V O L U ME 2 , ISS U E 6 JUN E 2 0 1 8

MASS
M ONTHLY A PPL ICATIO N S IN
STRE N G TH SPO R T

E R IC H E LMS | G R E G NUC KOLS | MIC HAEL ZO URDO S

 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 June issue of MASS! A lot of you are starting on your second full
year of MASS content; we hope you’re still enjoying it. And for a lot of you, this
will be your first new issue after signing up during our anniversary sale; we hope
you enjoy it and stick around. No matter how long you’ve been with us, if there’s anything
we can do to make MASS better, don’t hesitate to let us know. This would be an especially
good time to share your thoughts, as it’s summertime, which means the three of us have a
brief reprieve from some of our academic duties, so we have more time to improve and fine-
tune MASS.
As always, we’ve got a great issue for you.
Eric reviewed a new study showing that beta-alanine may be useful for increasing strength
gains, in spite of the fact that its effects on acute performance are inconsistent at best. His
second review covered an article detailing all of the components of a comprehensive nutrition
assessment. Finally, his video this month is part 2 of his series on programming consider-
ations for dual-sport athletes.
Mike reviewed a new study this month comparing load-velocity profiles in men vs. women,
and stronger vs. weaker lifters; this study has important implications for developing individ-
ualized load-velocity profiles. His second review covered a paper examining whether it’s bet-
ter to stick with the same load across all working sets, or to decrease load set-to-set. Finally,
his video this month is part 2 of his series on training for aging athletes.
Greg’s three articles this month cover a meta-analysis comparing recovery interventions, a
perspective paper on whether high-load and low-load training can cause fiber type specific
hypertrophy, and a meta-analysis examining concurrent training with high-intensity interval
training.
We’re sure you’ll enjoy this issue of MASS. If you have questions about any of the content
in this issue, or if you want to discuss anything, don’t hesitate to ping us in the MASS Face-
book group.

The MASS Team

Eric, Greg, and Mike

3
 Table of Contents

6
BY G R EG NUCKOL S

Is High Intensity Interval Training Better Than Low Intensity Cardio for
Strength Athletes Trying to Maximize Their Gains?
A recent meta-analysis examined the impact of concurrent training with HIIT. How
do the effects compare to concurrent training with lower intensity cardio?

16
BY M I CHAEL C. ZOUR DOS

Factors Accounting for Individual Load-Velocity Profiles: An Update

We know that load-velocity profiles are individual, but we don’t know all the factors
behind why this is the case. This study demonstrates that sex may play a role, and the
article speculates on what other factors may contribute.

26
BY E RI C HEL MS

Comprehensive Nutritional Assessments: Probably More Than You

Expected
Athletes often manipulate their diets and take supplements, believing they know what
they are doing. But could this be a case of Dunning-Kruger? This article covers what
is really involved in the process of nutritional assessment, and you might be surprised
at just how much needs to be taken into consideration.

42
BY G R EG NUCKOL S

Fiber Type-Specific Hypertrophy? Evidence Is Still Lacking

People claim that heavy training will cause more type II muscle fiber growth and that
lighter training will cause more type I muscle fiber growth. However, the scientific
evidence doesn’t support that claim yet.

4
54
BY M I CHAEL C. ZOUR DOS

Intra-Session Load Reduction: Same Gains, Less Effort

Sometimes we force ourselves to stick with the same weight for all sets on an exercise,
rather than reducing the weight for the latter sets. This study shows that not only
does reducing the weight lead to lower perception of effort, but it doesn’t compromise
hypertrophy and strength.

65
BY E RI C HEL MS

Does Beta-Alanine Increase 1RM?

Meta-analytic data has established beta-alanine as an effective ergogenic aid for
efforts lasting longer than one minute, but surprisingly, this study found that training
with beta-alanine actually led to larger increases in 1RM strength. Why did this occur?

75
BY G R EG NUCKOL S

What’s the Best Way to Recover from Training?

A recent meta-analysis compared the effects of ten different recovery methods.
Massage came out on top, but compression garments and water immersion are also
good options.

83
BY M I CHAEL C. ZOUR DOS

VIDEO: Training and the Aging Process, Part 2

Part I of our aging series examined the mechanisms behind sarcopenia. Now, part II
explains how the dosage of training should be altered due to the anabolic sensitivity
associated with sarcopenia.

