MASS Issue 09 - Dec

IS S U E NO .
9 DEC EM BER 2017
MASS
MONTHLY A P P L ICATIO NS IN
STR E NG TH S P O R T
E R I C HE L MS | G R EG N U C KOLS | M IC H AEL Z OU RD OS
1
The Reviewers
Eric Helms
Eric Helms is a coach, athlete, author, and educator. He is a coach for drug-free strength and
physique competitors at all levels as a part of team 3D Muscle Journey. Eric regularly publishes
peer-reviewed articles in exercise science and nutrition journals on physique and strength
sport, in addition to writing for commercial fitness publications. He’s taught undergraduate-
and graduate-level nutrition and exercise science and speaks internationally at academic and
commercial conferences. He has a B.S. in fitness and wellness, an M.S. in exercise science,
a second Master’s in sports nutrition, a Ph.D. in strength and conditioning, and is a research
fellow for the Sports Performance Research Institute New Zealand at Auckland University of Technology. Eric earned
pro status as a natural bodybuilder with the PNBA in 2011 and competes in the IPF at international-level events as
an unequipped powerlifter.
Greg Nuckols
Greg Nuckols has over a decade of experience under the bar and a B.S. in exercise and sports
science. Greg is currently enrolled in the exercise science M.A. program at the University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He’s held three all-time world records in powerlifting in the
220lb and 242lb classes. He’s trained hundreds of athletes and regular folks, both online and
in-person. He’s written for many of the major magazines and websites in the fitness industry,
including Men’s Health, Men’s Fitness, Muscle & Fitness, Bodybuilding.com, T-Nation, and
Schwarzenegger.com. Furthermore, he’s had the opportunity to work with and learn from
numerous record holders, champion athletes, and collegiate and professional strength and conditioning coaches
through his previous job as Chief Content Director for Juggernaut Training Systems and current full-time work on
StrongerByScience.com.
Michael C. Zourdos
Michael (Mike) C. Zourdos, Ph.D, CSCS, is an associate professor in exercise science at
Florida Atlantic University (FAU) in Boca Raton, FL., USA, with a specialization in strength
and conditioning and skeletal muscle physiology. He earned his Ph.D. in exercise physiology
from The Florida State University (FSU) in 2012 under the guidance of Dr. Jeong-Su Kim. Prior
to attending FSU, Mike received his B.S. in exercise science from Marietta College and M.S.
in applied health physiology from Salisbury University. Mike served as the head powerlifting
coach of FSU’s 2011 and 2012 state championship teams. As an associate professor at FAU,
Mike is the director of the FAU Muscle Physiology Research Laboratory. He also competes as
a powerlifter in the USAPL, and among his best competition lifts is a 230kg (507lbs) raw squat
at a body weight of 76kg. Mike owns the company Training Revolution, LLC., where he has coached more than 100
lifters, including a USAPL open division national champion.
2
Letter from the Reviewers
W
elcome to the last MASS issue of 2017. This has been a wild ride for us, and we
hope you’ve enjoyed being a part of it. And if you’re one of our new subscribers
from the Black Friday sale, welcome aboard!
This issue features our first interview. The good folks from the Molecular and Applied
Science lab at Auburn stopped by to discuss their recent paper comparing the effects of
whey, soy protein, and leucine. Let us know in the Facebook group how you like the inter-
view, to let us know if they should become a recurring feature.
As always, we have a ton of awesome content in this issue, including articles about the
difference in recovery rates from high-load versus low-load training, whether volume re-
quirements are different for the upper and lower body, and the effects of “diet breaks” on
weight loss and weight maintenance. Mike’s video this month covers mesocycle construc-
tion for bodybuilding, while Eric’s discusses low-carb dieting for strength athletes.
Finally, we want to thank you guys for helping make a difference in the lives of people
less fortunate this holiday season. If you were a current subscriber, 50% of your payment
this month went to support One Acre Fund, which lifts families in sub-Saharan Africa out
of extreme poverty by helping them increase their crop yields. If you’re a new subscriber,
100% of your first month’s payment went to that cause. We had a goal of $25,000, which
would help lift 1,000 families out of extreme poverty; I won’t have an exact number until
December 1st (I’m writing this on the 26th), but it looks like we’re going to easily surpass
that goal. Here at MASS, we want to make a difference in the lifting community, but we
also want to make a broader impact by supporting good causes like One Acre Fund, and we
couldn’t do that without you guys.
Happy Holidays, and see you in 2018!
The MASS Team

Eric, Greg, and Mike
3
Table of Contents
6 BY G R EG NUCKOL S
Low-Load, High-Rep Training: Similar Anabolic Signaling, but at

Greater Cost
A growing body of research shows that hypertrophy is similar between high-load and
low-load training when the number of sets to failure is matched. However, there’s
very little research comparing the molecular and recovery responses between the
two styles of training. This study fills that gap.
18
BY M I CHAEL C. ZOUR DOS
Your Caffeine Stash is Empty. Is it All Over for the Day?

Most of us consume caffeine in some capacity, many prior to training. But the evidence
is somewhat conflicting for maximal strength improvement. What does the most recent
evidence show? And, what can be recommended for caffeine dosage and timing based
upon the totality of evidence?
28
BY E RI C HEL MS
Diet Breaks Make an Energy Deficit More Effective and Less Costly
This is the first study on diet breaks since 2003, and the results are very promising.
Read on to learn how this strategy can aid not only fat loss efficiency, but also fat loss
maintenance.
40
BY G R EG NUCKOL S
Do Protein Supplements Still Help if You're Eating Enough Protein?

An interview discussing "Effects of Whey, Soy or Leucine Supplementation with 12
Weeks of Resistance Training on Strength, Body Composition, and Skeletal Muscle
and Adipose Tissue Histological Attributes in College-Aged Males" by Mobley et al
(2017).
4
53
Sure, More Volume is Not Always Better, but What’s the Right Amount?
A previous MASS article established that “More Volume is Not Always Better” for
hypertrophy, but how much volume is the right amount of volume? And, does that
amount differ between the upper and lower body? This article provides insight into
each of these questions.
63 BY E RI C HEL MS
The Power of Choice: Self-Determination and Exercise Selection

Can choosing which exercise you perform for each muscle group on the fly enhance
hypertrophy and strength gain? This new study indicates it might, but as always, the
devil is in the details.
74
BY G R EG NUCKOL S
I Get by with a Little Help from My Friends: Spotters Increase

Performance and Decrease Perceived Effort
Most people primarily think about the safety aspect of having spotters. However,
having spotters can also boost performance and decrease perceived effort.
83
VIDEO: Mesocycle Construction for Bodybuilding

What’s important and what’s not when constructing a hypertrophy-focused
mesocycle? This video deciphers periodization and programming and focuses on
meeting the hypertrophy “tenants” each mesocycle as outlined by recent meta-
analyses.
85
BY E RI C HEL MS
VIDEO: Real-World Effects of Low Carbohydrate, High Fat Diets in

Strength Athletes
The debates on low carb diets are dizzying at times, so much so that often useful
information is lost in the confusion. In this video, Eric details the outcomes of a low
carb high fat diet case study on powerlifters and weightlifters that cuts through the
noise.
5
Low-Load, High-Rep Training: Similar
Anabolic Signaling, but at Greater Cost
Study Reviewed: Molecular, Neuromuscular, and
Recovery Responses to Light Versus Heavy Resistance
Exercise in Young Men. Haun et al. (2017)
BY G RE G NUC KO LS
A
t this point, we have a robust body of re- trophy (2). However, the literature is sparse
search showing that high-load and low- in two important areas: mechanisms and
load training can lead to similar hyper- effects on fatigue.
6
KEY POINTS
1. High-load (80% 1RM) and low-load (30% 1RM) training led to very similar acute
cellular responses. However, peak torque was depressed to a greater degree
immediately following low-load training and may have still been depressed to a
slightly greater degree 48 hours later (though the difference was no longer significant).
2. Lingering fatigue following low-load training and elevations of p70s6k (an anabolic
signaling protein) were generally positively associated with proportion of type II
muscle fibers.
3. The mRNAs coding for type I, IIa, and IIx myosin proteins were elevated to similar
degrees following both types of training, suggesting that high-load training doesn’t
preferentially stimulate type II fibers, and low-load training doesn’t preferentially
stimulate type I fibers.
4. Hypertrophy is driven by similar cellular responses independent of load; however,
low-load training may decrease performance for longer, so it should be used
carefully.
Understanding the mechanistic differ- and B together than you could get from
ences between high-load and low-load A and B independently (9). In the case
training may sound like something that of high-load and low-load training, if
would only be relevant to researchers, they’re found to promote muscle growth
but it’s important from a practical per- via similar cellular mechanisms, that
spective as well. In general, when two would provide us with evidence that you
interventions lead to the same effect may not need to train in both moderate
via different mechanisms, those two in- (i.e. 6-15) and high (i.e. 15+) rep ranges
terventions are likely to have additive to maximize muscle growth. However, if
or synergistic effects: you can get more they’re found to promote growth via dif-
from both interventions together than ferent mechanisms, that would provide
you could get from either intervention us with evidence that they may have ad-
independently (8). On the other hand, if ditive effects, and that training in both
two interventions lead to the same effect rep ranges could be beneficial (or per-
via the same mechanism(s), those two in- haps even necessary) to maximize mus-
terventions are unlikely to have additive cle growth.
or synergistic effects: You may be able Understanding the fatigue brought on
to get larger outcomes from increases in by different training approaches is im-
either intervention A or intervention B, portant for translating lab results into
but you can’t get larger outcomes from A the real world. If two approaches lead to
7
similar muscle growth in the lab when
training once per week, but it takes two
days to recover from one approach and UNDERSTANDING THE
five days to recover from the other, the
first style of training would likely be the FATIGUE BROUGHT ON
better option in practice, as it would al-
low for higher training frequencies. To BY DIFFERENT TRAINING
date, no studies have compared the acute
fatigue and recovery responses with APPROACHES IS IMPORTANT
high-load versus low-load training us-
ing similarly challenging protocols. FOR TRANSLATING
In this study, 15 men with some prior
training experience completed two pro-
LAB RESULTS INTO
tocols: four sets of knee extensions to
failure with 30% of 1RM, and four sets to
THE REAL WORLD.
failure with 80% of 1RM. The research-
ers assessed quad activation, markers of
muscle damage, mRNA levels associated Therefore, it seems unlikely that training
with genes that regulate inflammation, in both intensity ranges is required to
muscle growth, and muscle atrophy, the maximize muscle growth. Furthermore,
levels of proteins involved in key signal- lifters should use low-load training (i.e.
ing cascades that lead to muscular adap- 30% of 1RM) judiciously (if they choose
tations, and performance recovery over to use it at all) during normal training, as
48 hours. The only significant differenc- it may suppress performance for longer
es between protocols were higher quad than high-load (i.e. 80% of 1RM) train-
activation with high-load training and ing does.
a larger acute decrease in performance
immediately after the training session
with low-load training. However, per- Purpose and Research
formance was still decreased to a slight-
ly greater degree 48 hours post-exercise
Questions
after low-load training, and the similar The aim of this study was to compare
changes in mRNA and signaling pro- the acute molecular, neuromuscular, and
teins suggest that high-load and low- functional (i.e. up to 48 hours post-exer-
load training promote muscle growth cise) responses to heavy (80% of 1RM)
via the similar cellular mechanisms. and light (30% of 1RM) strength train-
8
Figure 1 Study Design. Data collection procedures for each visit and time between visits
5-7 days 2 days 5 days 2 days
Visit 1 Visit 2 Visit 3 Visit 4 Visit 5
Informed Consent PRE iskokinetic test 48h POST blood draw PRE iskokinetic test 48h POST blood draw
PRE algometry PRE algometry
1RM test 48h POST algometry 48h POST algometry
PRE blood draw and biopsy PRE blood draw and biopsy
Randomized 48h POST isokinetic test 48h POST isokinetic test
condition ordering Light or heavy RE with EMG Heavy or light RE with EMG
Post isokinetic test Post isokinetic test

15m POST blood draw and biopsy 15m POST blood draw and biopsy
90m POST blood draw and biopsy 90m POST blood draw and biopsy
90m POST algometry 90m POST algometry
ing performed to concentric failure. and took place over five visits, spanning
No research hypotheses were stated, roughly two weeks per participant. The
but the null hypothesis was that heavy first session included a one-repetition
and light training to failure would cause maximum (1RM) knee extension test.
similar molecular, neuromuscular, and The second session (which took place
functional responses in the 48 hours fol- 5-7 days after the first session) was the
lowing a training session. first training session. It included electro-
myography (EMG) during the sets, and
pre- and post- exercise performance test-
Subjects and Methods ing, pre- and post-exercise muscle biop-
sies of the vastus lateralis, an assessment
Subjects of soreness pre-training and 90-min-
utes post training, and a blood draw
The subjects were 15 resistance-trained
pre-training, 15 minutes post-training,
young (age: 22 ± 2 years) men. To be in-
and 90 minutes post-training. The third
cluded in the study, they needed to have
session took place two days after the sec-
been training at least three times per
ond session and included another per-
week for at least six months, including
formance test and blood draw. The flow
at least one lower body session per week.
of session four mirrored that of session
two, and session five (48 hours later) was
Protocol Overview
a repeat of session three.
An overview of the study protocol can
In this study, all subjects performed
be seen in Figure 1.
both high-load (80% of 1RM) and low-
The study utilized a crossover design load (30% of 1RM) training. The order
9
Figure 2 Soreness, myoglobin, and isokinetic dynamometry data
30% 1RM
A B C
80% 1RM 30% 1RM 30% 1RM 80% 1RM
120 100
80% 1RM
0
(pain-to-pressure units, N)
% Change from PRE

Myoglobin (ng / mL)
80 75
-10
Soreness
40 50 -20
0 25 -30
PRE 90 mPOST 48h hPOST PRE 15 mPOST 48h hPOST
60°/sec
180°/sec
300°/sec
60°/sec
180°/sec
300°/sec
60°/sec
180°/sec
300°/sec
60°/sec
180°/sec
300°/sec
POST 48 hPOST POST 48 hPOST
(A) The change in sorness measured by algometry. (B) The change in serum myoglobin. (C) The percent change in peak torque at each velocity at POST and 48hPOST each condition,
relative to PRE. All data are presented as mean + SE (n=10 per bar for serum myoglobin and n=11 per bar for isokinetic dynamometry).
of the two sessions was randomly as- contraction. Soreness was assessed via
signed, such that some participants did algometry, whereby an instrument that
high-load training on day two and low- increases force at a gradual rate basically
load training on day four, while some did just poked the participants’ quads until
low-load training on day two and high- the pressure became painful; the force
load training on day four. The training level at the point of pain was recorded
sessions with both loads were comprised (more pressure at the point of pain in-
of four sets of knee extensions to failure dicates less soreness, and less pressure at
with three minutes of rest between sets. the point of pain indicated more sore-
ness).
Measures
Serum myoglobin (a marker of mus-
cle damage) was assessed from the blood Findings
draws. Muscle fiber type ratios, muscle Volume load across all four sets was
RNA expression, and the levels of var- surprisingly similar in both conditions.
ious signaling proteins were assessed Vastus lateralis EMG readings were,
from the pre- and post-exercise biop- unsurprisingly, significantly (p<0.05)
sies. Muscular performance was assessed higher across all sets and at the begin-
via isokinetic dynamometry at speeds ning, middle, and end of each set when
of 60, 180, and 300 degrees per sec- lifting 80% of 1RM loads. Soreness and
ond. Measures of EMG were recorded serum myoglobin didn’t significantly
and normalized against the EMG lev- differ between conditions at any time
els attained during a maximal isometric point. However, myoglobin levels ap-
10
pear to have been slightly more elevated
15 minutes post-training after the 80%
condition. MUSCLE DAMAGE MAY HAVE
Isokinetic torque at all speeds was
depressed to a significantly greater de- BEEN SLIGHTLY GREATER IN
gree in the 30% condition immediately
post-training. However, after 48 hours, THE HIGH-LOAD CONDITION,
there were no significant differences be-
tween conditions in isokinetic torque at WHILE RECOVERY OF
any speed. That being said, the decrease
in torque at 60 degrees per second ap- PERFORMANCE MAY HAVE
pears to have been slightly (non-signifi-
cantly) greater at 48 hours post-training
BEEN SLIGHTLY SLOWER IN
after training with 30% loads (a decrease
of ~17% versus ~10%).
THE LOW-LOAD CONDITION.
There were not any significant gene
expression differences between groups
for any of the RNA sequences analyzed, in the high-load condition. Since the
nor were there any significant differenc- weight was heavier, that was to be ex-
es between groups for the levels of vari- pected. However, as we’ve discussed in
ous proteins that were analyzed. MASS previously, that doesn’t neces-
In general, a larger proportion of type sarily mean that total motor unit re-
II fibers tended to be associated with cruitment was greater with 80% 1RM
larger decreases in performance follow- loads. It simply means that simultane-
ing high-rep training, and with larger ous motor unit recruitment was greater;
post-training increases in the signaling it’s entirely possible that all motor units
protein p70s6k (which is associated with were recruited during the course of each
hypertrophy). However, none of the cor- set with both loading conditions, with
relations were significant. greater simultaneous recruitment with
high loads, and more motor unit cycling
(i.e. motor units being recruited, and
Interpretation then dropping out of the recruitment
pool when fatigued) in the low-load
There’s a lot to sink our teeth into here. condition.
Let’s start with the two main significant
differences between conditions. 2. Immediately after the last set, peak
torque at all contraction speeds was de-
1. Vastus lateralis EMG was higher creased to a greater degree after low-
11
Figure 3 Muscle mRNA expression
A Atrogin-1 mRNA B MuRF-1 mRNA C IL-6 mRNA D

TNF- mRNA
2.0 30% 1RM 8 10 10
Ѳ
80% 1RM
8 8
1.5 6
Fold-Change
Fold-Change
Fold-Change
Fold-Change
6 6
1.0 4
4 4
0.5 2 2 2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

PRE 15 mPOST 90 mPOST PRE 15 mPOST 90 mPOST PRE 15 mPOST 90 mPOST PRE 15 mPOST 90 mPOST
E
PGC1- mRNA F MGF mRNA G Nebulin mRNA H Titin mRNA
4 Ѳ 3.0 1.5 1.5
2.5
Fold-Change
Fold-Change
Fold-Change
Fold-Change
2.0 1.0 1.0

2 1.5
1.0 0.5 0.5
0.5
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
I MSTN mRNA J MHC-I mRNA K MHC-IIa mRNA L MHC-IIx mRNA

