.5	0.3-1.5
Endurance Training	0.15-0.35	1.0-1.85
Table 1: Optimal post-workout nutrient intake for athletes (McDonald 2007).

As for metabolic waste, light activity following strenuous exercise has been shown to enhance blood lactate clearance (McLoughlin, McCaffrey and Moynihan 1991), and lower levels of creatine kinase (Gill, Beaven and Cook 2006). If the active recovery comes soon after the training session, then it may also serve as a cool-down that helps smooth the decline in body temperature, dampen nervous system activity, and strengthen the immune system (Reilly and Ekblom 2005).

Waste & Body Temperature, Mood & Psyche - Where Bro- & Proscience Unite

Waste removal an the normalization of the body temperature, together, may help reduce the likelihood of developing delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS). It is thus no wonder that not passive rest, but exercise has been shown to be one of the most effective means of reducing the symptoms of DOMS - at least termpoarily, as the pain usually returns upon cessation of the exercise (Cheung, Hume, & Maxwell, 2003; learn more in the "DOMS Series").

Part I	Part II

Just a reminder: For those of you who have not read Alex' two-part series on Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness this would be the ideal time to catch up on part I-II "What Is DOMS & How Can It Be Managed?" & "No Pain, No Gain? Is DOMS Necessary to Build Muscle?" of this series.

We should not forget the psychological benefits, either: Most people simply “feel better” after exercise (Berger and Owen 1998), and these benefits are seen almost immediately after just one bout of physical activity (Hansen, Stevens and Coast 2001). Moreover, low-intensity exercise following strenuous exercise has also been shown to enhance relaxation without adversely affecting physiological recovery (Suzuki, et al. 2004).

Beware of the Catch - Don't Turn Recovery Into Training Days!

Although active recovery may not deter from recovery or impact athletic performance (Andersson, et al. 2008), this assumes a relatively light workload. The only real downside to active recovery is that most people aren’t satisfied doing a short and easy workout (Halson and Jeukendrup 2004), and this is most noticeable in young athletes (Winsley and Matos 2001).

Illustration 1: The vicious circle of ever-increasing "recovery intensities" (Moussa. 2013)

With every 'recovery session' intensity and/or duration starts to climb, and what was supposed to be active recovery has turned into a full-blown training session. Light days become medium days, where the exercise is too hard to allow adequate recovery but not hard enough to stimulate fitness gains. Without adequate recovery, the normal hard training days start to become medium days as well and next thing you know the whole week ends up being in a dead-zone. This brings us to the main benefit of passive rest.

Passive Rest: A Safer Alternative?

Alex has written about the dangers of inactivity in Sean Casey's highly recommended CasePerformance newsletter | read more

The true benefit of passive rest is for people who have no self-control in the gym. Basically, if you are the type of person who must 'go hard or go home', then go home and stay out of the gym. Given the benefits of active recovery and lack of shortcomings aside from the above, there really is no reason to spend all day sitting around doing nothing, especially when you consider the downsides of inactivity outside the gym.

I have previously written about the dangers of being sedentary for most the day; and how there is even a new medical term associated with chronic inactivity: active couch potato syndrome, which is used to describe people who suffer from the same health risks as completely sedentary people despite doing moderate to vigorous daily workouts (Leaf. 2013).

That said, there is nothing wrong with taking a break when you need to, and it is not uncommon for many athletes to have at least one day of complete rest each week (usually Sunday).

Things to Remember - The Rules of Active Recovery: 

Understand the difference between recovery and training or you'll fall victim to the Athlete's Triad | more

Assuming you plan on doing active recovery and have the self-control necessary, I am going to give some guidelines that should provide the benefits stated.

1. The intensity should be about 40%-60% VO2 max for endurance exercise and a maximum of 75% the set RM for strength training.
2. The volume should be ½ the normal workout.
3. You should finish feeling better than you started.

So if you normally do 5x5 on squat, you would be doing 2x5 with 75% of your normal 5RM. If you normally run 8 miles, you would dial it back to 4 miles at half your typical heart rate.