85
BY E RI C HEL MS

VIDEO: Considerations for Dual-Sport Athletes, Part 2

It’s common these days for physique competitors and strength athletes to look over
each other’s fences and wonder if the grass is greener. Sometimes, they decide they
like the grass on both sides of the fence and get a second mortgage. In this series,
Eric explains how dual-sport athletes can manage their efforts to succeed in both
sports.

5
 Study Reviewed: The Compatibility of Concurrent High Intensity Interval Training
and Resistance Training for Muscular Strength and Hypertrophy: a Systematic
Review and Meta-Analysis. Sabag et al. (2018)

Is High Intensity Interval Training Better

Than Low Intensity Cardio for Strength
Athletes Trying to Maximize Their Gains?
BY G RE G NUC KO LS

A recent meta-analysis examined the impact of concurrent training

with HIIT. How do the effects compare to concurrent training with
lower intensity cardio?

6
 KEY POINTS
1. Adding high intensity interval training (HIIT) into your training may not negatively
affect muscle growth, but it may decrease lower body strength gains.
2. Overall, the results of this meta-analysis are in line with a prior meta-analysis
examining concurrent training with lower intensity cardio. However, HIIT may not
limit muscle growth as much as lower intensity cardio.
3. If you add conditioning work into your training, try to separate lifting and conditioning
sessions by at least 6 hours. If you can do your conditioning and lifting on different
days, that’s even better.

C
oncurrent training refers to training with HIIT, compared to resis-
combining strength training tance training alone.
and conditioning work with- Overall, concurrent training with
in the same program, and the interfer- HIIT was found to decrease lower body
ence effect refers to the attenuation of strength gains compared to strength
strength gains and hypertrophy when training alone, without affecting hyper-
using concurrent training, compared trophy. Furthermore, the attenuation
to strength training alone. Concurrent of strength gains can be eliminated if
training and the interference effect have you have at least 24 hours of rest be-
gotten a lot of attention both in MASS tween lifting and HIIT sessions. This
(article one, article two, video one, video meta-analysis also found that sprinting
two) and within the scientific literature. may be a better HIIT option than cycle
However, most of the work in the area sprints, though that finding is a bit more
uses low-to-moderate intensity cardio tenuous.
(LISS) as the conditioning modality.
High intensity interval training (HIIT)
has been growing in popularity, both in Purpose and Research
the gym (I hear CrossFit is pretty pop-
ular) and within the scientific literature. Questions
People claim that HIIT is “muscle-spar-
ing” cardio, and that it won’t contribute Purpose
to the interference effect to the same de- The purpose of this meta-analysis was
gree as LISS. The study reviewed in this to examine whether concurrent training
article is a meta-analysis (study of stud- still causes the interference effect (i.e. less
ies) examining the effects of concurrent muscle growth and smaller strength gains

7
with combining cardio and strength train-
ing) when HIIT is used instead of lower
intensity aerobic training.
CONCURRENT HIIT AND RESISTANCE
TRAINING LED TO SIGNIFICANTLY
Hypotheses
Meta-analyses generally don’t include
SMALLER GAINS IN LOWER BODY
formal hypotheses, but the wording of the STRENGTH THAN RESISTANCE
introduction made it sound like the au-
thors may have expected no interference TRAINING ALONE. HOWEVER,
effect, or at least less interference than is THERE WAS NO OBSERVED
observed with low intensity aerobic train-
ing. INTERFERENCE EFFECT FOR UPPER
Research Questions
BODY STRENGTH, LOWER BODY
1. Does a combination of resistance HYPERTROPHY, OR CHANGES
training and HIIT lead to smaller IN WHOLE-BODY LEAN MASS.
strength gains than resistance train-
ing alone?
2. Does a combination of resistance
training and HIIT lead to less mus-
cle growth than resistance training 2. It needed to include healthy adult
alone? participants.
3. Does the mode of HIIT influence the 3. It needed to include a training in-
interference effect (i.e. are responses tervention lasting at least four
different when doing HIIT running weeks.
versus HIIT cycling)? 4. It needed to include one group do-
4. Does having a period of time between ing only resistance training, and
HIIT and resistance training sessions one group doing both resistance
attenuate the interference effect? training and HIIT.
5. It needed to assess changes in dy-
namic muscular strength and/or
Subjects and Methods muscle mass (or proxies of muscle
To be included in this meta-analysis, a mass, i.e. lean body mass).
study had to meet five criteria: Past that, it was a pretty standard me-
1. It needed to be published in an En- ta-analysis, adhering to the PRISMA
glish language journal. guidelines.