1.5 2.0 2.0 4
1.5 1.5 3
Fold-Change
Fold-Change
Fold-Change
Fold-Change
1.0
1.0 1.0 2
0.5
0.5 0.5 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(A-L) The fold change in each mRNA relative to PRE. All data are presented as mean + SE (n=13 per bar).
Ѳ indicates significant time effect whereby values were significantly greater than baseline regardless of load condition (P < 0.05); # indicates significant time effect whereby values were
significantly less than baselines regardless of load condition (P < 0.05).
load training. That’s not too surprising: sions. In my opinion, the most interest-
The participants stopped each set when ing findings in this study were related
they could no longer produce 30% of to the measures that weren’t different.
maximal force when training with load The possible differences between load-
loads, and they stopped each set when ing zones you may take away from this
they could no longer produce 80% of study rely on not-quite-statistically-sig-
maximal force when training with high nificant differences between conditions.
loads. Of course their ability to produce Hence, any conclusions are tentative.
a torque would be decreased to a greater Some of the not-quite-significant dif-
degree! ferences and trends, however, are quite
As far as significant differences be- interesting. For starters, muscle dam-
tween groups go, that’s all we’ve got. I age may have been slightly greater in
point that out because I wouldn’t want the high-load condition, while recovery
people coming away from this study of performance may have been slightly
with massively over-confident conclu- slower in the low-load condition. Serum
12
ly that if there was a difference in cen-
tral fatigue, there would have been more
IT’S ESPECIALLY NOTEWORTHY central fatigue after high-load training
than low-load training. The authors
THAT ALL THREE MHC MRNAS speculate that decreased efficiency of
WERE AFFECTED SIMILARLY calcium handling and possibly decreases
in glycogen levels (which would impede
BY BOTH LOAD CONDITIONS. calcium handling) account for the larg-
er decrements in performance 48 hours
THAT PUSHES BACK AGAINST post-training after low-load training.
THE NOTION THAT HIGH-LOAD Furthermore, it’s interesting to note the
near-significant associations between
TRAINING PREFERENTIALLY type II fiber proportion and a) perfor-
mance decrements following low-load
TRAINS TYPE II MUSCLE FIBERS, training and b) phosphorylated p70s6k
levels. Many coaches (myself included)
AND LOW-LOAD TRAINING have noted that more naturally explosive
PREFERENTIALLY TRAINS athletes tend to grow faster when they
start lifting, and that they tend to get
TYPE I MUSCLE FIBERS. worn down much more quickly when
they ramp up their training volumes.
This study provides some degree of vali-
dation for those observations (at least if
myoglobin levels (an indicator of muscle we assume that athletes with a greater
damage) increased nearly four times as proportion of type II fibers are more ex-
much 15 minutes post-training in the plosive – a reasonably safe assumption).
high-load condition (not significant be- Finally, let’s look at some of the
cause variability was high), while isoki- non-differences. Levels of IL-6, TNF-α,
netic torque at 60 degrees per second PGC-1α, MSTN, and all three MHC
was only depressed by roughly 10% at mRNAs were increased to similar de-
48 hours post-training after high-load grees after both high-load and low-load
training, versus roughly 17% after low- training. IL-6 and TNF-α are involved
load training. in inflammatory signaling, PGC-1α is
This is interesting to note, as muscle involved in mitochondrial biogenesis,
damage tends to impede recovery of per- MSTN (myostatin) suppresses mus-
formance. Furthermore, since EMG was cle growth, MHC-I codes for the main
greater with high-load training, it’s like- contractile protein in type I muscle fi-
13
Figure 4 Relationships between proportion of type II muscle fibers, p70s6k levels, and performance recovery following low-load training
Peak torque 60° / sec Peak torque 180° / sec Peak torque 300° / sec
D 48 hPOST 30% 1RM E 48 hPOST 30% 1RM F 48 hPOST 30% 1RM
10 10 10
0 0 0
% Change from PRE
% Change from PRE
% Change from PRE

-10 -10
-10
-20 -20
-20
-30 r = 0.56 -30 r = 0.47 r = 0.40
-30
-40 P = 0.06 -40 P = 0.13 P = 0.21
-50 -50 -40
-60 -60 -50

50 60 70 80 50 60 70 80 50 60 70 80
% Fast Fibers % Fast Fibers % Fast Fibers
p-p70s6k (Thr389) p-p70s6k (Thr389) p-p70s6k (Thr389) p-p70s6k (Thr389)

G 15 mPOST 30% 1RM H 90 mPOST 30% 1RM I 15 mPOST 80% 1RM J 90 mPOST 80% 1RM
18 18 18 18
16 16 16 16
r = 0.39 r = 0.51 r = 0.50 r = 0.37
14 14 14 14
12 P = 0.15 12 P = 0.06 12 P = 0.06 12 P = 0.17
Fold-change
Fold-change
Fold-change
Fold-change
10 10 10 10
8 8 8 8
6 6 6 6
4 4 4 4
2 2 2 2
0 0 0 0
40 50 60 70 80 40 50 60 70 80 40 50 60 70 80 40 50 60 70 80
% Fast Fibers % Fast Fibers % Fast Fibers % Fast Fibers
All relationships were suggestive but non-significant
bers, and MHC-IIa and MHC IIx code increased with both loading conditions.
for the main contractile protein in type This suggests that low-load training isn’t
II muscle fibers. It’s especially notewor- causing “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy,” but
thy that all three MHC mRNAs were is truly upregulating the signaling path-
affected similarly by both load condi- ways that lead to contractile protein ac-
tions. That pushes back against the no- crual to the same degree as high-load
tion that high-load training preferen- training.
tially trains type II muscle fibers, and There were a couple of drawbacks to
low-load training preferentially trains this study. This study did use lifters with
type I muscle fibers. It’s also interesting, prior training experience (which push-
to me at least, that PGC-1α mRNA es back against the notion that low-
was increased similarly after both load- load training would only cause muscle
ing conditions. I would have expected growth in untrained people), but it’s
larger elevations after low-load training unlikely that they had a ton of experi-
as a way to explain the larger gains in ence with low-load training. Thus, some
strength endurance typically seen after of the differences and non-differences
low-load training. observed may be attributable to novelty.
Not only were mRNA levels similar- For example, it may be that anabolic sig-
ly affected by both loading conditions, naling would decrease with repeated ex-
the levels of proteins involved in the an- posure to low-load training to levels be-
abolic signaling cascade were similarly low what’s seen with high-load training
14
(which is unlikely, in my opinion, since
multiple training studies with experi-
enced lifters have found similar muscle SINCE TORQUE PRODUCTION
growth between high-load and low-load
training [3, 4]), and it may be that the WAS STILL DEPRESSED TO A
lingering fatigue seen after low-load
training would decrease as the lifters ha-
LARGER DEGREE 48 HOURS
bituated to the stimulus (which seems
more likely, to me at least).
POST-TRAINING AFTER
Furthermore, much like the study we LOW-LOAD TRAINING, IT
looked at last month comparing recovery
responses in young versus middle-aged CALLS INTO QUESTION THE
men, the researchers only assessed recov-
ery and examined molecular responses
UTILITY OF USING LOW-LOAD
for 48 hours after the training sessions. TRAINING FREQUENTLY IN
However, this drawback is more under-
standable here, as some of the measures YOUR PROGRAMMING UNDER
relied on biopsies, and most human sub-
jects aren’t going to be cool with you rip- NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
ping out too many chunks of their flesh.
It would have been nice to see torque
measurements extending out to 72 or 96
hours post-training, though.
low-load training likely isn’t “sarcoplas-
So, what can you take away from this mic hypertrophy.”
study?
However, since torque production was
For starters, it seems that the molec- still depressed to a larger degree 48 hours
ular responses are very similar when post-training after low-load training, it
training to failure with 80% of 1RM calls into question the utility of using
and 30% of 1RM. This lends support to low-load training frequently in your pro-
a plethora of previous findings that low- gramming under normal circumstances,
load training can be used to build muscle especially since it seems to work via the
just as effectively as high-load training. same mechanisms as high-load training,
Furthermore, it supports prior research and thus may not have an additive ef-
showing that high-load and low-load fect on hypertrophy. It’s also worth not-
training lead to similar growth of both ing that the two prior studies that tested
type I and type II fibers (4) and supplies a combination of high- and low-load
us with evidence that hypertrophy after training versus exclusively “high”-load
15
APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
1. Low-load training can be used to stimulate muscle growth just as effectively as
high-load training.
2. However, fatigue may persist for longer following low-load training, which could
limit training frequency and ultimately limit weekly training volume.
3. Low-load training is a useful tool for maintaining or gaining muscle mass when high-
load training is precluded, but you likely shouldn’t rely on it too heavily for your day-
to-day training, except in situations where you’ll have an extra day or two to recover,
or when training muscle groups for which performance doesn’t matter to you.
training (~75-80% of 1RM) found no if you enjoy getting a huge pump from
significant differences in hypertrophy (5, low-load training, feel free to do so. Just
6). Most of my recommendations would don’t go crazy on the volume, or use it
mirror Eric’s from last month in his ar- primarily for muscles that aren’t prima-
ticle about training to failure: primarily ry moves in the lifts you care the most
use low-load training for accessory exer- about (i.e. something like calves and bi-
cises (if you use it at all), use it in training ceps if you’re a powerlifter).
sessions when you’ll have an extra day or
two to recover before your next session
(i.e. if you bench Monday and Thursday, Next Steps
it would be better to do your low-load I’d be interested in seeing future stud-
training on Thursday to give yourself ies designed to figure out why torque
longer to recover before your next bench production was decreased more at 48
session), and don’t rely on it too much hours post-training following low-load
for your “normal” training. training. Furthermore, I’d like to see
With that being said, low-load train- larger studies to better test the associ-
ing is a great option when you’re training ations between fiber type breakdown
around aches and pains. It allows you to and fatigue following different styles of
still stimulate muscle growth with much training. Finally, we’re still waiting on
lower forces on your joints and soft tis- some more good studies looking at the
sues. It’s going to be more uncomfort- effects of using a combination of load-
able for your muscles (7) due to the in- ing zones within single sessions versus
tense burn, but it may give your joints spread throughout a week (a la DUP).
and soft tissues the break they need.
And, of course, for day-to-day training,
16
References
1. Haun CT, Mumford PW, Roberson PA, Romero MA, Mobley CB, Kephart WC, Anderson RG,
Colquhoun RJ, Muddle TWD, Luera MJ, Mackey CS, Pascoe DD, Young KC, Martin JS, DeFreitas
JM, Jenkins NDM, Roberts MD. Molecular, neuromuscular, and recovery responses to light versus
heavy resistance exercise in young men. Physiol Rep. 2017 Sep;5(18). pii: e13457. doi: 10.14814/
phy2.13457.
2. Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Strength and hypertrophy adaptations between low-
versus high-load resistance training: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res.
2017 Aug 22.
3. Schoenfeld BJ, Peterson MD, Ogborn D, Contreras B, Sonmez GT. Effects of Low- vs. High-Load
Resistance Training on Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy in Well-Trained Men. J Strength Cond
Res. 2015 Oct;29(10):2954-63.
4. Morton RW, Oikawa SY, Wavell CG, Mazara N, McGlory C, Quadrilatero J, Baechler BL, Bak-
er SK, Phillips SM. Neither load nor systemic hormones determine resistance training-mediated
hypertrophy or strength gains in resistance-trained young men. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2016 Jul
1;121(1):129-38. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00154.2016.
5. Schoenfeld BJ, Contreras B, Ogborn D, Galpin A, Krieger J, Sonmez GT. Effects of Varied Ver-
sus Constant Loading Zones on Muscular Adaptations in Trained Men. Int J Sports Med. 2016
Jun;37(6):442-7. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1569369.
6. Fink J, Kikuchi N, Yoshida S, Terada K, Nakazato K. Impact of high versus low fixed loads and
non-linear training loads on muscle hypertrophy, strength and force development. Springerplus.
2016; 5(1): 698. Published online 2016 May 20. doi: 10.1186/s40064-016-2333-z
7. Fisher JP, Steele J. Heavier and lighter load resistance training to momentary failure produce similar
increases in strength with differing degrees of discomfort. Muscle Nerve. 2017 Oct;56(4):797-803.
doi: 10.1002/mus.25537.
8. For example, eating adequate calories and getting enough sleep both aid in performance, but they
support performance via completely different mechanisms, meaning you can’t just eat a good diet to
compensate for lack of sleep, or vice versa.
9. For example, NSAIDs that work via the same mechanism (i.e. ibuprofen and naproxen) are rarely
prescribed together since they blunt fever and inflammation via blocking the same signaling cascade,
so you don’t get anything extra out of using both drugs instead of just taking a bit more of one. Don’t
take this as medical advice. It’s just an easy example where the mechanisms are very well-understood.
17
Your Caffeine Stash is Empty.
Is it All Over for the Day?
Study Reviewed: Caffeine Ingestion Acutely Enhances
Muscular Strength and Power but Not Muscular Endurance in
Resistance-Trained Men. Grgic and Mikulic. (2017)
BY MI C HAE L C . ZO URD O S
A
lmost all of us take caffeine in some all had that moment when we searched
form. Maybe it’s when you wake up through our kitchen cabinet or gym bag
in the morning, or maybe it’s right to discover that we were out of caffeine.
before training, or maybe it’s both. No At this point, you may have thought, “Oh
matter when you take it, we’ve probably no, how am I going to train today?”
18
KEY POINTS
1. In this study, caffeine improved most performance measures, including max squat
strength.
2. Based upon the totality of evidence, the recommended dosage and timing is 6 mg/
kg-1 of caffeine taken 60 minutes prior to training.
3. Caffeine should also enhance mood state and may decrease the perception of
difficulty of a training session.
Well, despite the fact that caffeine muscular endurance (max reps at 60%
binds to adenosine receptors and in- of 1RM) for the squat or bench press,
creases alertness and excitability (2), but there were either small effect siz-
there is conflicting evidence regarding es or percentage differences in favor of
the effects of caffeine on strength per- the caffeine condition for all of these
formance. So, how consequential is it variables. Overall, these results show
if you discover an empty caffeine stash that caffeine use results in at least small
before training? and practically important increases in
This study examined the effects every performance variable. Therefore,
of caffeine on upper and lower body this article will examine not only these
strength, power, and muscular endur- results, but will also discuss why these
ance in trained men. It was a dou- results may be in conflict with other
ble-blinded crossover design, meaning studies examining caffeine’s effect on
that both the subjects and investigators strength. Finally, it will then provide
were blinded to whether the subjects recommendations regarding the dos-
ingested the 6 mg/kg-1 caffeine drink age and timing of caffeine.
or a placebo one hour before training.
The results showed that after ingesting
caffeine, the lifters had a significant- Purpose and Research
ly higher one-repetition maximum Questions
(1RM) squat (+2.8%), lower rating
of perceived exertion (RPE) during Purpose
the squat, and a significantly farther
seated medicine ball throw (+4.3%) The purpose of this study was to de-
compared to the placebo condition. termine if 6 mg/kg -1 of caffeine in-
Caffeine did not statistically improve creased both upper and lower body
1RM bench press, vertical jump, or muscle strength, power, and endur-
19
Table 1 Subject Characteristics
Number of Body Mass

Subjects Age (years) Height (cm) (kg) Training Age
20 Males 26 ± 6 182 ± 9 84 ± 9 7±3
Data are Mean ± SD

Subjects characteristics from Grgic and Mikulic et al. 2017 (1)
ance when compared to a placebo con-

dition.
Subjects and Methods
Subjects
Research Questions
Twenty men with at least one year of
Does taking caffeine one hour be- resistance training experience participat-
fore lifting improve acute squat and ed in this study. However, these individ-
bench press performance? Also, does uals were of a higher training status than
caffeine reduce RPE and pain percep- most lifters in the scientific literature, as
tion during squatting and benching? the average training age was seven years,
and they had to be lifting at least three
Hypotheses times per week for the six months pri-
The authors hypothesized that or to the study. Further, to be included,
all measures of performance (1RM subjects had to squat at least 1.25 times
strength, muscular endurance, verti- body mass and bench at least as much
cal jump, and medicine ball throw) for as their body mass. The specific descrip-
both the upper and lower body would tive statistics of all subjects can be seen
be improved with caffeine compared in Table 1.
to a placebo. The authors also hypoth-
esized that caffeine ingestion would Study Design
reduce RPE and pain perception com- The subjects came to the laboratory
pared to the placebo condition. three times. The first time was to famil-
20
iarize the subjects with the RPE scale
Performance
(they used the Borg 6-20 scale) (3), the
Pre-Tests Tests
pain perception (PP) 0-10 scale, and to
perform a near-12RM on the squat and 5 minute rest
bench to estimate their 1RM for the
experimental sessions. While I under-
stand the point of the 12RM, it is also Vertical Jump
unnecessary and fatiguing. It’s import- Ingestion of
Beverage 5 minutes
ant to point this out because the paper 6 mg/kg-1 of caffeine
doesn’t say how long subjects waited to OR
placebo of same taste Seated Medicine
come back in for day two (the first ex- Ball Throw
perimental session), so it’s possible that 60 minutes 5 minutes
some lifters could have still been fa-

Warm-Up 1 RM Squat
tigued from the 12RM during the first 10-minute warm-up 5 minutes
session. Also, if these are all experienced of cycling and
dynamic movements
lifters, they should be able to estimate Max Reps @ 60%
their 1RM with decent accuracy, and of Squat 1RM
then the investigators can gauge the dif- 5 minutes
ficulty of warm-up sets to determine at-

tempts for the 1RM test. These things 1 RM Bench
make the 12RM on the familiarization 5 minutes
unnecessary. The experimental testing Figure 1

Study Timeline Max Reps @ 60%
days took place seven days apart, with of Bench 1RM
the only difference between days being

either the consumption of 6 mg/kg-1 of This figure depicts the timeline of events during the experimental
caffeine in a beverage or a placebo of the sessions. The left side shows what happened upon arrival to the
same taste. Figure 1 shows the timeline laboratory through the warm-up, and the right side shows the
order of the performance tests
of events during the caffeine and place-
bo sessions. Also, RPE and PP were tak-
en after all squat and bench press sets.
condition: vertical jump (+2.8%), seat-
ed medicine ball throw (+4.3%), 1RM
Findings squat (+2.8%), and bench press muscular
endurance (+3.1%). The other variables
The following variables were either sta-
(back squat muscular endurance and
tistically better (p<0.05) or had at least
1RM bench press) did not reach statis-
a small effect size (ES ≥ 0.20) noting
tical significance (p>0.05) and ESs were
greater performance under the caffeine
trivial, although the trivial ESs did cor-
21
Table 2 Average Values and Relative Differences in Performance Between Conditions
Placebo condition Caffeine condition % Benefit for Effect size —