And don’t forget about cross training, which is a great weigh to give the commonly used joints a rest. I commonly find myself cycling leisurely on a cycle ergometer for the length of a TV show following a working legs day. The show keeps me entertained and works as a timer; I may break a sweat, but I always finish feeling refreshed and anything but fatigued ⇔ Done correctly, active recovery is superior to passive rest, but only, I repeat, if done correctly.

References

• Andersson, H, T Raastad, J Nilsson, G Paulsen, I Garthe, and F Kadi. "Neuromuscular fatigue and recovery in elite female soccer: effects of active recovery." Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 40, no. 2 (2008): 372-380.
• Berger, B G, and D R Owen. "Relation of low and moderate intensity exercise with acute mood change in college joggers." Perceptual and Motor Skills 87, no. 2 (1998): 611-621.
• Cheung, K, P Hume, and L Maxwell. "Delayed onset muscle soreness : treatment strategies and performance factors." Sports Medicine 33, no. 2 (2003): 145-164.
• Choi, D, K J Cole, B H Goodpaster, W J Fink, and D L Costill. "Effect of passive and active recovery on the resynthesis of muscle glycogen." Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 26, no. 8 (1994): 992-996.
• Fournier, P A, T J Fairchild, L D Ferreira, and L Bräu. "Post-exercise muscle glycogen repletion in the extreme: effect of food absence and active recovery." Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 3, no. 3 (2004): 139-146.
• Futre, E P, T D Noakes, R I Raine, and S E Terblanche. "Muscle glycogen repletion during active postexercise recovery." The American Journal of Physiology 253, no. 3 Pt 1 (1987): E305-E311.
• Gill, N D, C M Beaven, and C Cook. "Effectiveness of post-match recovery strategies in rugby players." British Journal of Sports Medicine 40, no. 3 (2006): 260-263.
• Halson, S L, and A E Jeukendrup. "Does overtraining exist? An analysis of overreaching and overtraining research." Sports Medicine 34, no. 14 (2004): 967-981.
• Hansen, C J, L C Stevens, and J R Coast. "Exercise duration and mood state: how much is enought to feel better?" Health Psychology 20, no. 4 (2001): 267-275.
• Leaf, Alex J. "2013 March Newsletter Part I." CasePerformance. Edited by Sean Casey. April 26, 2013. http://www.caseperformance.com/157/2013-march-newsletter-part-i (accessed August 19, 2013).
• MacDougall, J D, M J Gibala, M A Tarnopolsky, J R MacDonald, S A Interisano, and K E Yarasheski. "The Time Course for Elevated Muscle Protein Synthesis Following Heavy Resistance Exercise." Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology 20, no. 4 (1995): 480-486.
• McDonald, Lyle. The Protein Book. 1st. 2007.
• McLoughlin, P, N McCaffrey, and J B Moynihan. "Gentle exercise with a previously inactive muscle group hastens the decline of blood lactate concentration after strenuous exercise." European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology 62, no. 4 (1991): 274-278.
• Phillips, S M, K D Tipton, A Aarsland, S E Wolf, and R R Wolfe. "Mixed muscle protein synthesis and breakdown after resistance exercise in humans." The American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology And Metabolism 273, no. 1 (1997): E99-E107.
• Reilly, T, and B Ekblom. "The use of recovery methods post-exercise." Journal of Sports Sciences 23, no. 6 (2005): 619-627.
• Suzuki, M, T Umeda, S Nakaji, T Shimoyama, T Mashiko, and K Sugawara. "Effect of incorporating low intensity exercise into the recovery period after a rugby match." British Journal of Sports Medicine 38, no. 4 (2004): 436-440.
• Winsley, R, and N Matos. "Overtraining and elite young athletes." Medicine and Sport Science 56 (2001): 97-105.
• Wolfe, Robert R. "Skeletal Muscle Protein Metabolism and Resistance Exercise." The Journal of Nutrition 136, no. 2 (2006): 5255-5285.