8
 Figure 1
Effect Size
Study Name (Hedges’ g) 95% Cl p value

Hypertrophy
Cantrell et al. 2014 0.110 (-0.872 to 1.091) 0.827
De Souza et al. 2013 0.163 (-0.643 to 0.968) 0.692
Fyfe et al. 2016 0.000 (-0.927 to 0.927) 1.000
Kikuchi et al. 2016 - 0.107 (-1.152 to 0.989) 0.841
Laird et al. 2016 0.161 (-0.599 to 0.882) 0.661
Sale et al. 1990 - 0.065 (-0.992 to 0.862) 0.891
Tsitkanou et al. 2016 0.325 (-0.503 to 1.153) 0.442
Pooled effect 0.106 (-0.224 to 0.435) 0.529

Lower body strength

Balabinis et al. 2003 - 1.050 (-2.105 to 0.005) 0.051
Cantrell et al. 2014 - 0.161 (-1.143 to 0.822) 0.748
De Souza et al. 2013 - 0.043 (-0.847 to 0.761) 0.916
Fyfe et al. 2016 - 0.451 (-1.391 to 0.489) 0.347
Laird et al. 2016 - 0.242 (-0.992 to 0.507) 0.527
Leveritt et al. 2003 - 0.381 (-1.269 to 0.508) 0.401
Robineau et al. 2016 - 0.340 (-1.119 to 0.440) 0.393
Robineau et al. 2017 - 0.077 (-0.899 to 0.746) 0.855
Ross et al. 2009 0.066 (-0.723 to 0.854) 0.870
Sale et al. 1990 - 0.668 (-1.624 to 0.287) 0.170
Silva et al. 2012 0.090 (-0.699 to 0.879) 0.822
Tsitkanou et al. 2016 - 0.236 (-1.117 to 0.646) 0.601
Pooled effect - 0.248 (-0.495 to -0.001) 0.049

Upper body strength

Balabinis et al. 2003 - 0.148 (-1.130 to 0.834) 0.768
Cantrell et al. 2014 - 0.052 (-1.033 to 0.928) 0.916
Fyfe et al. 2016 0.050 (-0.876 to 0.977) 0.915
Kikuchi et al. 2016 - 0.052 (-1.097 to 0.992) 0.922
Robineau et al. 2016 0.133 (-0.642 to 0.908) 0.737
Robineau et al. 2017 0.143 (-0.680 to 0.967) 0.733
Silva et al. 2012 - 0.060 (-0.849 to 0.729) 0.882
Pooled effect 0.016 (-0.319 to 0.351) 0.927

-4.00 -2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00

Favors RT alone Favors HIIT + RT

Findings However, there was no observed inter-

ference effect for upper body strength,
Fourteen studies met the inclusion lower body hypertrophy, or changes in
criteria. Four included untrained par- whole-body lean mass.
ticipants, four included collegiate or When examining the effects of dif-
semi-professional athletes, and the re- ferent modes of HIIT on lower body
maining six used “trained” or “active” strength, running didn’t seem to sig-
participants. nificantly interfere with lower body
Concurrent HIIT and resistance strength gains (p = 0.26, ES = -0.176),
training led to significantly (p<0.049) while cycling almost had a significant
smaller gains in lower body strength negative effect on lower body strength
than resistance training alone. This gains (p=0.07, ES = -0.377). However,
was a trivial-to-small effect (ES = there was no significant difference be-
-0.248; 95% CI = -0.495 to -0.001). tween running and cycling (p = 0.18).