Measure (mean + SD) (mean + SD) Caffeine magnitude p-Value
Vertical jump (cm) 66.1 + 7.7 68.0 + 7.1 2.8 0.25 – small 0.067
Seated medicine ball 357.4 + 41.9 372.8 + 54.9 4.3 0.32 – small 0.009*
throw (cm)
1RM back squat (kg) 131.6 + 19.2 135.3 + 18.7 2.8 0.19 – trivial 0.016*
Squat Endurance: 22.5 + 8.4 23.4 + 8.1 3.9 0.11 – trivial 0.484
Reps at 60%
1RM bench press (kg) 106.9 + 11.9 107.9 + 11.9 1.0 0.09 – trivial 0.275
Bench Endurance: 20.8 + 3.0 21.5 + 3.0 3.1 0.21 – small 0.315
Reps at 60%
*Significantly greater performance in the placebo condition. 1RM = One-repetition maximum
respond to +3.9 and +1.0% performance on acute maximal strength is actually

increases, respectively, under the caffeine in disagreement with two other recent
condition. For RPE and PP, there was studies (4, 5), and in partial agreement
significantly lower RPE after both squat with one (6). However, this study adds
and bench press 1RM testing in favor to the mounting evidence that caffeine
of caffeine, and there were small effects enhances muscular endurance. It’s in-
for lower RPE and PP following squat teresting, though: I think some easy-to-
and bench endurance testing, suggesting see differences in methodology between
lower perception of fatigue after taking this and the other recent investigations
caffeine compared to placebo. All mean explain the different findings for max
values, ESs, percentage changes favoring strength. With that in mind, let’s ex-
the caffeine condition, and p-values for plore those differences, as they will re-
performance variables can be seen in Ta- veal important factors regarding dosage
ble 2. In short, caffeine seemed to have and timing of caffeine consumption to
at least a practically important benefit reap the performance benefits.
for all variables tested. The recent studies we were referring
to are Brooks et al. (2015), Trexler et
al. (2016), and Fett et al. (2017). First,
Interpretation Brooks and colleagues (4) used a caffeine
The benefit of caffeine in this study capsule and a lower dosage (5 mg/kg-1)
22
Table 3 Different Methodologies of Recent Studies
1RM Improvement
(At least 1 performance
Study Caffeine Dosage Timing measure)
Brooks et al. (2016) 5 mg / kg-1 60 min pre-training No
Trexler et al. (2016) 3-5 mg / kg-1 30 min pre-training No
Fett et al. (2017) 6 mg / kg-1 60 min pre-training Yes
Grgic and Mikulic (2017) 6 mg / kg-1 60 min pre-training Yes

Present Study
Bold type indicates studies used recommended dosage and timing
compared to the powder and higher dos- randomized the order of conditions, giv-
age used in the present study, and found ing more credibility to the findings. All
no benefit of caffeine on max strength. taken together, a lower dosage (5 mg/
Trexler reported that 3-5 mg/kg-1 of caf- kg-1), close timing (30 minutes), and a
feine 30 minutes prior to max bench and capsule form of caffeine in the previous
leg press did not improve strength (5). studies may have not been as effective as
Finally, the Fett study – that Greg previ- the 6 mg/kg-1 caffeine powder taken 60
ously reviewed in MASS – found that 6 minutes prior to training in the present-
mg/kg-1 of caffeine improved hack squat ly reviewed study. It should also be noted
but not pulldown strength compared to that the same protocol employed pres-
a placebo condition. However, the Fett ently (6 mg/kg-1 60 minutes pre-training)
study also had a serious design flaw in did not improve 1RM bench press and
that it had four conditions (baseline, leg press strength in a 2008 study from
caffeine, placebo, caffeine), and the or- Astorino et al. (7); however, that study
der of conditions was not randomized or did report improved muscular endurance
counterbalanced. The largest benefit for at 60% of 1RM. So, taking 6 mg/kg-1 of
caffeine in Fett’s study occurred in week caffeine one hour prior to training does
four, the last caffeine day; however, it’s not guarantee improved max strength,
possible there was just a training effect at but it’s likely your best shot. Table 3 de-
that point, or subjects were simply more tails the protocols of the relevant studies
familiar with the protocol since counter- discussed in this section to illustrate the
balancing didn’t occur. The present study methodological differences.
23
Table 4 Individual squat one-repetition maximum performance for each subject in both conditions
Subject Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Caffeine
175 140 110 120 158 160 160 130 120 120 145 120 115 128 125 140 135
Condition
Placebo 175 135 103 120 150 150 150 140 115 110 140 120 110 130 120 143 123
Condition
All numbers above are individual squat one-repetition maximums expressed in kg.
Two other interesting points of this max in both conditions, and 2 subjects
study are: 1) the relatively greater in- squatted more in the placebo condition.
crease in squat 1RM compared bench Now we can use the “eye test” to look
press 1RM with caffeine, suggesting a for “trends” such as: Did the stronger
possibly greater benefit of caffeine for lifters or weaker lifters benefit more or
lower body strength; and 2) this study less from caffeine? From looking at this
reported individual subject data for squat data, I see no such trend, as the stron-
1RM, which allows for further “eye test” gest individual squatted the same in
analysis. This study is not the first to each condition (175kg), and the largest
suggest that caffeine may be more ben- difference between conditions was 10kg,
eficial for lower body strength, as two which occurred once in favor of caffeine
other recent studies (6, 8) have found a and once in favor of the placebo. It’s
greater benefit for lower body strength possible that the 10kg difference in favor
than upper body strength with caffeine. of placebo for subject 8 (Table 4) may
So, if you’re worried about habitual caf- be attributable to 6 mg/kg-1 simply be-
feine consumption diminishing its er- ing too much caffeine for this individual,
gogenic effects, then I would save it for leading to side effects that harmed per-
lower body training only (but remem- formance. However, a more likely expla-
ber, in September, Eric discussed how nation is that this is just human research,
habituation likely won’t fully eliminate which means that not all elements can
caffeine’s benefits). On the second inter- be controlled (sleep, readiness, etc.), and
esting point, it’s always nice to see indi- this person was just more fatigued due
vidual subject data, as most studies only to life demands during the caffeine con-
report average results. Of the 17 sub- dition. The main point being, individ-
jects, 12 had a greater max squat under ual subject data is always interesting to
the caffeine condition, 3 had the same
24
1. 6 mg/kg-1 of caffeine taken 60 minutes before training is likely the best approach to
acute caffeine consumption to improve strength performance.
2. Caffeine may help lower body strength more than upper body strength, so if you
are worried about habituation decreasing caffeine’s effects, then save it for before
lower body sessions.
3. Don’t over-consume caffeine. 6 mg/kg-1 seems to be recommended, but the evidence
does not show that more caffeine past this point is better; if anything, more may
cause disorientation and actually harm acute performance. If the recommended
dosage causes negative side effects, then reduce the amount.
examine and is a nice feature in this might not have, or – at the very least
study. Table 4 shows this individual – having a better experience when we
squat 1RM data. got there.
Lastly, I’d like to point out some- As we finish this article, I also think
thing that there is less direct evidence it’s important to point out that 6 mg/
for, but that I’ve theorized for a while. kg-1 of caffeine is actually a lot. For an
Since it is well-known that the excit- individual weighing 75kg, that would
ability factor is real with caffeine and be 450mg, whereas one cup of coffee
that caffeine may diminish pain and is about 70-140 mg of caffeine (by the
soreness, it is possible that caffeine way, coffee tastes terrible; bring on the
may enhance adherence to training hate). The point here is that if you are
over time. The thought process here not currently consuming any caffeine
is that if you wake up feeling terrible or anything close to 6 mg/kg-1 per day,
or have some soreness, it’s possible it is likely not wise to triple or qua-
that your desire to train might be low; druple your caffeine consumption im-
however, caffeine consumption might mediately just to hit the recommend-
acutely increase mood state and deed dosage; instead, build up your dose
crease soreness, allowing you to get to gradually and go only as high as needed
the gym when you otherwise wouldn’t to see a performance benefit. Decrease
have. While there is no direct evidence your dosage if you experience negative
for this, I think we can all point to a side effects (i.e. disrupted sleep, disori-
time when caffeine altered our mood entation, or headaches).
state in a beneficial way, which led to
us actually going to the gym when we
25
Next Steps
In my opinion, there is enough acute
data on caffeine to justify its usage for
strength performance. Therefore, I’d like
to see a training study. For example, we’ve
known for a while that static stretching
can decrease acute strength and force
production, but it wasn’t until this year
that a study was published showing that
static stretching attenuates the rate of
hypertrophy over a training study by re-
ducing the amount of volume performed
in each session over eight weeks. I would
like to see something similar with caf-
feine. For example, an eight-week study
with two groups: one group that con-
sumes 6 mg/kg-1 of caffeine 60 minutes
before each session, and one group that
consumes a placebo. Then, we could see
if caffeine improves volume and/or in-
tensity capability during each session
and if that then translates to greater hy-
pertrophy and/or strength at the end of
the study.
26
References
1. Grgic J, Mikulic P. Caffeine ingestion acutely enhances muscular strength and power but not mus-
cular endurance in resistance-trained men. European Journal of Sport Science. 2017 May 25:1-8.
2. Nehlig A, Daval JL, Debry G. Caffeine and the central nervous system: mechanisms of action, bio-
chemical, metabolic and psychostimulant effects. Brain Research Reviews. 1992 Aug 31;17(2):139-
70.
3. Borg G. Perceived exertion as an indicator of somatic stress. Scandinavian journal of rehabilitation
medicine. 1970;2(2):92.
4. Brooks JH, Wyld K, Chrismas BC. Acute effects of caffeine on strength performance in trained and
untrained individuals. Journal of Athletic Enhancement. 2017 May 23;2015.
5. Trexler ET, Smith-Ryan AE, Roelofs EJ, Hirsch KR, Mock MG. Effects of coffee and caffeine
anhydrous on strength and sprint performance. European journal of sport science. 2016 Aug
17;16(6):702-10.
6. Fett CA, Magalhães AN, Schantz Jr J, Brandão CF, de Araújo CJ, Rezende FW. Performance of
muscle strength and fatigue tolerance in young trained women supplemented with caffeine. The
Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness. 2017 Apr 13.
7. Astorino TA, Rohmann RL, Firth K. Effect of caffeine ingestion on one-repetition maximum mus-
cular strength. European journal of applied physiology. 2008 Jan 1;102(2):127-32.
8. Tallis J, Yavuz HC. The effects of low and moderate dose caffeine supplementation on upper an and
lower body maximal voluntary concentric and eccentric maximal force. Applied Physiology, Nutri-
tion, and Metabolism. 2017 Oct 24(ja).
27
Diet Breaks Make an Energy Deficit
More Effective and Less Costly
Study Reviewed: Intermittent Energy Restriction
Improves Weight Loss Efficiency in Obese Men: The
MATADOR Study. Byrne et al. (2017)
BY E RI C HE LMS
T
o the best of my knowledge, the Lyle’s guidelines were inspired by a 2003
concept of taking a diet break in the study by Wing and Jeffrey, in which they
bodybuilding world was original- attempted to study the effects of weight
ly popularized by Lyle McDonald in his loss relapses by prescribing diet breaks
2005 book “A Guide to Flexible Dieting.” during a weight loss intervention (2).
28
KEY POINTS
1. Despite the same energy deficit and the same total time spent in an energy deficit,
a group taking two-week diet breaks after every two weeks of dieting lost ~50%
more fat mass compared to a group dieting continuously for 16 weeks. However,
due to the frequency of these breaks, the group performing diet breaks required 30
weeks to complete all 16 weeks of dieting.
2. Additionally, resting energy expenditure dropped only half as much in the diet break
group compared to the continuous diet group when adjusted for body composition.
This may be why the difference in groups favored the diet break group to a greater
degree after a six-month follow-up, indicating diet breaks may help with the
maintenance of weight loss after a diet concludes.
3. Diet breaks appear to reverse important physiological adaptations to an energy
deficit, subsequently making the dieting period following a break more effective
for fat loss. While doubling the time required to complete a diet (as was done
in this study) is probably impractical, performing a diet break every 4-8 weeks
versus every two weeks may be a useful strategy for physique competitors and
weight class-restricted strength athletes to enhance fat loss and mitigate declines
in resting energy expenditure
Surprisingly, they found that planned body weight and fat mass while losing
breaks during a diet, unlike unplanned a similar amount of lean body mass and
lapses, did not disrupt weight loss ef- experienced only half the reduction in
forts. Despite these findings, no one has resting energy expenditure (REE) com-
investigated the utility of diet breaks as pared to CON.
a weight loss aid again…until now. In
the present study, two groups of obese
men either followed a 33% energy defi- Purpose and Research
cit diet (67% of maintenance energy)
continuously for 16 weeks (CON), or
Questions
took a two-week diet break at main-
Purpose
tenance intermittently after every two
weeks of dieting (INT) for a total of 30 The purpose of this study was to exam-
weeks. During these diet breaks, there ine the effect of repeatedly interrupting
was no loss or gain of body weight. Ad- energy restriction with deliberate peri-
ditionally, while CON and INT had ods of energy balance on body weight,
the same magnitude and total duration body composition, and energy expendi-
of energy deficit, INT lost ~50% more ture.
29
Table 1 Baseline Subject Characteristics
Continuous Intermittent Difference

Mean + s.d. Mean + s.d. Mean + s.e. P
Completed per protocol (Wk16) N = 19 N = 17

Age (years) 41.2 + 5.5 39.5 + 8.4 1.7 + 2.3 0.46
Height (cm) 180.3 + 6.1 177.8 + 7.7 2.5 + 2.3 0.28
Weight (kg) 110.9 + 9.6 107.7 + 13.3 3.3 + 3.8 0.39
BMI (kg m )-2
34.3 + 3.0 34.1 + 4.0 0.2 + 1.2 0.86
Body fat (%) 39.4 + 5.0 39.7 + 7.1 0.3 + 2.0 0.89
Fat mass (kg) 43.9 + 8.4 43.1 + 11.3 0.9 + 3.3 0.79
Fat-free mass (kg) 67.0 + 5.3 64.5 + 8.1 2.4 + 2.2 0.29
Resting energy expenditure (kJ d-1) 9038 + 762 8364 + 875 674 + 272 0.02

and 6-month follow-up
Age (years) 40.0 + 5.2 40.3 + 7.6 0.3 + 0.8 0.72

Height (cm) 180.4 + 5.6 178.9 + 6.9 1.6 + 0.7 0.02
Weight (kg) 110.2 + 9.3 108.6 + 13.5 1.6 + 4.5 0.72
BMI (kg m-2) 34.0 + 3.6 34.0 + 4.3 0.0 + 1.5 0.98
Body fat (%) 38.3 + 5.4 40.4 + 6.9 2.2 + 2.4 0.36
Fat mass (kg) 42.5 + 8.9 44.2 + 11.0 1.7 + 3.8 0.66
Fat-free mass (kg) 67.7 + 4.8 64.4 + 8.6 3.3 + 2.7 0.23
Resting energy expenditure (kJ d-1) 9075 + 892 8519 + 804 557 + 322 0.09
Hypothesis
The authors hypothesized that, com-
pared with continuous energy restriction, Subjects
intermittent energy restriction (delivered
Eligible participants were males aged
as alternating two-week blocks of dieting
25-54 years with a body mass index
and energy balance) would result in more
(BMI) classified as obese (30-45 kg . m− 2),
efficient weight and fat loss (greater loss
weight-stable (± 2 kg for six months prior
per unit of energy restriction), and that the
to participation), with a sedentary activi-
compensatory reduction in energy expen-
ty level (< 60 min of structured moderate
diture typically associated with continuous
to vigorous intensity physical activity per
weight loss would be reduced.
30
week). Baseline characteristics for both These weights were used to assess the
the participants who completed the pro- accuracy of the weight maintenance diet
tocol as intended and for those who com- and to adjust energy intake if needed.
pleted the protocol as intended and were When participants gained or lost weight
also available for a six-month follow up consistently over at least three days, en-
are displayed in Table 1. ergy intake was adjusted to maintain
weight stability.
Study Design
This was a parallel group design in Body Weight, Composition and REE
which the participants were randomly Body weight was recorded at each lab
assigned to either CON or INT groups. visit with a high-grade digital scale and
Both groups began the intervention with measured to the nearest 0.1kg. Body
a four-week weight stabilization phase composition was assessed via Bodpod
to determine energy needs and to help (air displacement), and REE was mea-
them acclimate to the diet’s macronu- sured with a ventilated hood system af-
trient composition before undertaking ter an overnight fast. Each variable was
the energy restriction period. Follow- recorded at the start and finish of the
ing the CON or INT diet, participants dieting phase, at the start and end of
completed an eight-week post-weight the four-week baseline phase, after ev-
loss energy balance phase. Thus, in- ery four weeks of energy restriction, at
cluding the 4-week baseline, the 16- or weeks 1, 2, 4, and 8 of the eight-week
30-week dieting phase, and the 8-week post-diet energy balance phase, and at
post-weight loss energy balance phases, the follow-up six months later. During
the total length of the intervention was the dieting phase, measurements were
28 and 42 weeks for the CON and INT taken after the same number of weeks
groups, respectively. of energy restriction for both groups.
For example, the week four measure-
Determination of Weight Maintenance ment was taken four weeks after base-
Energy Requirements line for the CON group, but six weeks
Weight maintenance energy require- after baseline for the INT group because
ments were estimated for each partici- a two-week diet break occurred before
pant by multiplying REE by an activity four weeks of energy restriction took
multiplier based on self-reported physi- place in the INT group. For the INT
cal activity. Participants were prescribed group, measurements were taken at the
an individualized diet to maintain body end of a two-week block of energy re-
weight and were provided an electron- striction to ensure a like-to-like com-
ic scale to record body weight at home. parison between groups.
31
Table 2 Differences Between Groups
Continuous Intermittent Difference

Mean + s.d. Mean + s.d. Mean + s.e. P

Weight (kg) - 9.2 + 3.7 - 14.1 + 5.6 4.8 + 1.6 0.004
Weight (%) - 8.4 + 3.3 - 12.9 + 4.4 4.5 + 1.3 0.001
Fat mass (kg) - 8.0 + 4.4 - 12.3 + 4.8 4.3 + 1.5 0.009
Fat-free mass (kg) - 1.2 + 2.4 - 1.8 + 1.6 0.6 + 0.7 0.42
Resting energy expenditure (kJ d-1) - 624 + 557 - 502 + 481 121 + 176 0.48
Resting energy expenditure - 749 + 498 - 360 + 502 389 + 176 0.03
(kJ d-1; adjusted for FFM and FM)

and 6-month follow-up
Weight (kg) - 7.7 + 3.1 - 13.9 + 5.5 6.2 + 1.7 0.001

Weight (%) - 7.2 + 2.9 - 12.6 + 4.2 5.6 + 1.4 0.0004
Fat mass (kg) - 6.6 + 3.4 - 12.3 + 4.8 5.7 + 1.6 0.001
Fat-free mass (kg) - 1.1 + 2.4 - 1.6 + 1.4 0.5 + 0.7 0.49
Resting energy expenditure (kJ d-1) - 548 + 590 - 452 + 494 96 + 205 0.65
Resting energy expenditure - 770 + 523 - 255 + 515 515 + 213 0.02
(kJ d-1; adjusted for FFM and FM)
FM, fat mass; FFM, fat-free mass.

Significant group differences are indicated by bolded text
Nutritional Intervention remained in the same relative energy

Energy restriction in both groups was deficit throughout the study. During
equivalent to 67% of individual weight diet breaks, participants were prescribed
maintenance requirements (that is, a an energy intake matching their weight
33% deficit). Energy intake was adjusted maintenance requirements. Participants
to account for reductions in REE, which were provided main meals and morning
was measured after every four weeks of and afternoon snacks for the duration
ER, in order to ensure that participants of the study. Meals were prepared under
the direction of a dietitian and delivered
32
to the participants’ homes. The planned
macronutrient distribution at all times
in both groups was 25-30% of energy as THE DIFFERENCES AT THE SIX-
fat, 15-20% as protein, and 50-60% as
carbohydrate.
MONTH FOLLOW-UP MARK ARE
EVEN MORE IMPRESSIVE, AS
Findings THE GAP BETWEEN GROUPS
As seen in Table 2, among the partic- WIDENED DUE TO THE CON GROUP
ipants who completed the diet protocol
as intended, those in the INT group lost REGAINING MORE BODY FAT THAN
~50% more body weight and body fat
and had only about half the drop in REE
INT. THUS, AT THIS POINT, INT
when adjusted for body composition MAINTAINED ~80-90% MORE
compared to CON. The differences at the
six-month follow-up mark are even more WEIGHT AND FAT LOSS AND HAD
impressive, as the gap between groups
widened due to the CON group regain-
ONLY ONE-THIRD THE REDUCTION
ing more body fat than INT. Thus, at this IN REE COMPARED TO CON.
point, INT maintained ~80-90% more
weight and fat loss and had only one-third
the reduction in REE compared to CON.
As is shown in Figure 2, the pattern of
weight loss remained much more linear Interpretation
in INT during energy restriction periods, In terms of clinical outcomes, the find-
while CON saw a progressive reduction ings of this study are really impressive.
in rate of weight loss throughout the diet, When you read weight loss studies that
resulting in increasingly wider differenc- compare macronutrient differences be-
es in weight loss between groups. Weight tween diets (3), even when comparing
changes during both energy restriction high- versus low-protein conditions (4),
and diet break periods in INT are shown differences of this magnitude are rarely
in the second panel of this figure. Final- seen. The same goes for studies on other
ly, Figure 2 shows that while both groups forms of intermittent energy restriction,
saw an initial decline in REE, this began such as every-other-day fasting, and the
to rebound in INT, eventually resulting 5/2 diet (2 days of very low or no calo-
in a significantly higher value than CON ries, 5 days at maintenance or ad libitum
when adjusted for body composition. intake); even in the rare case when there
33
Figure 1 Weight Change
CON
A INT
0
-2
-4
-6
Weight Loss (kg)
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Baseline Energy Restriction
Week
1.0 ER
B
EB
0.5
0
Weight change during each block (kg)
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
-3.0
-3.5
ER1 EB1 ER2 EB2 ER3 EB3 ER4 EB4 ER5 EB5 ER6 EB6 ER7 EB7 ER8
Changes in body weight (kg; mean + s.e.m.) during baseline and 16 weeks of energy restriction (ER) in the
continuous (CON; N=19) and intermittent (INT; N=17) groups. (a) Cumulative weight change (kg) over base-
line (-4, -2, 0 weeks) and after 4, 8, 12, and 16 weeks of ER for the CON and INT groups. *Significant differ-
ence between groups; P < 0.05. #Significant difference from baseline within-group; P < 0.01. (b) Weight
change (kg; mean + s.e.m.) in the intermittent energy restriction (INT) group during each of the 8 x 2-week
energy restriction (ER) and 7 x 2-week energy balance (EB) blocks that comprised the 30-week intervention.
34
Figure 2 Changes in Resting Energy Expenditure
CON
INT
200
Changes in REE adj for FFM & FM (kJ/d)
-200
-400
-600
-800
BL ER Wk4 ER Wk8 ER Wk12 ER Wk16
* = Significant difference (p < 0.05) between groups
is an outcome favoring the intervention, ing a list of high-energy density foods

the differences are relatively small (5, to avoid. Additionally, they were pre-
6). So, are diet breaks just that awesome scribed a gradually increasing physical
compared to other forms of intermittent activity plan and were instructed to log
energy restriction? I’d say the answer is diet and exercise, take daily weigh-ins,
both yes and no. and attend the 14 weekly group sessions
First let’s take a step back and discuss (which began with a weigh-in). The only
the original study on diet breaks by Wing difference between groups in this study
and Jeffrey back in 2003 (2). In that study, was that two groups took diet breaks:
they had three groups; each provided a to- one group took three two-week breaks
tal of 14 weekly group sessions in which more or less evenly spread between the
nutritional, behavioral, and exercise ad- 14 weekly sessions, and the other took a
vice and support was provided while single six-week break in the middle of
the individuals in the group followed a the 14 weekly sessions. Thus, both diet
weight loss plan. This plan consisted of break groups finished the program after
being told to follow an energy-restricted 20 weeks (14 weeks of dieting, 6 total
diet tailored to baseline body weight with weeks of diet breaks), while the normal
instructions on how to do so, includ- group finished after 14 weeks (this is
35
Table 3 Wing and Jeffrey 20013 Diet Break Study Protocol
Weeks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
No
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 x x x x x x
Break
2-Week 1 2 3 x x 4 5 6 x x 7 8 9 x x 10 11 12 13 14
Breaks
6-Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 x x x x x x 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Breaks
displayed in Table 3). pliance. The only difference between

What was interesting was that the the breaks and the dieting blocks was
group not taking diet breaks was in- that the caloric intake during the breaks
structed to continue with their weight matched weight maintenance energy re-
loss efforts after the 14th week, carrying quirements. Thus, it seems when left to
on with the behavior, exercise, and nu- one’s own devices, if no control of food
tritional habits they had hopefully de- intake occurs, diet breaks likely result in
veloped during the supervised interven- compensatory overfeeding, washing out
tion. Yet by week 20, all groups had lost some of the potential weight loss bene-
a similar amount of weight, despite both fits. However, when diet breaks are “by
the diet break groups getting to take the numbers” and the individual eats
“time off.” This in and of itself is a cool maintenance calories, it seems you can
finding, but the real question is: Why essentially hit pause on your progress in
did the present study find an advantage order to accelerate it after you start up
when Wing and Jeffrey just found that again.
you could take breaks without impeding Even more encouraging than the great-
your weight loss efforts? er weight loss in INT observed in this
The difference was that – unlike in study at the end of the energy restriction
Wing and Jeffrey’s study – the present period is the even greater advantage for
study's diet was tightly controlled. While weight loss maintenance in INT com-
Wing and Jeffrey conducted an out-pa- pared to CON. While the researchers
tient study, the present study was much didn’t pin down every single mechanism
closer to an in-patient model. Addition- that could have caused this to occur, I
ally, the diet breaks were just as tightly have a feeling it doesn’t just come down
controlled as the energy restriction pe- to a better maintenance of REE. In my
riods. During these breaks, just like the personal experience as a competitor
dieting blocks, the researchers provided and as a coach, I have repeatedly seen
the meals and regularly checked com- that when diet breaks are implemented
36
during a weight loss period, individuals
feel less deprived when the diet con-
cludes and subsequently partake in less WHEN DIET BREAKS ARE
post-diet overeating, leading to a smaller
body weight rebound. In support of my “BY THE NUMBERS” AND
coaching observations, there is a sub-
stantial body of research that I discuss THE INDIVIDUAL EATS
here which shows that individuals who
approach diets with a flexible restraint MAINTENANCE CALORIES, IT
mindset tend to lose more weight, main-
tain more weight loss, and overeat less
SEEMS YOU CAN ESSENTIALLY
both during and after a diet concludes.
HIT PAUSE ON YOUR PROGRESS
Finally, let’s discuss why I said yes and
no in response to my own question of IN ORDER TO ACCELERATE IT
“are diet breaks just that awesome?” at
the start of this section. To get the ben- AFTER YOU START UP AGAIN.
efits observed in this study, the partici-
pants essentially spent twice the length
of time “in the intervention.” Now for a training is more effective and may help
casual dieter trying to lose weight, this with lean mass retention). On the other
really isn’t an issue if you have a long- hand, a strength athlete could make the
term view. If your goal is to live a healthi- argument that it would be better to lose
er lifestyle and maintain a lower body fat the weight quickly, in advance of the
for the remainder of your life, then who competition, then come into the com-
cares if 10 years ago it took you 16 or 30 petition in a slight surplus or at main-
weeks to achieve the weight loss you de- tenance, with months of good training
sired. However, if you are a weight-class under their belt, 1-2% over their weight
restricted strength athlete or physique class cut off, and do a mild water restric-
competitor with a competition date, this tion to make weight. Unlike for the phy-
becomes problematic. Certainly, you sique competitor, whether or not some
could just increase the length of your body fat is regained during this process
diet, which I actually recommend for is inconsequential for the strength ath-
physique competitors. Having more time lete. I actually completely agree with
to lose the body fat you need to lose will this approach, and I do think diet breaks
make the process better in almost every have more utility for physique compet-
way, and it allows for the implementa- itors than strength athletes. However,
tion of diet breaks (during which time, the application of diet breaks probably
37
1. While intermittent diet breaks at maintenance energy intake will likely enhance the
efficiency of fat loss, they will increase the length of time required to reach a weight
loss goal.
2. The mechanism by which diet breaks exert this fat loss enhancing effect is at
least in part due to mitigating losses in energy expenditure; however, there may
be some post-diet psychological benefits as well given the superior weight-loss
maintenance outcomes observed.
3. For physique competitors, in order to avoid doubling the length of your diet while
still getting the benefits from diet breaks, I recommend implementing one-week
diet breaks no more frequently than every 4-8 weeks.
needs to be adjusted so that it doesn’t think decreases in energy expenditure

double the preparation length of a diet. would be more severe when moving
In my experience, performing one-week from a normal to a low body fat level.
diet breaks every 4-8 weeks or on an On the other hand, perhaps the per-
as-needed basis in response to some (but formance of resistance training would
not all – often you will actually need to substantially mitigate any losses of lean
cut calories) weight-loss stalls is a very mass and wash out differences in adap-
useful approach, which seems to result tive thermogenesis? I don’t know, but
in many of the same benefits observed that’s why I would love to see a study
in the present study, without adding too like this carried out.
much time to the preparation period so
as to make it not worth it.
Next Steps
This was a fantastic study, and – on
the whole – I have very little to critique.
However, I would love to see this study
replicated in a non-overweight cohort
performing resistance training. It is my
suspicion that, if anything, the physio-
logical effects might be enhanced in a
group that isn’t overweight, as you would
38
References
1. Byrne, N.M., et al., Intermittent energy restriction improves weight loss efficiency in obese men: the
MATADOR study. Int J Obes (Lond), 2017.
2. Wing, R.R. and R.W. Jeffery, Prescribed “breaks” as a means to disrupt weight control efforts. Obe-
sity Research, 2003. 11(2): p. 287-291.
3. Aragon, A.A., et al., International society of sports nutrition position stand: diets and body compo-
sition. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 2017. 14(1): p. 16.
4. Sacks, F.M., et al., Comparison of weight-loss diets with different compositions of fat, protein, and
carbohydrates. New England Journal of Medicine, 2009. 360(9): p. 859-873.
5. Seimon, R., et al., Do intermittent diets provide physiological benefits over continuous diets for
weight loss? A systematic review of clinical trials. Mol Cell Endocrinol, 2015. 418.
6. Headland, M., et al., Weight-Loss Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Intermit-
tent Energy Restriction Trials Lasting a Minimum of 6 Months. Nutrients, 2016. 8(6).
39
Do Protein Supplements Still Help if
You're Eating Enough Protein?
An Interview Discussing: Effects of Whey, Soy or Leucine
Supplementation with 12 Weeks of Resistance Training on Strength,
Body Composition, and Skeletal Muscle and Adipose Tissue
Histological Attributes in College-Aged Males. Mobley et al. (2017)
Q: First things first, tell us a little

bit about the study:
Interview questions from Greg
Nuckols. Responses from Brooks
Mobley, PhD, CSCS; Cody Haun,
Auburn Molecular and Applied Science PhD(c), MA, CSCS; and Michael
Lab (MASL): The purpose of the study Roberts, PhD of the Auburn
Molecular and Applied Science Lab.
was to examine if protein supplementa-
tion, standardized to L-leucine content,
40
affected markers of muscle growth. feeding muscle protein synthesis (1).
What spurred the current study were Dr. Mobley then followed this study
a couple of prior studies performed by up with a cell culture interrogation (2).
Dr. Brooks Mobley in our laboratory, Specifically, he tested how different
along with the fact that prior literature doses of L-leucine versus hydrolyzed
has suggested that the anabolic effects whey protein (standardized to L-leu-
of protein supplementation seem to be cine) affected muscle protein synthesis
most related to L-leucine absorption. levels in muscle cells residing in petri
Specific to the latter, we thought the dishes. Interestingly, whey protein at
literature was solid in terms of link- three different doses further increased
ing post-meal leucine absorption to muscle protein synthesis relative to
stimulating muscle protein synthesis. L-leucine. In a second series of petri
However, protein supplements contain dish experiments, Brooks then deter-
high levels of essential amino acids and mined that whey protein increased
even bioactive species (e.g., signaling muscle protein synthesis to a greater
peptides, exosomes, and RNA). Hence, degree than a concoction of essential
when we started research in this area, amino acids which emulated the ami-
we were of the mindset that protein no acid profile of whey protein. Simply
supplementation would be more ben- stated, what we were observing at the
eficial than leucine supplementation time was that whey protein had ad-
alone. Additionally, Dr. Christopher ditional effects in stimulating muscle
Lockwood, a long-time collaborator anabolism beyond its essential amino
of the laboratory and a renowned spe- acid profile. Brooks subsequently iso-
cialist in whey protein, provided intel- lated exosomes (nanoparticle-sized
lectual input into this basic research molecular cargo carriers of microR-
question and gave us full support in NAs and protein signaling molecules)
terms of linking us up with the right from whey protein, and demonstrated
industry partners. that they increased muscle cell size.
In order to answer this question, Hence, these two studies performed
Dr. Mobley performed an acute rat in rats and muscle cells provided ev-
study in which rats were acutely re- idence that protein supplementation
sistance exercised. Following exercise, was superior to L-leucine (or even es-
rats were fed either L-leucine only, or sential amino acids) alone, and really
a bolus of whey protein standardized drove our desire to test this hypothesis
to L-leucine. As we hypothesized, rats in humans.
fed whey protein after exercise experi-
enced larger increases in post-exercise/
41
Q: Who were the subjects, what
were the different treat-
ments, how did they train,
when controlling for leucine content at
~3g/serving, exhibited different anabolic
effects in untrained, young men.
The 12-week nature of the study
and what sorts of outcomes were
was mostly due to the constraints of a
you the most interested in? 16-week semester. Consequently, the
training was designed with this specif-
MASL: Subjects consisted almost ic time-frame in mind. We employed
exclusively of undergraduate students an undulating design with fixed set and
that were around 21 years old, who rep totals programmed for each session,
were characterized as “untrained.” Basi- during each overloading week of train-
cally, they hadn’t regularly lifted for at ing throughout the study. The exercis-
least six months prior to the study. This es included: barbell back squat, barbell
was confirmed by strength metrics and bench press, trap bar deadlift, and supi-
body composition assessment at the be- nated-grip barbell bent row. Please see
ginning of the study. Additionally, we Table 1 in the manuscript for more de-
screened participants and took a number tail, but the daily set x rep breakdown in
of precautionary measures to improve the investigation was as follows:
the likelihood that participants were Day 1: 4 x 10
truly naïve to formal resistance training. Day 2: 6 x 4
With this in mind, we recruited nearly
150 subjects for this study, but only end- Day 3: 5 x 6
ed up including 89 upon completion of Intensity was progressively increased
preliminary screening, and only 75 were throughout the study by increasing loads
included in the final data analysis due to each week (following a familiarization
a lack of study compliance in 14 subjects. period at the beginning of the study),
Five supplements – five groups: pla- while a reduced intensity and volume
cebo (PLA), whey protein concen- week was provided (e.g., “deload”) twice
trate (WPC), whey protein hydrolysate during the 12 weeks to promote recov-
(WPH), soy protein concentrate (SPC), ery and adaptation to the training whilst
and a leucine-maltodextrin based sup- reducing the likelihood of injury occur-
plement (LEU) – were employed with rence. Ratings of perceived exertion on
~ 15 subjects partitioned to each group. a scale of 1-10 (1 being extremely easy
We wanted to examine if leucine was the or 9 RIR, and 10 being extremely hard
primary driver of muscle hypertrophy or 0 RIR) were employed to manipulate
when combined with resistance training, loads from week to week, after a three-
and if soy or whey protein consumption, week period of controlling the intensity
42
Figure 1 Study Design
Supplementation (2x daily)
4-5 days 2-3 days 12 weeks of Resistance Training (T3 - T37) 3 days
Pre-Screening T1 T2 T38 T39
Urine specific gravity IMTP IMTP Urine specific gravity