9
 Interpretation
THE POPULAR CLAIM THAT I found this meta-analysis interesting,
primarily as a point of comparison to
HIIT IS “MUSCLE-SPARING” the 2012 meta-analysis (2) examining
the effects of concurrent training with
CARDIO DOES SEEM TO HOLD (primarily) low-to-moderate intensity
SOME WATER. IT’LL PROBABLY cardio.
Starting with the similarities, both
SLOW YOUR STRENGTH GAINS meta-analyses found that concurrent
training didn’t hamper upper body hy-
DOWN TO THE SAME DEGREE pertrophy or strength gains. Further-
AS TRADITIONAL CARDIO, more, both meta-analyses found similar
attenuations in lower body strength (ES
BUT IT MAY NOT NEGATIVELY = 0.25 in this meta-analysis, and 0.32 in
the 2012 meta-analysis; both small ef-
AFFECT MUSCLE GROWTH fects).
OR MUSCLE RETENTION. The most important difference when
comparing this meta-analysis and the
2012 meta-analysis is that this me-
ta-analysis found that concurrent train-
When examining the effects of rest ing with HIIT didn’t hamper lower
periods between HIIT and strength body hypertrophy, while the 2012 me-
training sessions, there was no sig- ta-analysis found that concurrent train-
nificant difference in lower body ing with low-to-moderate intensity
strength gains between resistance cardio did cause a significant reduction
training groups and concurrent train- in lower body hypertrophy (ES ~ 0.4).
ing groups in studies with at least 24 As such, the popular claim that HIIT
hours between resistance training and is “muscle-sparing” cardio does seem to
HIIT sessions (p = 0.77, ES = -0.08), hold some water. It’ll probably slow your
while there was almost a significant strength gains down to the same degree
difference in studies with less than as traditional cardio, but it may not neg-
24 hours between HIIT and strength atively affect muscle growth or muscle
training sessions (p=0.07, ES = -0.26). retention. However, you shouldn’t apply
that information uncritically. I’m not
recommending that everyone should go

10
out and start running hours of sprints,
since HIIT can definitely take a toll on
Figure 2 Strength Gains with
Cycling- Versus Running-Based
recovery. For advice on implementation, Concurrent Training
check out Mike’s videos on implement-
ing conditioning work in a strength-fo-
cused program (one, two).
When this meta-analysis came out, 3

one finding that got a lot of press was

that HIIT sprints didn’t significantly at-
tenuate strength gains, while HIIT cy-
cling nearly (p=0.07) did. In the 2012 2
meta-analysis, the opposite was true:
Concurrent training with jogging sig-
nificantly decreased strength gains,
while concurrent training with cycling
didn’t. However, I think both of these 1
“differences” are blown somewhat out
Effect Size
of proportion. The cycling and running
concurrent training conditions weren’t
significantly different from each other
0
in either meta-analysis. That’s especially
clear in the 2012 meta-analysis; as you
can see in Figure 2, the effect sizes for Running Concurrent
Cycling Concurrent
lower body strength are virtually iden-
Strength
tical between cycling and running. One -1
just happened to clear the (somewhat
arbitrary) significance threshold, and
one didn’t. However, there may still be Lower Body Strength
an argument to be made for cycle sprints
over regular sprints; hamstring strains from Wilson et al (2012).
* = significant difference between strength-only
aren’t uncommon when running sprints, and running concurrent
especially for people who are simultane-
ously strong and not super accustomed
to sprinting; injury risk for cycle sprints, be a surprise to MASS readers who’ve
on the other hand, is pretty negligible. been with us from the beginning. In
The fact that the results of these two fact, in our very first issue, we covered
meta-analyses are so similar shouldn’t a study that came to very similar con-

11
clusions (3): Moderate intensity cardio
and HIIT both interfered with strength
gains to a similar degree. It’s nice to now WHEN PARTICIPANTS WERE
have a meta-analysis backing us up.
There’s one final thing I’d like to point
ALLOWED TO REST AT LEAST
out about the results of this meta-anal- 24 HOURS BETWEEN CARDIO
ysis. When participants were allowed to
rest at least 24 hours between cardio and AND LIFTING SESSIONS, THE
lifting sessions, the interference effect
was nowhere to be found (9). Strength INTERFERENCE EFFECT WAS
gains were virtually identical. If you need
to program conditioning work into your NOWHERE TO BE FOUND.
training, setting up your training week
so that you do conditioning and lifting STRENGTH GAINS WERE
on different days will allow you to mit-
igate the potential downside of doing
VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL.
cardio. Obviously, volume still matters
(i.e. if you run a half-marathon on your
“rest” days, I have a strange feeling you’re the athletes in this study did their lifting
not going to maximize hypertrophy and and HIIT on the same day, but they did
strength gains), but all else being equal, their HIIT session in the morning, and
doing your strength training and condi- rested for seven hours before their lift-
tioning on different days is ideal. ing session.
As mentioned, only 4 of the 14 studies The second of the studies on athletes
included in this meta-analysis were per- was performed by Robineau et al (5).
formed on competitive athletes. Just to We’ve actually touched on this paper in
make sure the story doesn’t change for a previous issue of MASS. In this study,
well-trained subjects, let’s briefly look at one group exclusively did resistance
those studies. training, one group did resistance train-
The first of the studies on athletes was ing and HIIT in the same session, one
performed by Balabinis et al (4). For the group separated their HIIT and lifting
subjects only doing resistance training, sessions by six hours, and one group sep-
squat increased by 16.1%, and bench arated their HIIT and lifting sessions by
press increased by 23.6%. For the sub- 24 hours. Strength in the bench press
jects doing concurrent training with and half-squat increased by basically the
HIIT, squat increased by 18.9%, and same amount in the strength-only group
bench press increased by 23.1%. Of note, and in the two groups resting at least six