Heigh + Weight 3-RM Squat 3-RM Squat Heigh + Weight
DXA 3-RM Bench Press 3-RM Bench Press DXA
Leg Ultrasound Familiarization Process Leg Ultrasound
Blood Draw Blood Draw
Muscle Biopsy Muscle Biopsy
Fat Biopsy Fat Biopsy
Group assignment Group assignment
Abbreviations: DXA, dual x-ray absorptiometry; 3-RM, three-repetition maximum test; IMTP, isometric mid-thigh pull
for all participants at the beginning of responses. To accomplish the data col-
the study. For this study, we elected to lection for each of the above study aims,
increase the load by 5lb for each move- we collected both fat and muscle biop-
ment per unit RPE under 10 (e.g., 9 = sies, blood samples, body composition
+ 5lb, 8 = + 10lb, etc.), based specifically measurements using dual-energy x-ray
on the average RPE from the previous absorptiometry (DXA), ultrasound
week’s session, in order to apply an over- measurements of muscle thickness, and
loading stimulus to participants. measured strength via three-repetition
For this project, we sought to primar- maximums (3RM) and force plate test-
ily characterize effects of the different ing before and after the intervention.
supplements on whole body composi- Regarding the biological samples, we in-
tion change, muscle fiber cross-sectional vestigated the expression of a variety of
area, adipocyte (i.e., fat cell) cross sec- mRNA and proteins in fat and muscle
tional area, vastus lateralis (i.e., front of cells that are potentially related to the
thigh or quadriceps) thickness, satellite adaptive response to resistance training
cell number, and measures of strength. or supplementation. We also analyzed
However, for three separate manuscripts the concentration of various hormones
that we are currently working on with and other relevant markers in blood se-
distinct aims, we wanted to comprehen- rum that seem to influence adaptation
sively examine physiological and mo- to RT or respond to supplementation.
lecular effects of the consumption of For muscle samples, we used a technique
the different supplements in blood se- called immunohistochemistry (IHC)
rum, fat cells, and muscle cells to study which allows visual analysis of the size
how these variables related to adaptive of muscle fibers and the expression of
43
proteins or other cell types (e.g., immune in the activation or increased activity
cells, satellite cells) within or around of a protein complex called mTORc1.
muscle cells. Using IHC, we wanted to mTOR signaling seems to be required
analyze any potential changes in satellite for the hypertrophic response to resis-
cell number from pre to post, as these tance exercise. Although resistance exer-
cells have been implicated as critical for cise-induced mTOR signaling exhibits
muscle growth in previous research. different characteristics, increases in ac-
To summarize, for the manuscript we tivation of mTOR signaling from pro-
are discussing, we first sought to ex- tein supplementation seems particularly
amine if body composition, muscle cell related to the leucine content of a pro-
size, fat cell size, satellite cell number, or tein source. Other amino acids do not
strength were affected differently when seem to exert this effect, at least to the
subjects consumed the different supple- same magnitude. Downstream targets
ments in context of resistance training. of mTORc1 are involved in translating
Secondary to this aim, we sought to mRNA into proteins, thereby increas-
identify some of the underlying mech- ing the rates of muscle protein synthesis
anisms at the molecular level in fat cells, (e.g., contractile proteins). Given diges-
muscle cells, or circulating in blood for tive-absorptive physiology warranting
the three manuscripts to follow this par- leucine absorption from the gut, circula-
ent manuscript’s publication, so please tion to muscle, transportation into mus-
do be on the lookout for those. cle via specific transporters within the
membrane of muscle cells, and requisite
maintenance of intracellular and extra-
Q:
cellular electrical charges and concen-
Why did you decide to match tration gradients for muscle cell func-
the protein supplements by tion, only so much leucine consumption
leucine content instead of per unit time is beneficial. Although this
total protein content? area of research is yet in its infancy and
debates regarding specific timing strate-
gies and daily totals rage on, a dose of ~3g
MASL: Among a number of other of leucine per serving of dietary protein
mechanistic studies, research from Don- up to 5-6 times per day has been indi-
ald Layman’s Laboratory at the Univer- cated as efficacious in humans with leu-
sity of Illinois suggests that leucine is a cine seeming to play a more pronounced
critical amino acid for the stimulation role than other amino acids dosed sim-
of muscle protein synthesis. At the mo- ilarly, likely due to the brief description
lecular level in skeletal muscle cells, in- of its consequential molecular signaling
creases in leucine concentrations result described above.
44
Figure 2 Total volume lifted and changes in strength measures between groups
A B Time p < 0.001

One-way ANOVA p = 0.286
4x105 G*T p = 0.127
150
Total volume lifted (kg)
125
3x105 3.30 3.29
3-RM Squat (kg)

3.24
3.07 3.10 118 120 118
100 111 112
2x105
75 85 83 83 82
70
1x105 50
0 0
PLA LEU WPC WPH SPC Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
PLA LEU WPC WPH SPC
C Time p < 0.001 D Time p < 0.001

5x102 G*T p = 0.678 G*T p = 0.485
100
3-RM Benc Press (kg)

90
4x102 89
Peak force (N)
80 82 82 82
3.7 3.7 3.6 79
3.5 3.6
3.4 3.4 70 73
3x102 3.2 3.2 3.2
66 68 68
60 65
0 Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
PLA LEU WPC WPH SPC PLA LEU WPC WPH SPC
Legend: Data include total volume lifted during the 12-week training intervention (panel a) as well as pre- and post-intervention 3-repetition maximum (RM) squat values (panel b),
3-RM bench press values (panel c), and isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP) peak force values (panel d). Each bar graph depicts group averaged data presented as mean + standard error
values, and mean values are presented within each bar. Additional abbreviations: PLA, maltodextrin placebo; LEU, L-leucine; WPC, whey protein
concentrate; WPH, whey protein hydrolysate; SPC, soy protein concentrate; Symbol: * within-group increase from pre- to post training (p < 0.05).
Q: What did you find? Did any-

thing surprise you?
untrained cohort. For example, signifi-
cant increases in total body muscle mass,
VL thickness, type 1 and type 2 muscle
fiber cross-sectional area, and satellite
MASL: Many of the dependent vari- cell/100 fibers were observed based on
ables we examined in this investigation ANOVA (an analysis of the variation
were altered to largely the same extent overall, and in each group, compared to
in each group, suggesting a main effect the expected variation by chance alone).
of resistance training and no significant, To our surprise, only satellite cell num-
differential effects of supplementation. ber per 100 muscle fibers was greater in
Based on our interpretation of previ- the whey protein groups, with a trend for
ous evidence, we did expect a detectable this increase occurring in the soy group.
and significantly more pronounced ef- Nonetheless, our data indicated that re-
fect of whey protein on body composi- sistance training alone explained the ob-
tion changes and, in particular, muscle served large increases in muscle size and
fiber growth. However, in general, this strength, with seemingly little added
was simply not the case in this young, benefit of leucine or protein supplemen-
45
tation since the placebo group realized food log values was achieved for this
very similar increases in these variables. study. Second, prior data and a recent-
While the satellite cell data is intriguing, ly published comprehensive review of
we feel that it warrants further investi- the literature by Dr. Stuart Phillips and
gation into the potential role of satellite colleagues including the analysis of ~50
cells during muscle hypertrophy. studies examining effects of protein sup-
plementation in trained and untrained
cohorts sheds light on this finding. This
Q: All of the groups taking a pro-

tein supplement ended up con-
review, along with other data, suggests
that untrained subjects tend to exhibit
smaller hypertrophic benefits from pro-
suming at least 1.8g of protein tein supplementation than trained indi-
per kilogram of body mass, where- viduals. Furthermore, segmental regres-
as the leucine and placebo groups sion analyses revealed that ~1.6 g/kg/d
seems to represent a point of diminish-
were in the 1.3-1.4 g/kg range. It’s
ing returns regarding total protein intake
been posited that protein intakes per day for increases in fat-free mass (3).
up to at least 1.6 g/kg are beneficial Considering this, the dietary intakes
for increasing muscle mass. Why do outside of the addition of supplementa-
you think we didn’t see that in this tion for these subjects were very simi-
lar, overall, and the differences in calorie
study? intakes and macronutrient proportions
largely occurred from supplementation.
MASL: There are multiple potential Consequently, given the comprehensive
explanations for this finding. First, this review discussed above, the discovery
was a “free-living” study, during which in our study that changes in lean body
participants were not housed, fed, and mass were largely the same between
monitored within the research facility. groups is somewhat corroborated by pri-
Thus, dietary intakes were self-reported or data. However, as a potential bonus to
via four-day food logs collected before, interested readers, we suspect that this is
during, and after the study. With that associated with the magnitude of dam-
said, we can’t be certain that participants age and inflammation within muscle
were totally honest in their reporting of cells, and thereby consequential molec-
dietary protein intake, and these values ular signaling within the cell in the early
could have been different in reality. Ex- phases of resistance training that results
plicit instructions were given to the par- in somewhat of a net balance in anabol-
ticipants regarding this procedure; thus, ic and catabolic molecular signaling and
100% compliance in reporting four-day lack of robust hypertrophic differenc-
46
Figure 3 Changes in body composition variables and vastus lateralis muscle thickness between groups
A Time p = 0.312 B Time p = 0.190

G*T p = 0.298 G*T p = 0.138
90 25
85
Total fat mass (kg)

Body mass (kg)
85.1 20
83.4 19.5 19.7 20.5
80 82.7
81.4 81.3 18.8 18.7
80.8 18.1
79.2 15 16.5
78.0 78.5 15.8 16.3
75 15.3
75.0
70 10
C D
Time p = 0.024 Time p = 0.001
G*T p = 0.466 G*T p = 0.295
45
Total body muscle mass (kg)
4.0
VL Thickness (cm)
3.5
40
39.7 39.3 39.9
38.9 3.0
38.3 37.6
36.5 37.4 37.3 3.0 3.0
35 36.4 2.8 2.8
2.5 2.7
2.6
2.5 2.5
2.3 2.4
30 2.0
Legend: Data include pre- and post-intervention body mass values (panel a), total fat mass values determined by dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA; panel b), total body muscle mass
(TBMM) values determined by DXA (panel c), and vastus lateralis (VL) thickness determined by ultrasonography (panel d). Each bar graph depicts group averaged data presented as
mean + standard error values, and mean values are presented within each bar. Additional abbreviations: PLA, maltodextrin placebo; LEU, L-leucine; WPC, whey protein concentrate;
WPH, whey protein hydrolysate; SPC, soy protein concentrate; Symbol: * within-group increase from pre- to post training (p < 0.05)
es between differentially supplemented concentrate group lost a bit of body

groups. Stated differently, it seems that a fat, on average, while the rest of
number of repeated, physiological stim-
uli from resistance training related to
the groups all saw small increas-
inflammation and proteolysis is required es. Do you think there’s anything
before the provision of additional ami- to that, or do you think that was
no acids from protein supplementation just some of the random variation
provide a significant hypertrophic bene- that’s bound to turn up in a study
fit to the trainee. We hope that our man-
uscripts in preparation provide insight with this many outcome measures?
into this phenomenon.
MASL: As stated previously regard-
ing molecular mechanisms and other
Q:
Though the ANOVA didn’t potential physiological explanations, we
turn up any group x time in- are currently analyzing and preparing
this data for peer-review, so we unfortu-
teractions, the whey protein nately can’t go into too much detail until
47
we are more confident in the results and spondence upon completion of analyses
they have been reviewed by experts in and peer-review.
the field. However, from data published
in this manuscript, as you’ve alluded to,
Q:
it seems that somewhat of a differential
The whey protein groups
effect in adipocyte physiology occurred
in the WPC group. Also, to the point all experienced significant
you’ve made regarding statistical power increases in satellite cells
to identify effects, a greater number of per 100 fibers and the soy protein
subjects in each group would have in- group experienced a nearly-sig-
deed allowed more confident inference
nificant increase, while the leu-
from the ANOVA, as groups contained
~15 subjects on average. However, power cine and placebo groups saw no
analyses reveal that with five groups and change in satellite cell density. Do
15 subjects per group at a significance you think that would hint at bet-
level of p = 0.05, the identification of a ter results in the long run for those
moderate to large effect of supplementa-
groups, if the study could have run
tion is ~75% probable. In other words, it
is more probable than not that this study for longer than 12 weeks?
was powered to identify a large effect in
an outcome measure, particularly when MASL: Although controversial data
correcting for multiple comparisons and exist regarding the effects of satellite cell
conducting post-hoc tests, as we have physiology on the hypertrophic response
done. With this in mind, and based on to resistance training, intriguing data
prior data from our laboratory, we do from Dr. Marcas Bamman’s laboratory
think that certain properties of whey suggests that these cells play a key role
protein (e.g., exosomes, bovine-spe- (4). Briefly, Dr. Bamman and colleagues
cific mRNA, bioactive peptides) may showed that individuals who hypertro-
play a role in the lipolysis of fat cells. phied fibers of the vastus lateralis the
As we’re still analyzing data from adi- most from 16 weeks of resistance train-
pocyte mRNA and protein expression ing possessed a greater number of satel-
techniques, we can only speculate at lite cells at baseline and after the inter-
this point regarding underlying mecha- vention (i.e., XTR) when compared to
nisms. Again, please be aware that these individuals responding to lesser extents
data should be published in the coming (i.e., MOD), or to no measurable extent
months and we are hopeful your readers (i.e., NON [XTR > MOD > NON]).
access those manuscripts, or that we are Incidentally, satellite cells are capable
able to elaborate through future corre-
48
Figure 4 Changes in muscle fiber cross sectional area, myonuclear number and satellite
cell counts between groups
A Time p = 0.001 B Time p = 0.048

G*T p = 0.407 G*T p = 0.167
8x103 8x103
7x103 7x103
6.9
Type II fCSA (µm)

Type I fCSA (µm)
6x103 6x103
6.0 6.0 5.8
5x10 3
5.1
5x10 3 5.5
5.2 5.4
5.1 5.0 5.0
4.6 4.7
4x103 4.3 4.3 4.5 4.3 4.3 4x103
4.1
3.8
4x103 4x103
C Time p = 0.001 D Time p = 0.001

G*T p = 0.229 G*T p = 0.370
5 5
Myonuclei per type II fiber

Myonuclei per type I fiber
4 4
4.1 4.0
3.6 3.5
3 3.3 3.2 3 3.4
3.2
3.0 3.0
2.8
2.5 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.6
2 2.1
2.3 2.3 2
2.1
1 1
0 0 Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
F Time p = 0.001
G*T p = 0.040
20
p = 0.07
Satellite cells / 100 fibers
15
15
14
10 12
10
9 9 9
8
7
5
5
PLA LEU WPC WPH SPC
Legend: Data include pre- and post-intervention type I and type II fiber cross sectional area (CSA) values (panels a, b), type I and type II
fiber myonuclear number values (panels c,d), and total satellite cell counts (panel f). Due to poor tissue quality on select subjects, n-sizes
were as follows: PLA n=13, LEU n=13, WPC n=15, WPH n=12, and SPC n=14. Each bar graph depicts group averaged data presented
as mean + standard error values, and mean values are presented within each bar. Abbreviations: PLA, maltodextrin placebo; LEU, L-leu-
cine; WPC, whey protein concentrate; WPH, whey protein hydrolysate; SPC, soy protein concentrate. Symbols: * within-group increase
from pre- to post training (p < 0.05); #, WPC > PLA at T39 (p < 0.05)
of activation, proliferation, differentia- and muscle growth seems probable. So,

tion, and eventual fusion to a muscle cell the observation that satellite cell num-
whereby their contents (e.g., nucleus, bers increased to larger extents in the
mRNAs, proteins, etc.) can be donated WPC, WPH, and SPC groups implies
for cell growth processes. By reason, a re- that subjects might possess a greater
lationship between satellite cell number potential to hypertrophy from ongoing
49
or future training compared to subjects Before signing off, we’d like to high-
in other groups. Of course, this is only light the need for longer-term studies of
speculation, and future work can help similar design in old and young adults
clarify if this hypothesis is indeed the of each sex, while also mentioning a
case. need to better characterize the appro-
However, it is notable that Dr. Juha priate dosing of resistance training in
Hulmi group, as well as Dr. Per Aagaard’s these populations for improved clinical
group, have observed that whey protein and performance outcomes. Further-
supplementation is myogenic (i.e., in- more, we feel it is important to note that
creases markers of satellite cell activity) high-level athletes represent a subset of
with resistance training (5, 6). So, we take the human population and consequently
solace in that we’re replicating some of require unique study designs and pro-
these earlier studies, and we think that cedures. For this reason, it is important
this gives credence to mechanistically that these results not be expediently ex-
examining how protein supplements af- trapolated to apply to this class of the
fect satellite cell physiology. population, but rather serve as a basis of
performing studies of similar design in
this group.
Q: Guys, this was a fantas-

tic paper. It’s easily some of
the best and most thorough
work in this area. We really appre-
ciate you taking the time to do this
interview. Do you have any other
thoughts you’d like to leave us with
that weren’t addressed in the prior
questions?
MASL: For any clarifications of as-