12
hours between HIIT and lifting ses- concurrent training group, but at the
sions. The group doing their lifting and midpoint of the study, the concurrent
HIIT in the same session gained a bit training group actually started getting
less strength in both exercises. a bit weaker while the strength-only
The third study performed on athletes group kept getting stronger. However,
was also performed by Robineau et al since we’re seeing similar strength gains
(6). There were two concurrent train- with both resistance training and HIIT-
ing groups in this study (one group did based concurrent training in four differ-
sprints with a four-minute rest between ent papers on competitive athletes, it’s
sprints, while the other group sprinted likely that HIIT can be implemented
for 30 seconds, jogged for 30 seconds, long term without risking decreases in
sprinted for 30 seconds, etc.). There were hypertrophy or strength gains, as long as
48 hours between lifting and condition- you perform your HIIT and lifting on
ing sessions. Increases in the half-squat separate days (as they did in three out
were similar for all three groups, but of four of these studies). Things may
bench press gains were slightly larger in change when you become really high-
the strength-only group than in either ly trained, but most people will proba-
one of the concurrent training groups. bly be fine doing some HIIT, as long as
their program is structured so that they
Finally, the fourth study by Ross et
have time to recover from it.
al (7) tells a similar story. In this study,
HIIT and strength training were per- So, with regards to implementation, the
formed in the same session for the choice between HIIT and low-to-mod-
concurrent training group, but gains in erate intensity cardio largely depends
squat strength were still very similar be- on preference and recovery. HIIT may
tween the concurrent training group and be a better option for hypertrophy, but
the strength-only group (+8.4kg for the it’s also generally harder to recover from
concurrent training group, and +6.8kg than LISS, which may make it a little
for the strength-only group). dicier if you’re aiming to add condition-
ing work to a high volume hypertrophy
One potential criticism of the concur-
block of training. If at all possible, sep-
rent training literature is that it’s pos-
arate your conditioning and lifting ses-
sible that strength gains would diverge
sions by at least six hours, and ideally do
in the long run, but that divergence
them on separate days. Again, for more
wouldn’t be captured in a relatively short
extensive advice on implementation,
study. For example, in the classic con-
check out Mike’s lectures on the topic
current training paper from Hickson
(one, two).
(8), strength gains were initially very
similar in the strength-only group and

13
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
If your goal is to maximize strength gains, ideally you’d avoid cardio (regardless of
intensity) altogether. However, if you need to add conditioning work into your program,
it seems that high and low intensity conditioning work have similar negative effects on
strength gains (you’ll still gain strength, but those gains will be smaller). For hypertrophy,
however, HIIT seems to be a better option than LISS, provided you can adequately
recover from it. Finally, you should try to do your conditioning and lifting on different
days, if possible.