pects of study design and methodology,
we have made the manuscript available
for free online as open access through
the journal: Nutrients. Here is a link to
the full-text article in ResearchGate for
those interested in learning more.
50
Note from Dr. Roberts
Thank you so much Greg for giving us an opportunity to discuss the study. Before
we sign off, we want to make sure to thank all who made this possible. Specifically,
we would like to thank Dr. Christopher Lockwood (Lockwood, LLC), who I did
my PhD work with at the University of Oklahoma. He is the main reason why our
laboratory is studying protein supplementation to this day, and he was the one re-
sponsible for coordinating the donations along with formulating the products and
aligning all of the project sponsors. Additionally, he still continues to be an excellent
collaborator who places our laboratory’s well-being before his own.
We are also indebted to Dr. Chao Wu (R&D Director at Hilmar Ingredients) and
Kevin Lawrence (CEO at BNRG) who provided gift funds to compensate partic-
ipants as well as pay for biological assays. I think what is really important for the
readers to note is that, unlike many companies that market food or nutritional sup-
plement products, these two companies in particular make it a priority to invest in
this sort of research in order to ensure that their product is of the highest quality for
the consumers. We also would like to thank Jesse Windrix (President of JW Nutri-
tional) for the donation of ingredients and packaging. All of these individuals are top
notch and are impeccable stewards in the supplement industry.
Finally, a huge hats off to Dr. Mobley, Cody Haun, Paul Roberson, Matthew Rome-
ro, Petey Mumford, Dr. Wes Kephart who were doctoral students in the laboratory
during the study, as well as Shelby Osburn, Christopher Vann, and several other
volunteers that helped on a day-to-day basis. In my heart of hearts, I firmly believe
that all of these individuals will be exceedingly great researchers running their own
laboratories one day, and I have felt honored to just be a part of this process and serve
with them.
51
References
1. Mobley, C. B., Fox, C. D., Thompson, R. M., Healy, J. C., Santucci, V., Kephart, W. C., . . . Roberts,
M. D. (2016). Comparative effects of whey protein versus L-leucine on skeletal muscle protein syn-
thesis and markers of ribosome biogenesis following resistance exercise. Amino Acids, 48(3), 733-
750. doi:10.1007/s00726-015-2121-z
2. Mobley, C. B., Mumford, P. W., McCarthy, J. J., Miller, M. E., Young, K. C., Martin, J. S., . . . Roberts,
M. D. (2017). Whey protein-derived exosomes increase protein synthesis and hypertrophy in C2-
C12 myotubes. J Dairy Sci, 100(1), 48-64. doi:10.3168/jds.2016-11341
3. Morton, R. W., Murphy, K. T., McKellar, S. R., Schoenfeld, B. J., Henselmans, M., Helms, E., . . .
Phillips, S. M. (2017). A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of the effect of pro-
tein supplementation on resistance training-induced gains in muscle mass and strength in healthy
adults. Br J Sports Med. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2017-097608
4. Petrella, J. K., Kim, J. S., Mayhew, D. L., Cross, J. M., & Bamman, M. M. (2008). Potent myofiber
hypertrophy during resistance training in humans is associated with satellite cell-mediated myonu-
clear addition: a cluster analysis. J Appl Physiol (1985), 104(6), 1736-1742. doi:10.1152/japplphysi-
ol.01215.2007
5. Olsen, S., Aagaard, P., Kadi, F., Tufekovic, G., Verney, J., Olesen, J. L., . . . Kjaer, M. (2006). Creatine
supplementation augments the increase in satellite cell and myonuclei number in human skeletal mus-
cle induced by strength training. J Physiol, 573(Pt 2), 525-534. doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2006.107359
6. Hulmi, J. J., Kovanen, V., Selanne, H., Kraemer, W. J., Hakkinen, K., & Mero, A. A. (2009). Acute
and long-term effects of resistance exercise with or without protein ingestion on muscle hyper-
trophy and gene expression. Amino Acids, 37(2), 297-308. doi:10.1007/s00726-008-0150-6
52
Sure, More Volume is Not Always
Better, but What’s the Right Amount?
Study Reviewed: Effect of Resistance Training Set Volume on
Upper Body Muscle Hypertrophy: Are More Sets Really Better
Than Less? Teixeira et al. (2017)
BY MIC HAE L C . ZO URD O S
I
t’s Monday, otherwise known as inter- think “one more, let’s do one more,” then
national bench press day, and after three we knock out another set. However, is this
solid sets of bench presses, sometimes we really the best strategy? There are recent
53
KEY POINTS
1. This review aimed to determine how many sets should be performed on an upper
body muscle group per training session to optimize hypertrophy and concluded <
3 is similar to ≥ 3 sets.
2. Despite the conclusions of this review, it’s necessary to take into account that a
recent meta-analysis has concluded that 10+ sets per week is ideal for muscle
growth.
3. It’s possible that it takes a lower amount of volume to maximize upper body
compared to lower body hypertrophy.
meta-analyses showing that frequencies of also pointed out that effect sizes (ES) and
2-3 times per week (2) and 10+ sets per relative changes may indicate slightly larg-
week (3) are likely your best bet to max- er upper body hypertrophy when ≥ 3 sets
imize hypertrophy of a specific muscle per session are performed in trained indi-
group (on average). However, since anoth- viduals; however, this paper points out that
er meta-analysis in 2010 (4), there hasn’t there is limited evidence on trained indi-
been much attention paid to the number viduals. Since volume is such an important
of sets per session that will deliver the ideal training variable, these findings allow us to
hypertrophic stimulus. Additionally, none focus on three factors in our interpretation:
of the previous meta-analyses assessed if 1) Since we already have weekly set targets
a different magnitude of volume is need- (i.e. 10+), how can we determine our ses-
ed to maximize upper versus lower body sion set targets? 2) Are there differences
muscle growth. This review paper aimed to between the magnitude of volume needed
answer those exact questions by examin- for upper versus lower body hypertrophy?
ing if ≥ 3 sets per muscle group per session and 3) What are the limitations of the
produces greater hypertrophy than < 3 sets existing data for the volume/hypertrophy
per muscle group per session for the upper paradigm?
body. While this did not quite qualify as
a systematic review, it did follow specific
guidelines and use specific search terms to Purpose and Research
identify the studies it reviewed. The main
conclusion was that < 3 sets per muscle
Questions
group per session were as effective as ≥ 3
Purpose and Main Question
sets per muscle group per session for upper
body hypertrophy, in both untrained and The purpose of this review was to ex-
trained individuals. However, the authors amine if < 3 sets or ≥ 3 sets per muscle
54
group per training session is superior for
upper body muscle hypertrophy.
Hypotheses
IT MAY BE THE CASE THAT
There was no traditional hypothesis, as UPPER BODY PROGRESS
this was a review paper; however, in the
introduction, the authors suggest that CAN OCCUR WITH A LOWER
the upper body requires lower volumes
per session and per week than the lower DOSAGE OF VOLUME
body to achieve similar hypertrophy. The
authors also note that one of the reasons THAN IS NEEDED FOR
for analyzing this topic is that a recent
meta-analysis (3) on volume and hyper- THE LOWER BODY.
trophy did not distinguish if different
volumes were recommended for upper
and lower body muscle growth. There-
fore, it seems as though the authors an- volume sets. Furthermore, the review
ticipated that upper body muscles would paid special attention to human studies,
require less volume than is often recom- which reported weekly training frequen-
mended to maximize hypertrophy. cy, training load (i.e. intensity), the du-
ration of training, and the method used
to determine hypertrophy (i.e. ultraso-
Subjects and Methods nography, magnetic resonance imaging
– MRI, muscle biopsy, etc.).
Subjects Further, this paper classified < 3 sets
Since this is a review paper, there aren’t per muscle group per session as “low
subjects in the typical sense, but this pa- volume” and ≥ 3 per muscle group per
per provided results on trained and un- session as “high volume.”
trained young people, both of which are
relevant to MASS.
Findings
Construction of the Review The conclusions of this review are rel-
The following search terms were atively straightforward:
used to identify papers for this review: 1) < 3 sets per muscle group per ses-
strength training, resistance training, hy- sion produces statistically similar hyper-
pertrophy, muscle thickness, cross-sec- trophy to ≥ 3 sets per muscle group per
tional area, low volume training, and session.
55
Table 1 Main Conclusions
Main Conclusion 1
Less than 3 sets per muscle group per session produce statistically similar hypertrophy than 3 or more
sets per muscle group per session for the upper body across all training statuses
Main Conclusion 2
High volume may actually be superior to low volume as some studies have shown relative changes and
percentage changes for this, however there is insufficient evidence to state this with absolute conviction.
Main Conclusion 3
Lower volume is needed to maximize upper body hypertrophy compared to lower body hypertrophy.
Findings from Teixeira et al. 2017 (1).
2) Although overall statistical differ- doing < 3 sets per session for a muscle
ences were not found in favor of > 3 group is sufficient to maximize hyper-
sets for upper body hypertrophy, some trophy for the upper body. That’s kind of
individual studies do show ≥ 3 sets to extraordinary when you think about it,
produce more upper body hypertrophy as this is not three sets per exercise, but
compared to < 3 sets per muscle group. rather three sets per muscle group. If you
3) The amount of sets per upper body trained a muscle group 2-3 times per
muscle group per session required to week, as is recommended (2), this would
maximize hypertrophy is lower than mean that only 4-6 total sets per week
the number of sets needed for the lower are needed to maximize upper body hy-
body. These main conclusions are sum- pertrophy. While that may certainly be
marized in Table 1. the case for untrained individuals, that
seems really low for trained lifters. I
think these conclusions are important
Interpretation because many people program too much
volume; however, I believe these recom-
The conclusions of this review paper mendations are undershooting the ide-
are a little surprising when you truly al volume threshold for trained lifters.
consider what it is saying, which is that
56
Table 2 Design and Results from Radaelli et al. 2015
Study Training Number of Hypertrophy

Subjects Duration Frequency Sets Repetitions Exercises Measurement
Machines for
bench press,
leg press,
1, 3, or 5 lat-pulldown,
Muscle
3 times per depending on 8-12 RM for leg extension,
48 Males 6 months Thickness via
week group for all each exercise shoulder press,
Ultrasound
leg curl, biceps
exercises
curl, crunches,
and triceps
extension
Upper Body Hypertrophy Findings
The 3 and 5-set groups increased biceps hypertrophy while the 1-set group did not. Further, the increase in biceps
hypertrophy in the 5-set group was significantly greater than the increase in hypertrophy in the 3-set group.
Protocol and Findings from Radaelli et al. 2015 (5).
With that in mind, let’s focus on three sets per session, leaving very few studies
questions to understand the dosage of to analyze. However, one of the studies
volume needed to maximize upper body analyzed, from Radaelli et al. (2015), is
hypertrophy: worth highlighting here because it last-
1) How do we determine session vol- ed for six months, which is uncommon
ume to meet previously established for practical training studies. Radaelli
weekly set targets? compared three groups using one, three,
or five sets three times per week for six
2) Is there indeed a difference between
months and found muscle growth to be
the ideal upper and lower body volume
dose-dependent (5 sets > 3 sets > 1 set)
dosage for muscle growth?
(5). The subjects were untrained at the
3) What are the limitations of the ex- beginning, but after six months, they
isting meta-analyses? were getting past the primarily neuro-
muscular adaptation phase and becom-
Determining Session Volume ing more consistent with what the sci-
Although this review paper concludes entific literature considered “trained”
that < 3 sets is sufficient to maximize up- lifters. Therefore, in a world lacking in
per body hypertrophy, the criteria of this hypertrophy research in truly trained
paper only allowed for analysis of stud- lifters, a six-month training study be-
ies that compared different amounts of comes quite important despite the un-
57
Table 3 Design and Results from Ronnestad et al. 2007
3-Set Group 1-Set Group
Per Week Per Week
Study Training Sets / Per Sets / Per
Subjects Duration Frequency Groups Repetitions Exercises session Sets session Sets
1. 3 sets lower
Leg press, leg
body exercises Quads: 18/6
and 1 set
extension, leg
Hamstrings: Quads: 6/2
upper body Alternated curl, seated
18/6 Hamstrings: 6/2
3 times per exercises each session chest press,
48 Males 11 weeks Chest: 9/3 Chest: 3/1
week between seated row,
Back: 27/9 Back: 9/3
2. 1 set lower 10RM and lat-pulldown,
body exercises Biceps: 9/3 Biceps: 9/3
7RM biceps curl,
and 3 sets Shoulders: 18/6 Shoulders: 6/2
shoulder
upper body
press
exercises
Upper Body Hypertrophy Findings
No difference in trapezius hypertrophy when performing 3 sets versus 1 set per muscle group for the upper body. However,
the 3 set group did increase trapezius hypertrophy 4.2% more than the 1 set group (+13.9% vs. +9.7%)
Protocol and Findings from Ronnestad et al. 2007 (8).
trained starting status. As MASS has review are not as clear regarding this no-
discussed before, you can easily over- tion (7). Let’s take a look at one of the
shoot volume in the short term (6), but more important studies, from Ronnes-
I believe the analysis criteria in this re- tad et al. (2007) (8), which compared the
view has caused too conservative of a dosage of upper body versus lower body
recommendation. So, exactly how many volume for hypertrophy. Ronnestad had
sets should be performed each session? untrained lifters perform either one set
Let’s revisit that question later in the in- or three sets of three lower body and five
terpretation when we discuss the recent upper body exercises three times per week
meta-analyses on this concept. The pro- for 11 weeks. The authors found that
tocol and results of the very applicable three sets per session produced greater
Radaelli study are in Table 2. lower body hypertrophy than one set per
session, however, there was no statistical
Upper Versus Lower Body Volume Dos- difference in upper body hypertrophy be-
age tween the one and three set groups (8).
Of the limited studies included, this So, does the current review have it right
paper concludes that lower body mus- that the upper body doesn’t need quite as
cle groups may need more volume than much volume as the lower body to prog-
upper body muscle groups to maximize ress? Let’s take a look at Table 3 to use
hypertrophy; however, the results of the the amount of sets per muscle group per
Wernborn et al. (2007) comprehensive session and per week to decide.
58
Figure 1 Training Status of Lifters Used in Scientific Studies
Elite
Well-Trained
True
Intermediate Training Status often
called “Trained” in
scientific literature
Just Past
Novice Phase
Relative
Novice
Completely
Untrained
First, as revealed in Table 3, the group. For the upper body, there was no
amount of sets per week for the low- statistical difference for hypertrophy be-
er body exceeds 10 sets for each mus- tween groups, but a closer look reveals a
cle group for the three-set group and more nuanced interpretation. The back
is < 10 sets for each lower body muscle musculature was trained with nine sets
group in the one-set group; thus, it’s not per session and 27 sets per week in the
surprising that the three-set group pro- three-set groups, and with only three
duced greater lower body hypertrophy, sets per session and nine sets per week
as the aforementioned meta-analysis in the one-set group, as there was 4.2%
stipulates 10+ sets per week per muscle greater trapezius hypertrophy in the
59
Table 4 Example Weekly Squat Training for Hypertrophy Following Guidelines
Number of
Monday Wednesday Friday Weekly Sets
3 x 15 @ 60% 3 x 12 @ 65% 4 x 8 @ 70% 10
Specific percentages were chosen because with the repetitions allotted this should result in
rating of perceived exertion (RPE) values between 5-9 on each set (i.e. 1-5 repetitions in reserve),
thus staying short of failure and not delaying recovery
three-set group (as noted at the bottom be made regarding how much more than
of Table 3). The p-value didn’t reach sig- 10 sets is optimal. For example, are 15 sets
nificance for trapezius hypertrophy, but per week better than 12 sets per week? We
4.2% is certainly an important practical simply don’t know that.
difference. Therefore, it may be the case What I want to do here is speculate on
that upper body progress can occur with why we can’t conclude if 15 > 12. This has
a lower dosage of volume than is needed to do with limitations of conducting a me-
for the lower body. However, there is ev- ta-analysis. In my opinion, both of these
idence to show that > 3 sets per session meta-analyses are excellent and provide
is advisable for upper body hypertrophy, some of the best information we have on
so I think the recommendations in the this topic; however, they can only analyze
present review are a bit low. the data that exists in the scientific litera-
ture. What I mean is well-trained or high-
Limitations of Existing Meta-Analyses ly trained subjects (by our standards in
There are two main meta-analyses in the practical world) are not often used in
this area, and each comes from a giant in the scientific literature, so a meta-analysis
our field: Krieger (2010) (4) and Schoen- simply can’t analyze their needs. Addition-
feld et al. (2017) (3). In short, Krieger ally, it’s not often that a study using 30 or
concludes there is a better hypertrophic 40 sets per week on a muscle group is con-
response with multiple sets versus one set ducted, so a meta-analysis can’t analyze
per exercise (4); Schoenfeld concludes that this either. Because of these limitations,
10+ sets per week is better for hypertrophy we have to use our practical knowledge
than < 10 sets, but that conclusions can’t and experiences, in conjunction with the
60
1. Although this review concludes < 3 sets per session is sufficient to maximize muscle
growth for the upper body, trained lifters almost certainly need more than that.
2. It is possible that upper body hypertrophy is maximized with less volume than is
needed for the lower body.
3. A 10+ set weekly target per muscle group is a good starting point; however, make
sure to spread your sets out over 2-3 sessions per week, avoid failure most of the
time, and progress volume when needed, not just for the sake of progressing it.
existing data, when programming for truly low in Table 4 for squat training. Finally,
well-trained lifters. To illustrate this, take remember that all of this is a starting point.
a look at Figure 1, which depicts the range Meta-analyses tell us about population
of training status throughout a career and averages, and some people will respond
the status of most individuals included in better to higher or lower training volumes
scientific studies. than others. So, using the frequency and
Ultimately, when using the results of the volume guidelines laid out here as a start-
Schoenfeld meta-analyses (2, 3) to plan ing point, be prepared to adjust over time
session volume, it’s advisable to start with based on individual results.
the weekly target and work backward. This
means if you are using 10 sets per week on
squat, try to split that up as evenly as pos- Next Steps
sible so that you can recover from each ses- Picking up where the interpretation left
sion and meet a frequency of 2-3 times per off is the next step, which means it’s time
week. With a training program of Mon- to analyze the ideal dosage of volume in
day, Wednesday, and Friday, this would be lifters who are truly well-trained (as de-
three or four sets per session. Next, consid- picted in Figure 1). Including lifters more
er that your longest time between sessions in line with what the MASS reader would
is 72 hours (Friday to Monday), then plan typically think of as “well-trained” or even
the four-set session on Friday so it occurs intermediate would allow for more spe-
before the longest break. Finally, consider cific recommendations beyond the cur-
Eric’s article from November 2017, which rent 10+ weekly set target. Finally, longer
shows that training to failure delays recov- term studies are always advisable; however,
ery, and avoid failure for the most part. If the practicality of carrying out long-term
those guidelines are met, you’ll end up with studies is difficult for researchers.
something similar to what is displayed be-
61
References
1. La Scala Teixeira, Cauê V., et al. Effect of resistance training set volume on upper body muscle hy-
pertrophy: are more sets really better than less? Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging (2017).
2. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Effects of resistance training frequency on measures of muscle
hypertrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine. 2016 Nov 1;46(11):1689-97.
3. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Dose-response relationship between weekly resistance train-
ing volume and increases in muscle mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of sports
sciences. 2017 Jun 3;35(11):1073-82.
4. Krieger JW. Single vs. multiple sets of resistance exercise for muscle hypertrophy: a meta-analysis.
The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2010 Apr 1;24(4):1150-9.
5. Radaelli R, Fleck SJ, Leite T, Leite RD, Pinto RS, Fernandes L, Simão R. Dose-response of 1, 3, and
5 sets of resistance exercise on strength, local muscular endurance, and hypertrophy. The Journal of
Strength & Conditioning Research. 2015 May 1;29(5):1349-58.
6. Amirthalingam T, Mavros Y, Wilson GC, Clarke JL, Mitchell L, Hackett DA. Effects of a modified
German volume training program on muscular hypertrophy and strength. The Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research. 2017 Nov 1;31(11):3109-19.
7. Wernbom M, Augustsson J, Thomeé R. The influence of frequency, intensity, volume and mode
of strength training on whole muscle cross-sectional area in humans. Sports medicine. 2007 Mar
1;37(3):225-64.
8. Rønnestad BR, Egeland W, Kvamme NH, Refsnes PE. Dissimilar effects of one-and three-set
strength training on strength and muscle mass gains in upper and lower body in untrained subjects.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2007 Feb 1;21(1):157.
62
The Power of Choice: Self-
Determination and Exercise Selection
Study Reviewed: Auto-Regulated Exercise Selection Training Regimen
Produces Small Increases on Lean Body Mass and Maximal Strength
Adaptations in Strength-Trained Individuals. Rauch et al. (2017)
BY E RI C HE LMS
W
ithin a few months of lifting tremes). The present study set out to
weights, most folks trend to- determine if a system of autoregulat-
ward either following fixed ed exercise selection (AES) could pro-
programs religiously or “training by duce greater hypertrophy and strength
feel,” choosing which exercises they compared to a fixed exercise selection
want to do on the fly (and, of course, (FES). In this study, trained males
some people fall between these ex- performed nine-week, three-day-per-
63
KEY POINTS
1. Autoregulated exercise selection may enhance hypertrophy, but it is unknown if
this is due to having the option to choose, or if this is mediated by which exercises
are chosen.
2. Likewise, autoregulated exercise selection can enhance strength on a given lift if
the choice is made to perform it more frequently.
3. However, previous research has shown that some degree of choice, in and of itself,
can enhance performance. Therefore, coaches are encouraged to write training
programs that include some element of choice and autonomy for variables that are
unlikely to have any potential negative outcome. For example, bodybuilders can
autoregulate the selection of isolation movements and powerlifters the selection of
accessory movements on a session-to-session basis.
week protocols matched for body part compared to FES (or a combination
training frequency, number of sets, in- of these two factors) resulted in great-
tensity, and effort. However, the AES er hypertrophy and increases in bench
group chose from one of three exer- press strength compared to baseline.
cise options for each body part each
session, while the FES group had a
fixed exercise selection on each day. Purpose and Research
Total volume load was higher in AES,
and AES performed some exercises
Questions
more frequently, some exercises less
Purpose
frequently, and some exercises with a
similar frequency compared to FES. The purpose of this study was to in-
Both groups significantly increased vestigate the effects of AES compared
one-repetition maximum (1RM) back to FES on total LBM and maximal
squat strength to a similar degree. strength in strength-trained males.
Only AES significantly increased
1RM bench press strength and lean Hypothesis
body mass (LBM) compared to base- The authors hypothesized that sever-
line, indicating that either the ability al years of strength training experience
to choose which exercise to perform would allow the participants to select
or the fact that AES chose more com- exercises they felt most prepared to per-
pound movements and chose to perform, which in turn would optimize lean
form bench press more frequently mass accretion and strength gains.
64
Table 1 Exercise Selection and Repetition-Intensity Zones
Muscle Group Day 1 (6-8RM) Day 2 (12-14RM) Day 3 (18-20RM)
Legs (main) Squat Leg Press Leg Extension