Next Steps for 90 minutes, it would be nice to see

whether cardio can be so low intensity
One thing I’d really like to see is a that it no longer causes the interference
study combining conditioning work effect.
with really high volume strength train-
ing. Presumably, cardio (regardless of
intensity) would hinder strength gains
more when the body is already pushing
the limits of what it can recover from.
As far as I’m aware, we don’t have any
research demonstrating that, though,
and most concurrent training studies
use low-to-moderate volume resistance
training programs. A study designed to
assess whether the interference effect is
more prominent when added to high
volume lifting programs versus low vol-
ume lifting programs would be a valuable
addition to the literature. It’s also worth
noting that the low intensity cardio most
bodybuilders do when prepping for a
show is considerably lower in intensity
than the low intensity cardio performed
in studies. While I understand that you’d
have a hard time convincing a group of
subjects to walk on a treadmill multiple
times per week at three miles per hour

14
References
1. Sabag A, Najafi A, Michael S, Esgin T, Halaki M, Hackett D. The compatibility of concurrent high
intensity interval training and resistance training for muscular strength and hypertrophy: a system-
atic review and meta-analysis. J Sports Sci. 2018 Apr 16:1-12.
2. Wilson JM, Marin PJ, Rhea MR, Wilson SM, Loenneke JP, Anderson JC. Concurrent training: a
meta-analysis examining interference of aerobic and resistance exercises. J Strength Cond Res. 2012
Aug;26(8):2293-307.
3. Fyfe JJ, Bartlett JD, Hanson ED, Stepto NK, Bishop DJ. Endurance Training Intensity Does Not
Mediate Interference to Maximal Lower-Body Strength Gain during Short-Term Concurrent
Training. Front Physiol. 2016 Nov 3;7:487.
4. Balabinis CP, Psarakis CH, Moukas M, Vassiliou MP, Behrakis PK. Early phase changes by concur-
rent endurance and strength training. J Strength Cond Res. 2003 May;17(2):393-401.
5. Robineau J, Babault N, Piscione J, Lacome M, Bigard AX. Specific Training Effects of Concur-
rent Aerobic and Strength Exercises Depend on Recovery Duration. J Strength Cond Res. 2016
Mar;30(3):672-83.
6. Robineau J, Lacome M, Piscione J, Bigard X, Babault N. Concurrent Training in Rugby Sevens:
Effects of High-Intensity Interval Exercises. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017 Mar;12(3):336-344.
7. Ross RE, Ratamess NA, Hoffman JR, Faigenbaum AD, Kang J, Chilakos A. The effects of treadmill
sprint training and resistance training on maximal running velocity and power. J Strength Cond Res.
2009 Mar;23(2):385-94.
8. Hickson RC. Interference of strength development by simultaneously training for strength and en-
durance. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1980;45(2-3):255-63.
9. Murach KA, Bagley JR. Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy with Concurrent Exercise Training: Contrary
Evidence for an Interference Effect. Sports Med. 2016 Aug;46(8):1029-39.

15
Study Reviewed: The Load-Velocity Profile Differs More Between Men and Women
than Between Individuals with Different Strength Levels. Torrejon et al. (2018)

Factors Accounting for Individual

Load-Velocity Profiles: An Update
BY MIC HAE L C . ZO URD O S

We know that load-velocity profiles are individual, but we don’t

know all the factors behind why this is the case. This study
demonstrates that sex may play a role, and the article speculates
on what other factors may contribute.

16
 KEY POINTS
1. This study examined the load-velocity profiles of 14 men and 14 women at
intensities from 30-100% of 1RM in the Smith machine bench press.
2. Results showed that men had faster average velocities than women at low
intensities; however, women had faster velocities than men at high intensities,
including at 100% of 1RM.
3. Additionally, this study demonstrated that training experience and relative strength
may play a role in efficiency, as women with greater relative strength produced
slower average velocities at 100% of 1RM than women with lower relative strength.

N
ot too long ago, MASS covered 1RM and assessed average concentric
the basics of velocity-based velocity with a position transducer. On
training. In addition to the ba- average, men had higher velocities at
sics of implementing velocity-based lighter loads than women (effect size
training, the previous MASS article = 1.09); lighter loads were classified as
provided an average velocity profile loads performed with an average con-
between 30-100% of one-repetition centric velocity of >1.0 m.s-1. Women
maximum (1RM) in the squat. How- had higher velocities at heavy loads
ever, the article also noted that veloc- (effect size = 1.02), and heavy loads
ity-load profiles should be individu- were classified as loads performed
alized and provided some theories on with an average velocity of <0.65 m.s-
why profiles are individual. Yet, our 1
. It was also observed that at 1RM,
conclusion at the time regarding why stronger women had a lower (slower)
load-velocity profiles differed was: average velocity than weaker women,
“this is a question that cannot be ful- indicating that training experience
ly answered at the moment.” Fast for- plays a role in velocity at 1RM: stron-
ward a few months, and we still can’t ger and more experienced lifters can
fully answer this question; however, grind better. While there is still more
the present study does inch us clos- to uncover regarding why individual
er by concluding that an individual’s load-velocity profiles are different, this
sex affects average velocity across the study suggests sex is one of the rea-
spectrum of intensities. This study (1) sons. This article will analyze the pres-
had 14 men and 14 women perform ent results and speculate on what oth-
single repetition sets on a Smith ma- er factors may be in play.
chine bench press between 30-100% of