Chest (main) Bench Press DB Incline Press Cable Fly
Back (main) Barbell Row Pullup Straight Arm Pushdown
Shoulders (secondary) DB Shoulder Press DB Lateral Raise Cable Face Pull
Biceps (secondary) DB Bicep Curls EZ Bar Curl DB Incline Curls
Triceps (secondary) Cable Pressdown DB Skullcrusher Overhead Cable Extension
Notes: FES performed the listed exercise for each day, AES could choose one of the three listed exercises
each day.
bench press were assessed at the begin-

Subjects and Methods ning and end of the study. A serving of
the Dymatize pre-workout supplement
Subjects
“I.MPACT” (containing caffeine, cre-
Seventeen males (age = 24 ± 5.45 years; atine, beta alanine, BCAAs, taurine, and
height = 180.3 ± 7.54 cm; body mass = other ingredients) was provided before
83.08 ± 8.70 kg, LBM = 66.44 ± 6.59 kg; each training session, and a serving of
squat and bench press 1RM: body mass whey protein was supplied to the sub-
ratio 1.87 and 1.38, respectively) with jects on off-days and immediately af-
at least three years of resistance train- ter training sessions. Additionally, the
ing experience completed this study af- participants were trained to track their
ter being counterbalanced by LBM and caloric and macronutrient intake using
then assigned to either FES (n = 9) or MyFitnessPal, and they recorded their
AES (n = 8) groups. food intake during weeks 1, 2, 5, and 9
to ensure nutritional control between
Study Design groups. If any subject’s protein intake
This was a parallel group design in fell below 1.5 g/kg they were given nu-
which the participants trained three tritional guidance to help them main-
days per week for nine weeks. Body tain an intake of at least this amount.
composition was assessed via dual-en- Perceived recovery status (PRS, a 1-10
ergy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and score indicating readiness) was obtained
1RM strength for the back squat and prior to each training session, and a ses-
65
sion rating of perceived exertion (RPE,
1-10 score indicating exertion) was ob- Table 2 Training Progression
tained after each training session.
Mesocycle Progression
Resistance Training Protocol
Participants trained on non-consecu- Weeks 1-2: Primary Four sets per exercise
tive days supervised by strength and con- Weeks 1-3: Secondary Four sets per exercise
ditioning professionals. They performed Weeks 4-6: Primary Five sets per exercise
seven exercises per day in a full-body Weeks 4-6: Secondary Five sets per exercise
format with 90-120 second rest intervals Weeks 7-9: Primary Six sets per exercise
between sets and 2-minute rest intervals Weeks 7-9: Secondary Five sets per exercise
between exercises. Each day, a different
repetition maximum (RM) zone was uti-
lized such that a daily undulating setup thing to be desired. While they used ap-
was implemented. It was not stated how propriate tests to compare variables that
the appropriate load was determined for wouldn’t be influenced by both group as-
each exercise for each RM zone, but given signment and time (such as RPE, PRS,
the training experience (5.6 ± 3.3 years) volume load, nutritional differences, and
of the participants and the supervision by how many times each group performed
trained professionals, I assume appropri- each exercise), the assessment of LBM
ate loads were quickly chosen based on and 1RM differences between groups
how the warm-up sets and initial sets wasn’t as robust as it should have been.
went the first time an exercise was per- Both of these variables are impacted by
formed. The FES group had a fixed exer- not only the passage of time (i.e. the act
cise selection on each day, thus perform- of training), but also the primary variable
ing the same six exercises in the same of interest in this study: autoregulated or
RM zone on each day. The AES group fixed exercise selection. Thus, a group by
chose one of the three exercise options time or two-way ANOVA should have
for each muscle group each day, thus hav- been performed to determine if one
ing various exercise and RM zone combi- group gained more strength or LBM
nations throughout the study. The details than the other. Instead, they presented
of exercise selection, RM zones, and how percentage changes, within-group effect
progression occurred over the nine-week sizes (ES), p-values for within-group
period are displayed in Tables 1 and 2. changes, and the confidence interval for
the mean change. Then, they claimed
Statistical Analysis superiority based on which group made
The stats in this paper left a little some- significant improvements compared to
66
baseline. While these are useful statis-
tics, and indeed they are appropriate to
assess changes within groups, they aren’t CAN WE REALLY SAY THAT
quite adequate to assess the core ques-
tion of whether or not one group out-
THE ACT OF AUTOREGULATING
performed the other. Another option
available to the authors if they didn’t
EXERCISE SELECTION, IN AND
want to use an ANOVA would have OF ITSELF, LED TO GREATER
been to use the Hopkins approach (2)
of reporting the confidence interval of STRENGTH GAINS IN THE
the between-group ES and which group
had a higher probability of experienc- BENCH PRESS WHEN THE
ing the smallest worthwhile positive or
negative change (see the interpreting
AES GROUP BENCHED WITH
research guide for more details). Long
story short, the findings that the AES
A HIGHER FREQUENCY THAN
group gained more bench press strength FES? PROBABLY NOT.
and more LBM are only strictly true
compared to baseline, not compared to
FES.
to similar degrees. However, while there
was a significant increase from baseline
Findings in bench press 1RM in AES (+6.5kg;
+6.5%; ES: 0.5; p = 0.03), the change
The number of times each group per-
from baseline in FES (+5.6kg; +5.1%;
formed each exercise is displayed in
ES: 0.43; p = 0.06) did not quite reach
Table 3, along with whether or not the
significance. Finally, LBM only signifi-
differences in their frequency were sig-
cantly increased from baseline in AES
nificant between groups.
(+1.6kg; +2.5%; ES: 0.35; p = 0.045)
There were no significant differences while it did not in FES (+0.9kg; +1.4%;
between groups in nutritional intake, ES: 0.21; p = 0.24). Table 4 displays the
RPE, or PRS. Total volume load was individual and group changes in LBM.
higher in AES compared to FES (AES:
573,288kg ± 67,505; FES: 464,600 ±
95,595; p = 0.02). Both FES (+15.15kg; Interpretation
+11.54%; ES: 0.8; p = 0.02) and AES
(+14.2kg; +9.6%; ES: 0.75; p = 0.04) I really enjoyed reading this study,
significantly increased back squat 1RM and I found the concept very cool and
67
Table 3 Exercise Frequency in AES and FES
Significant Significant
Exercise AES Frequency FES Frequency Difference? Exercise AES Frequency FES Frequency Difference?
DB Shoulder
Squat 8.4 + 1.2 9.0 + 0.0 No
Press
11.8 + 7.1 9.0 + 0.0 No
DB Lateral
Leg Press 14.1 + 1.9 9.0 + 0.0 Yes Raise
10.3 + 3.1 9.0 + 0.0 No
Leg Cable Face

4.3 + 1.2 9.0 + 0.0 Yes 6.4 + 2.2 9.0 + 0.0 Yes
Extension Pull
Bench Press 11.6 + 1.3 9.0 + 0.0

Almost DB Bicep 8.7 + 1.8 9.0 + 0.0 No
(p = 0.06) Curls
DB Incline
Press
7.1 + 1.2 9.0 + 0.0 No EZ Bar Curl 7.7 + 5.3 9.0 + 0.0 No
DB Incline
Cable Fly 8.6 + 1.3 9.0 + 0.0 No 9.6 + 2.2 9.0 + 0.0 No
Curls
Barbell Cable
8.1 + 3.6 9.0 + 0.0 No 17.3 + 5.5 9.0 + 0.0 Yes
Row Pressdown
DB
Pullup 6.5 + 1.3 9.0 + 0.0 Yes 7.6 + 3.7 9.0 + 0.0 No
Skullcrusher
Straight Arm Overhead

Pushdown 12.4 + 5.5 9.0 + 0.0 Yes 1.9 + 2.5 9.0 + 0.0 Yes
Cable Extension
intriguing, which I suppose is unsur- basis for too long, and they like the sore-
prising given my own research interest ness they get when they use an exercise
in autoregulation. This study is a useful they haven’t performed in a while. Typi-
comparison between approaches I often cally, both types of people tend to justify
see play out in the real world between these choices with some type of scien-
individuals with different tempera- tific rationale or anecdote, but I think it
ments. In my experience, some body- largely comes down to personality. There
builders follow fixed exercise selections is a useful lesson here for both personal-
for long periods of time because they ity types, as this study shows that being
like the ability to easily gauge progress, too fixed might not be as good as hav-
they enjoy the structure and predictabil- ing more variety, but it also serves to give
ity, and they like “finding their groove” some boundaries for a reasonable level
with certain lifts. On the other hand, of “switching things up.”
others tend to “switch things up” more However, despite the title of this study,
frequently because they feel stagnant if its limitations actually prevent us from
they use the same exercises on a regular
68
Table 4 Individual and Group LBM Values
AES FES
Participant LBM (kg) Pre LBM (kg) Post Change (kg) Participant LBM (kg) Pre LBM (kg) Post Change (kg)
1 65.19 66.22 1.03 9 77.18 80.34 3.16
2 70.65 72.24 1.59 10 77.37 81.39 4.02
3 66.25 67.98 1.73 11 76.61 75.11 -1.5
4 69.04 69.30 0.26 12 67.49 67.10 -0.39
5 67.45 67.36 -0.09 13 61.89 61.57 -0.32
6 63.67 67.59 3.92 14 73.35 75.73 2.38
7 62.59 62.74 0.15 15 59.24 58.54 -0.70
8 63.41 67.69 4.28 16 56.80 57.88 1.08
17 53.64 54.80 1.16
Mean 66.03 67.64 1.60 67.06 68.05 0.98
SD 2.67 2.50 1.56 8.9 9.71 1.78
making any strong definitive conclusions performed leg press more often (which
about autoregulating exercise selection, allows more absolute load to be used) in
in and of itself. For example, can we re- place of leg extensions and squats? Prob-
ally say that the act of autoregulating ably not. Finally, can we really attribute
exercise selection, in and of itself, led to the greater LBM gains in AES purely to
greater strength gains in the bench press autoregulated exercise selection? I don’t
when the AES group benched with a think so, because that would mean we
higher frequency than FES? Probably have to assume that each of the three
not. Likewise, can we really say that the exercise options for each body part are
act of autoregulating exercise selection, equally effective at producing hypertro-
in and of itself, led to the performance of phy. Clearly a leg extension is not supe-
more volume load when the AES group rior to a leg press for overall lower body
69
hypertrophy. Likewise, when looking at which are easier from a motor learning
global changes in LBM, I would expect perspective (3). Meaning, you wouldn’t
a bench press to produce greater hyper- want to perform an exercise so infre-
trophy than a fly, because a bench press quently so as to re-enter the learning
places stress across not only the pecs and phase, as this would inhibit your ability
front deltoids, but also the triceps. On to stress your muscles and cause growth.
top of all that, the differences between The present study suggests that even
groups weren’t actually statistically as- performing an exercise every other week
sessed, and based on the data presented, or so is probably an acceptable frequency
I can almost guarantee they would have threshold to where this wouldn’t occur
been non-significant. (an even lower frequency on isolation
Despite these limitations, there is ac- exercises is probably fine).
tually some cool stuff here that is action- Additionally, this study adds further
able. First, we saw that performing ex- credence to the notion that individuals
ercises from a list in the range of ~4-14 do better with some sense of agency in
times on average over a nine-week pe- their training. According to self-deter-
riod (except for the overhead cable ex- mination theory (4), individuals will be
tension, which was the red-headed step- more motivated when they have a sense
child of exercises in this study) was not of autonomy and competence. Indeed,
at all detrimental for hypertrophy. This studies have shown that even seeming-
is important because we have data that ly inconsequential choices can improve
shows compound lifts produce less mus- athletic performance; case in point, in a
cle growth during the initial learning recent study by Halperin, combat ath-
phase compared to isolation exercises, letes who chose the order of their strikes
YOU WOULDN’T WANT TO PERFORM AN EXERCISE SO INFREQUENTLY

SO AS TO RE-ENTER THE LEARNING PHASE, AS THIS WOULD INHIBIT
YOUR ABILITY TO STRESS YOUR MUSCLES AND CAUSE GROWTH.
THE PRESENT STUDY SUGGESTS THAT EVEN PERFORMING AN
EXERCISE EVERY OTHER WEEK OR SO IS PROBABLY AN ACCEPTABLE
FREQUENCY THRESHOLD TO WHERE THIS WOULDN’T OCCUR.
70
1. The current study shows that allowing choice in the context of a hypertrophy
program will likely be beneficial for muscle growth if each muscle group is still
trained with the same frequency, intensity, effort, number of sets, and so long as
accessory exercises (in this case, exercises besides squat and bench press) are
performed at least once every other week.
2. In terms of strength, an AES approach may enhance 1RM on a given exercise if it
results in a more frequent performance of that specific lift.
3. From a coaching perspective, allowing some element of choice in a program may
benefit your lifters. However, you should allow this choice within the confines of
variables that are unlikely to be detrimental to progress. For example, you could
have a fixed schedule for the main lifts, while allowing a powerlifter to choose which
accessory exercises they perform on a week-to-week or session-to-session basis.
hit faster and harder compared to those press with a greater frequency compared
who performed strikes in a fixed order to FES.
(5). In the present study, it seems that
the choices offered to the AES group
were kept within reasonable boundaries Next Steps
so as to not harm performance. There are veritably endless ways a study
With that said, performance in this like this could be set up. You could have
study was measured by 1RM strength more or less choice in the number of ex-
on the bench press and squat. Con- ercises, you could require a certain min-
ceivably, if the AES group had decided imum frequency, and you could also test
to very rarely or not at all perform the the participants' strength on more than
back squat and bench press, they like- just the bench press and squat to see if
ly would have gained less strength than frequency really was the determining
FES. Thus, even though the AES group factor for strength gains in a compari-
didn’t test the boundaries of the system, son like this. Unfortunately, I don’t think
I think the system probably provides too there is any way to truly test “autoregu-
much freedom for the goal of improv- lated exercise selection” as an indepen-
ing strength on a specific movement. dent variable to see its effects on hyper-
The reason we didn’t see poor strength trophy or strength. However, I do think
gains in the AES group was simply be- there is utility in exploring the clinical
cause they chose to perform the squat outcomes of different AES setups so we
with a similar frequency and the bench can get a better handle on the thresholds
71
where the positive effects of choice and
the negative effects of performing an ex-
ercise too infrequently interact. By doing
so, we could get closer to recommending
actionable guidelines around AES that
would more reliably result in enhanced
performance and hypertrophy without
risk of backsliding.
72
References
1. Rauch, J.T., et al., Auto-regulated exercise selection training regimen produces small increases in
lean body mass and maximal strength adaptations in strength-trained individuals. J Strength Cond
Res, 2017.
2. Hopkins, W.G., et al., Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med-
icine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 2009. 41(1): p. 3-13.
3. Chilibeck, P.D., et al., A comparison of strength and muscle mass increases during resistance train-
ing in young women. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol, 1998. 77(1-2): p. 170-5.
4. Ryan, R.M. and E.L. Deci, Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,
social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 2000. 55(1): p. 68.
5. Halperin, I., et al., Choices enhance punching performance of competitive kickboxers. Psychological
Research, 2017. 81(5): p. 1051-1058.
73
I Get by with a Little Help from My
Friends: Spotters Increase Performance
and Decrease Perceived Effort
Study Reviewed: Presence of Spotters Improved Bench Press
Performance: A Deception Study. Sheridan et al. (2017)
BY G RE G NUC KO LS
I
ncreasing performance isn’t exclusive- which they can improve their approach
ly about the nuts and bolts of a training to training. One area that hasn’t received
program. While training studies and new much research attention is the presence of
programming ideas get a lot of the press, a spotter. We know that having a crowd to
most lifters still have very simple areas in watch you lift can increase performance (2).
74
KEY POINTS
1. Benching to failure with 60% of 1RM loads with spotters visible led to an increase in
performance of about 1.5 reps per set across three sets, compared to benching the
same weight when spotters were concealed.
2. Completing more reps with spotters present was accompanied by a larger rise in
blood lactate, verifying increased anaerobic fatigue. However, ratings of perceived
exertion were actually lower with visible spotters.
3. Self-efficacy was roughly 45% higher when benching with visible spotters.
4. This study demonstrates that using spotters can increase performance, decrease
perceived effort, and increase self-efficacy. The effect would likely be even larger
with dedicated training partners.
However, most people are going to have conditions. In one condition, subjects
a much easier time simply finding a spot- benched with spotters visible to them;
ter than attempting to gather a crowd to in the other condition, the spotters were
watch them lift. concealed from view, leading the partici-
It’s generally recommended to get a pants to believe they didn’t have spotters.
spotter, simply for safety reasons (es- When the participants had visible spot-
pecially when squatting or benching). ters, they cranked out an extra ~1.5 reps
However, if you look around your gym, per set, had lower ratings of perceived
you’ll probably see that many people exertion in spite of improved perfor-
don’t regularly get spotters. I’d imagine mance, and reported higher self-efficacy
that most people either don’t like ap- (belief they could maintain their perfor-
proaching strangers to ask for a spot, or mance set to set).
they simply don’t want to inconvenience
other gym-goers. If you found out that
simply getting a spotter could improve Purpose and Research
your performance, increase your self-ef- Questions
ficacy, and decrease your perception of
The purpose of this study was to com-
effort, would that make you more likely
pare performance, perceptual, and psy-
to consistently ask for a spot?
chological outcomes when lifting with
In this study on recreationally trained versus without a spotter. As a secondary
young men, the participants completed measure, the researchers also collected
three sets of Smith machine bench press blood lactate.
to failure with 60% of 1RM under two
75
Figure 1 Mean (+ SEM) bench press repetition performance
50
45
Spotter Deception
40
35
Number of Repetitions
30
25
20
15
10
0
1 2 3 Total
Set
(*) Denotes a significantly higher number of repetitions between conditions (p < 0.05); and (∆) Denotes
a significant reduction in repetitions from the previous set (p < 0.001).
The authors hypothesized “that the who benched slightly more than body-
visual presence of spotters would lead weight, on average (body mass = 84.8 ±
to improved performance because of 11.1 kg; 1RM bench press = 85.0 ± 23.5
increased desire to perform mediated kg) on a Smith machine. They all had at
by associated social facilitation effects.” least one year of training experience, and
worked out an average of 4.6 ± 1.0 days
per week.
Study Design
Subjects This study included three visits to the
The subjects were 12 young (21.3 ± 0.8 lab. The first visit was simply to assess
years old), recreationally trained men body composition and bench press 1RM.
76
The second and third visits involved per-
forming three sets of Smith machine
bench press to failure with 60% of 1RM, IF YOU FOUND OUT THAT
with two minutes of rest between sets.
During one visit, the participants could SIMPLY GETTING A SPOTTER
see that they had one spotter on both
sides of the bar. During the other visit, COULD IMPROVE YOUR
the spotters were shielded from view via
opaque barriers to make the participant
PERFORMANCE, INCREASE YOUR
think they were on their own, and they SELF-EFFICACY, AND DECREASE
hid during the rest intervals between sets;
the participants were told the purpose of YOUR PERCEPTION OF EFFORT,
the barriers was to prevent distractions
during their sets. The spotters didn’t give WOULD THAT MAKE YOU MORE
any verbal encouragement. The order of
these two visits was randomly assigned, LIKELY TO CONSISTENTLY
and the visits took place at least three
but not more than seven days apart.
ASK FOR A SPOT?
To standardize the protocol, the par-
ticipants were allowed to see the weight
on the bar before and between sets when ber of reps and the total volume load
the opaque barriers were up so they could (sets x reps x weight) completed in both
verify they were still lifting the same load. trials.
During both trials, the main researcher Additionally, after each set, the partic-
was within view and read a standardized ipants were asked to assess their over-
script before each set: “Maintain your all rate of perceived exertion (RPE) on
visual focus on the bar throughout each a 6-20 Borg scale, along with the local
set. Think about the movement of the rate of perceived exertion for their arms
bar. Lift to failure.” The reason Smith and chest. Furthermore, self-efficacy was
machine benching was used instead of assessed by asking participants after the
free weight benching was for feasibility, first and second sets to rate their chances
as it allowed for the barriers to be put up of completing the same number of repe-
since the bar path couldn’t deviate front- titions on the subsequent set on a 1 to 10
to-back. scale. A score of 1 represented no confi-
dence of completing the same number
Measures of reps, and 10 represented complete
The primary outcomes were the num- confidence. Finally, capillary blood lac-
77
Figure 2 Individual and Mean (+ SEM) total weight lifted during bench press performance
4600 2750
4100
2500
3600
Mean Total Weight Lifted (kg)