17
 Table 1 Subject Characteristics
Bench Press Bench to Body
Subjects Age (yrs.) Body Mass (kg) Height (cm)
Experience (yrs) Mass Ratio (kg)

14 Men 23.8 ± 2.5 73.4 ± 8.9 177 ± 7 6.2 ± 2.0 1.17 ± 0.19

14 Women 21.5 ± 1.4 62.2 ± 8.7 169 ± 6 1.2 ± 1.5 0.64 ± 0.13

Data are Mean ± SD

Subjects characteristics from Torrejon et al. 2018 (1).

Purpose and Research thors did not expect strength to have an

impact on average velocity at any inten-
Questions sity.
As a side note, I would have hypoth-
Purpose esized that strength does affect velocity
The purpose of this study was to de- for the secondary hypothesis, as previ-
termine if average concentric velocity in ous data indicates that as strength and
the bench press was different between training age increase, average concentric
men and women at intensities from 30- velocity is slower at a 1RM in both the
100% of 1RM. This study also sought to bench press (2) and squat (3).
examine if absolute and relative strength
affect the load-velocity profile.
Subjects and Methods
Research Question
Does an individual’s sex affect bench Subjects
press movement velocity? Further, does There were 14 men and 14 women in
strength level affect velocity between in- this study (total = 28). All subjects were
dividuals when the relative load lifted is trained, but a minimum training experi-
the same? ence was not specified. The available char-
acteristics of the subjects can be seen in
Hypotheses Table 1.
The authors predicted that men would
have a “steeper” velocity profile than Study Protocol
women, meaning the authors expected Testing for the actual data analyzed took
the drop in velocity from 30% to 100% place on only one day. However, a nice
to be greater for men. Further, the au- feature of this study was that all subjects

18
 Figure 1 Relationship Between Load and Velocity in Men and Women

1.8

Women
Average Concentric Velocity (m·s-1)

1.6
R2 = 0.94; N = 84
1.4

1.2 Men
R2 = 0.95; N = 102
1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Load (%1RM)
Men are the dark grey dots and solid line. Women are the light grey dots and dashed line. As the results state, you can see that the solid line is above the dashed line
(men have faster velocities than women) at the lower intensities, but at the higher intensities (bottom right of the figure) the dashed line is above the solid line (women
have faster velocities than men at the higher intensities). R2 = The Pearson’s correlation for each sex between load and velocity. N = Number of samples included in
the regression.

trained with the same four-week program velocity reached <0.50 m.s-1. At this point,
prior to testing. That program had subjects men increased load anywhere from 0.5-5
train five sets of the bench press twice a kg, and women increased load by 0.5-2.5
week between 60-90% of 1RM and stop kg until a 1RM was reached. Although it
each set with 2-3 repetitions in reserve doesn’t specify, I assume that the three sets
(4). While implementing this four-week at each intensity were averaged to attain a
program would not have been necessary single velocity per person, or perhaps the
to publish the study, it did ensure that all best velocity of the three was used (either
subjects had proper bench press technique one would be appropriate).
and were on a somewhat-level playing field Analyses were carried out to examine ve-
prior to testing. locity differences between men and wom-
On the single testing day,subjects warmed en, stronger and weaker lifters (the seven
up then preceded to perform 3 sets of 1 rep strongest versus seven weakest within each
at all intensities (intensities described be- sex), and at lighter loads (velocity >1.0 m.s-
low) except for the 1RM. Subjects started 1
), moderate loads (velocity = 0.65-0.99
at 17kg. Following the 17kg set, men then m.s-1), and heavy loads (velocity <0.65
increased the load by 10kg and women m.s-1).
increased by 5kg until average concentric

19
 Figure 2 Differences in Average Velocity Between Men and Women

Greater values for men Greater values for women

-1.09 (-1.78 to -0.40)

Slope
y-intercept -0.81 (-1.49 to -0.14)