3100
Total Weight Lifted (kg)
2250
2600
2100
2000
1600
1100 1750
0 0
Spotter Deception Spotter Deception
Condition
(*) Denotes a significantly greater volume lifted in the spotter condition (p < 0.05).
tate was measured at the start and end had the same performance in both tri-
of both sessions. als, while the other 11 performed worse
when the spotters weren’t visible.
In spite of doing more total reps when
Findings the spotters were visible, RPE was actu-
After the study, all subjects confirmed ally significantly lower for the first two
that they didn’t know the true purpose sets when the spotters were visible, and
of the study, and they didn’t know that local RPE was lower for the first set.
spotters were present during the sets Self-efficacy scores were also significant-
when the spotters were concealed. ly higher after both the first and second
Total reps performed and total vol- sets. Finally, lactate increased to a great-
ume load were significantly (p<0.05) er degree pre- to post-training when the
higher in the spotter condition than the spotters were visible.
concealed condition. One participant
78
Table 1 Mean (+SD) of all psychophysiological variables
Variable Spotter Deception
Lactate Concentration
(mmol.l-1)
Pre 1.0 + 0.3 1.0 + 0.2
Post 6.8 + 1.6‡ 5.6 + 1.0‡*
RPE
Set 1 10.8 + 1.7 11.7 + 2.2*
Set 2 13.0 + 2.1† 14.0 + 1.7†
Set 3 15.0 + 2.2† 15.5 + 1.6†
L-RPE
Set 1 11.2 + 1.8 12.3 + 2.3*
Set 2 14.2 + 1.8† 14.8 + 1.6†
Set 3 15.8 + 2.1† 16.5 + 1.7†
Self-efficacy
End of Set 1 6.4 + 1.6 4.4 + 1.3*
End of Set 2 6.3 + 1.4 4.9 + 1.4*
(*) Denotes a significant difference between conditions (p < 0.05); (‡) Denotes a significant difference
from pre-exercise (p <0.001); and (†) Denotes a significant difference from previous set (p < 0.05)
spotter standing on each side of the bar.

Interpretation I think that social facilitation would be
If I take one thing away from this even greater with a training partner who
study, it’s that most people should try to helps hype you up, whose company you
find a good training partner. The authors enjoy, and who helps keep you account-
posit that performance was increased, able. In fact, verbal encouragement has
RPE was decreased, and self-efficacy also been shown to significantly increase
was increased due to the “social facilita- force output (4).
tion effects” (3) of simply having a silent If the only thing reported in this study
79
was the increase in reps performed with
visible spotters, I wouldn’t have thought
anything of it. The obvious explanation IF I TAKE ONE THING
would have just been that people feel
safer pushing closer to failure when they AWAY FROM THIS STUDY,
know they have a spotter to save them.
However, the decreases in RPE and the IT’S THAT MOST PEOPLE
increases in self-efficacy show, I think,
that there was truly a social facilitation SHOULD TRY TO FIND A
effect.
As mentioned in the introduction, GOOD TRAINING PARTNER.
prior research has shown that having a
crowd watch you lift can boost perfor-
mance (2). However, that’s obviously
not feasible most of the time. Most peo- I doubt it affects the generalizability of
ple can find a training partner, though. this study too much. The second limita-
At the very least, you shouldn’t hesitate tion was that the presence of spotters
to ask a fellow gym-goer for a spot on may have led the subjects to lie about
your hard sets. The advantage of a train- their RPEs, reporting lower numbers
ing partner is that they’re still there for to appear “tough.” Since the main re-
you providing social facilitation even for searcher was still visibly present for all
exercises where a spot isn’t required. trials, though, I doubt the presence of
Now, obviously having training part- visible spotters would have increased the
ners (or even spotters) isn’t required to risk of intentional deception to a mean-
be a successful lifter. Plenty of top lift- ingful degree.
ers, including Mike Tuchscherer and
Bryce Lewis, train alone most of the
time. However, it does seem to provide Next Steps
a meaningful boost on average (though As with any acute study, the next step
it’s possible that the effect is motivated is to follow it up with a training study
by an individual’s personality traits). to see if the presence of a spotter actu-
This study does have a couple of po- ally improves results over a matter of
tential limitations. The first is that Smith months. That would actually be an im-
machine bench press was used instead of portant study for better understand-
normal free-weight bench press. How- ing the generalizability of scientific
ever, that was a necessary tradeoff to al- research; almost all training studies in-
low for the spotters to be concealed, and clude researchers spotting for the sub-
80
1. Try to find a training partner if you don’t already have one.
2. If that fails, don’t hesitate to ask your fellow gym-goers for a spot on your hard sets,
as having spotters can increase performance and self-efficacy while decreasing
perceived exertion.
jects and cheering them on, and in the

vast majority of training studies, the
participants make faster gains than you
tend to see from typical gym-goers, even
though the training programs employed
in most training studies are super basic.
I think part of that is attributable to the
fact that researchers make their partic-
ipants simply train harder than they’d
have otherwise been training on their
own, but if the mere presence of spotters
is also contributing, that may call into
question the generalizability of research
findings for people who train alone.
81
References
1. Sheridan A, Marchant DC, Williams EL, Jones HS, Hewitt PA, Sparks SA. Presence of Spotters
Improves Bench Press Performance: A Deception Study. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Re-
search (2017).
2. Rhea MR, Landers DM, Alvar BA, Arent SM. The effects of competition and the presence of an
audience on weight lifting performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2003 May;17(2):303-6.
3. Social facilitation is just the idea that people tend to behave differently in private versus when they
know they’re being watched. Specifically, their performance tends to change (even when they’re
trying their hardest), and those changes depend on the type of task they’re performing. Performance
for relatively simple tasks tends to improve when people know they’re being observed, and perfor-
mance of complex tasks tends to decrease. This may partially explain why relatively new lifters tend
to perform poorly under meet conditions relative to gym conditions (since the movements are still
relatively complex to them), while more experienced lifters tend to perform best on the platform.
4. McNair PJ, Depledge J, Brettkelly M, Stanley SN. Verbal encouragement: effects on maximum effort
voluntary muscle action. Br J Sports Med. 1996 Sep; 30(3): 243–245.
82
VIDEO: Mesocycle Construction
for Bodybuilding
BY MIC HAE L C . ZO URD O S
What’s important and what’s not when constructing a hypertrophy-

focused mesocycle? This video deciphers periodization and
programming and focuses on meeting the hypertrophy “tenants” of
each mesocycle as outlined by recent meta-analyses.
Click to watch Michael's presentation.
83
References
1. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Effects of resistance training frequency on measures of muscle
hypertrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine. 2016 Nov 1;46(11):1689-97.
2. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Dose-response relationship between weekly resistance train-
ing volume and increases in muscle mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of sports
sciences. 2017 Jun 3;35(11):1073-82.
3. Krieger JW. Single vs. multiple sets of resistance exercise for muscle hypertrophy: a meta-analysis.
The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2010 Apr 1;24(4):1150-9.
4. Wernbom M, Augustsson J, Thomeé R. The influence of frequency, intensity, volume and mode
of strength training on whole muscle cross-sectional area in humans. Sports medicine. 2007 Mar
1;37(3):225-64.
5. Morán-Navarro R, Pérez CE, Mora-Rodríguez R, de la Cruz-Sánchez E, González-Badillo JJ, Sán-
chez-Medina L, Pallarés JG. Time course of recovery following resistance training leading or not to
failure. European Journal of Applied Physiology. 2017 Sep 30:1-3.
6. Klemp A, Dolan C, Quiles JM, Blanco R, Zoeller RF, Graves BS, Zourdos MC. Volume-equated
high-and low-repetition daily undulating programming strategies produce similar hypertrophy and
strength adaptations. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism. 2016 Feb 16;41(7):699-705.
84
Real-World Effects of Low Carbohydrate,
High Fat Diets in Strength Athletes
BY E RI C HE LMS
The debates on low carb diets are dizzying at times, so much so that
often useful information is lost in the confusion. In this video, Eric details
the outcomes of a low carb, high fat diet case study on powerlifters and
weightlifters that cuts through the noise.
Click to watch Eric's presentation.
85
References
1. Chatterton, S., et al., The effect of an 8-week low carbohydrate high fat (LCHF) diet in sub-elite
Olympic weightlifters and powerlifters on strength, body composition, mental state and adherence:
a pilot case-study. Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning, 2017. 25(2).
2. Johnston, B.C., et al., Comparison of weight loss among named diet programs in overweight and
obese adults: a meta-analysis. JAMA, 2014. 312(9): p. 923-33.
3. Gibson, A., et al., Do ketogenic diets really suppress appetite? a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Obes Rev, 2015. 16.
4. Burke, L., Re-examining high-fat diets for sports performance: Did we call the 'nail in the coffin'
too soon? Sports Med, 2015. 45.
5. Cornier, M.A., et al., Insulin sensitivity determines the effectiveness of dietary macronutrient com-
position on weight loss in obese women. Obesity Research, 2005. 13(4): p. 703-9.
6. Gardner, C.D., et al., Weight loss on low-fat vs. low-carbohydrate diets by insulin resistance status
among overweight adults and adults with obesity: A randomized pilot trial. Obesity (Silver Spring),
2016. 24(1): p. 79-86.
7. McClain, A.D., et al., Adherence to a low-fat vs. low-carbohydrate diet differs by insulin resistance
status. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2013. 15(1): p. 87-90.
8. Helms, E.R., A.A. Aragon, and P.J. Fitschen, Evidence-based recommendations for natural body-
building contest preparation: nutrition and supplementation. J Int Soc Sports Nutr, 2014. 11: p. 20.
86
Just Missed the Cut
Every month, we consider hundreds of new papers, and they can’t all be
included in MASS. Therefore, we’re happy to share a few pieces of research
that just missed the cut. It’s our hope that with the knowledge gained from
reading MASS, along with our interpreting research guide, you’ll be able to
tackle these on your own.
1. Lixandrão et al. Magnitude of Muscle Strength and Mass Adaptations Between High-Load
Resistance Training Versus Low-Load Resistance Training Associated with Blood-Flow
Restriction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
2. Figueiredo et al. Volume for Muscle Hypertrophy and Health Outcomes: The Most Effective
Variable in Resistance Training.
3. Logue et al. Low Energy Availability in Athletes: A Review of Prevalence, Dietary Patterns,
Physiological Health, and Sports Performance.
4. Brown et al. Compression Garments and Recovery from Exercise: A Meta-Analysis.
5. Bühlmayer et al. Effects of Mindfulness Practice on Performance-Relevant Parameters and
Performance Outcomes in Sports: A Meta-Analytical Review.
6. Farrokhyar et al. Effects of Vitamin D Supplementation on Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D
Concentrations and Physical Performance in Athletes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
of Randomized Controlled Trials.
7. Vernillo et al. Mechanisms of Fatigue and Recovery in Upper versus Lower Limbs in Men.
8. Holwerda et al. Daily resistance-type exercise stimulates overall muscle protein synthesis rates
in vivo in young males.
9. Vicen-Bordas et al. Is inertial flywheel resistance training superior to gravity-dependent
resistance training in improving muscle strength? A systematic review with meta-analyses.
10. Schutts et al. Does Focus of Attention Improve Snatch Lift Kinematics?
11. Helms et al. Self-Rated Accuracy of Rating of Perceived Exertion-Based Load Prescription in
Powerlifters.
12. Lockie et al. The Relationships between Height, Arm Length, and Leg Length on the Mechanics
of the Conventional and High-Handle Hexagonal Bar Deadlift.
13. Ikezoe et al. 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.
14. Hammer et al. Shod versus barefoot effects on force and power development during a
conventional deadlift.
15. Saunders et al. Placebo in sports nutrition: a proof-of-principle study involving caffeine
supplementation.
87
16. Tsitkanou et al. Effects of high-intensity interval cycling performed after resistance training on muscle
strength and hypertrophy.
17. Dankel et al. Do metabolites that are produced during resistance exercise enhance muscle hypertrophy?
18. Lim et al. Satellite cell activation and mTOR signaling pathway response to resistance and combined
exercise in elite weight lifters.
19. Manca et al. Cross-education of muscular strength following unilateral resistance training: a meta-
analysis.
20. Gravina et al. n-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation During 4 Weeks of Training Leads to Improved Anaerobic
Endurance Capacity, but not Maximal Strength, Speed, or Power in Soccer Players.
21. Guo et al. Massage Alleviates Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness after Strenuous Exercise: A Systematic
Review and Meta-Analysis.
22. Daniels et al. Effect of instructions on EMG during the bench press in trained and untrained males.
23. Iwatsuki et al. Autonomy facilitates repeated maximum force productions.
24. Rivière et al. Where does the One-Repetition Maximum Exist on the Force-Velocity Relationship in
Squat?
25. Ferreira et al. Recovery of pectoralis major and triceps brachii after bench press exercise.
26. Song-Gyu et al. Effect of BCAA supplement timing on exercise-induced muscle soreness and damage:
a pilot placebo-controlled double-blind study.
27. Marriner et al. Redistributing load using wearable resistance during power clean training improves
athletic performance.
28. Mohr et al. Muscle ion transporters and antioxidative proteins have different adaptive potential in arm
than in leg skeletal muscle with exercise training.
29. Hornsby et al. Maximum Strength, Rate of Force Development, Jump Height, and Peak Power
Alterations in Weightlifters across Five Months of Training.
30. Arazi et al. The effect of resistance training set configuration on strength, power, and hormonal
adaptation in female volleyball players.
31. O’Malley et al. Nutritional ketone salts increase fat oxidation but impair high-intensity exercise
performance in healthy adult males.
32. Ashtary-Larky et al. Rapid Weight Loss vs. Slow Weight Loss: Which is More Effective on Body
Composition and Metabolic Risk Factors?
33. Palumbo et al. Comparison of Perceived Exertion between Bodybuilders and Active Individuals in
Different Exercises and Intensities.
88
Thanks for
reading MASS.
The next issue will be released to

subscribers on January 1.
Graphics by Katherine Whitfield, and layout design by Lyndsey Nuckols.
89

MASS Issue 09 - Dec

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MASS Issue 09 - Dec

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MASS Issue 09 - Dec

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IS S U E NO .

9 DEC EM BER 2017

The MASS Team

Low-Load, High-Rep Training: Similar Anabolic Signaling, but at

Your Caffeine Stash is Empty. Is it All Over for the Day?

Do Protein Supplements Still Help if You're Eating Enough Protein?

The Power of Choice: Self-Determination and Exercise Selection

I Get by with a Little Help from My Friends: Spotters Increase

VIDEO: Mesocycle Construction for Bodybuilding

VIDEO: Real-World Effects of Low Carbohydrate, High Fat Diets in

5-7 days 2 days 5 days 2 days

Visit 1 Visit 2 Visit 3 Visit 4 Visit 5

Post isokinetic test Post isokinetic test

% Change from PRE

A Atrogin-1 mRNA B MuRF-1 mRNA C IL-6 mRNA D

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2.0 1.0 1.0

I MSTN mRNA J MHC-I mRNA K MHC-IIa mRNA L MHC-IIx mRNA

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

% Change from PRE

% Change from PRE

-60 -60 -50

p-p70s6k (Thr389) p-p70s6k (Thr389) p-p70s6k (Thr389) p-p70s6k (Thr389)

All relationships were suggestive but non-significant

Number of Body Mass

20 Males 26 ± 6 182 ± 9 84 ± 9 7±3

Data are Mean ± SD

ance when compared to a placebo con-

perimental session), so it’s possible that 60 minutes 5 minutes

some lifters could have still been fa-

then the investigators can gauge the dif- 5 minutes

ficulty of warm-up sets to determine at-

make the 12RM on the familiarization 5 minutes

unnecessary. The experimental testing Figure 1

the only difference between days being

Placebo condition Caffeine condition % Benefit for Effect size —

*Significantly greater performance in the placebo condition. 1RM = One-repetition maximum

respond to +3.9 and +1.0% performance on acute maximal strength is actually

Brooks et al. (2016) 5 mg / kg-1 60 min pre-training No

Trexler et al. (2016) 3-5 mg / kg-1 30 min pre-training No

Fett et al. (2017) 6 mg / kg-1 60 min pre-training Yes

Grgic and Mikulic (2017) 6 mg / kg-1 60 min pre-training Yes

Bold type indicates studies used recommended dosage and timing

Continuous Intermittent Difference

Completed per protocol (Wk16) N = 19 N = 17

Completed per protocol (Wk16) N = 13 N = 15

Age (years) 40.0 + 5.2 40.3 + 7.6 0.3 + 0.8 0.72

Continuous Intermittent Difference

Completed per protocol (Wk16) N = 19 N = 17

Completed per protocol (Wk16) N = 13 N = 15

Weight (kg) - 7.7 + 3.1 - 13.9 + 5.5 6.2 + 1.7 0.001

FM, fat mass; FFM, fat-free mass.

Nutritional Intervention remained in the same relative energy

Baseline Energy Restriction

* = Significant difference (p < 0.05) between groups

is an outcome favoring the intervention, ing a list of high-energy density foods

displayed in Table 3). pliance. The only difference between

needs to be adjusted so that it doesn’t think decreases in energy expenditure

Q: First things first, tell us a little

Supplementation (2x daily)