ACV 30% 1RM -0.40 (-1.06 to 0.25)

ACV 40% 1RM -0.29 (-0.94 to 0.36)

-0.14 (-0.78 to 0.51)

ACV 50% 1RM
0.07 (-0.58 to 0.72)
ACV 60% 1RM
0.35 (-0.30 to 1.00)
ACV 70% 1RM
0.72 (0.05 to 1.39)
ACV 80% 1RM
1.14 (0.44 to 1.84)
ACV 90% 1RM
1.50 (0.77 to 2.23)
ACV 100% 1RM

-2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Standardized mean differences

The values to the left of each parentheses are the mean difference comparing men and women (negative numbers favor men and
positive favor women) and inside the parentheses is the 90% confidence interval of the mean difference. “Slope” shows there is a
steeper curve with men versus women and “y-intercept” shows that men have high velocities at lower intensities. When a dot is to
the right of the zero-difference line, the velocity is in favor of men, when the dot is to the left the velocity is in favor of men.
ACV = Average Concentric Velocity.

Findings vor of men), and women had a higher or

faster velocity at 1RM (effect size = 0.90
in favor of women). Figure 1 shows the
Men Versus Women load-velocity curve across all intensities
Men had an overall “steeper” curve (ef- in both sexes. Figure 2 shows the means
fect size = 1.09 in favor of men) from 30- of the average concentric velocities at
100%, which means that there was a more each intensity with all subjects combined
significant decline in velocity across the and depicts at which intensities men had
spectrum in men. This is evident, as men faster velocities and at which intensities
had higher (faster) average velocities at women had faster velocities.
lower intensities (effect size = 1.02 in fa-

20
 Table 2 Comparison of Men and Women and Strong Versus Weak Lifters
Men Women

Variable All (n=14) Strong (n=7) Weak (n=7) All (n=14) Strong (n=7) Weak (n=7)

Absolute 1RM
85.2 ± 14.5 94.4 ±12.0 76.0 ± 10.7# 39.9 ± 8.1* 43.1 ± 8.8 36.7 ± 6.2#
(kg)

Relative 1RM 1.17 ± 0.19 1.32 ± 0.13 1.02 ± 0.08# 0.66 ± 0.13* 0.75 ± 0.11 0.56 ± 0.04#

ACV 1RM
0.167 ± 0.037 0.171 ± 0.039 0.164 ± 0.037 0.208 ± 0.053* 0.188 ± 0.052 0.228 ± 0.050#
(m·s-1)

* = Significantly lower than men; # = Significantly different than “strong” within the same sex; 1RM = One-Repetition Maximum

At 1RM, weaker women had higher ward explanation for this is that type II
(faster) average velocities than stronger muscle fibers make up a greater percent-
women (effect size = 0.78); however, there age of overall fiber type composition in
was no difference for average velocity be- men than in women (5), which accounts
tween strong and weak men (effect size for the findings. I think this contributes
= 0.18) at 1RM. Table 2 shows the aver- quite a bit to the findings. However, the
age concentric velocities for both “strong” men in this study has a training age of
men and women and “weak” men and 6.2 years, and the women had a training
women at 1RM, along with the absolute age of 1.2 years, so it’s also likely that
and relative strength of all groups. the five-year difference in training age
and about 46kg difference in 1RM ac-
counted for the slower 1RM velocities
Interpretation in men versus women (Table 2). Further,
Before we interpret this data, I would in women, there was a large difference
recommend reading this article from in relative strength between strong and
Volume 2 Issue 1, in which we provid- weak women, which translated to slower
ed the basics of implementing veloci- velocities in strong women at 1RM. But
ty-based training. the difference in relative strength be-
tween strong men and weak men wasn’t
The steeper velocity curve for men very large; thus, it didn’t translate to a
(Figure 1) in this study shows that men difference in 1RM velocities. Therefore,
had faster velocities than women from when considering all factors in this study
30-50%; but at 60% and up, women were and previous data, it seems that relative
faster, including at 1RM (women = 0.21 strength and training experience and
m.s-1; men = 0.17 m.s-1). A straightfor- sex likely affect the load-velocity profile.

21
 Table 3 Average Velocity and RPE Relationships
Associated Associated
Intensity EB ACV (m·s-1) NB ACV (m·s-1)
Average RPE Average RPE

60% 0.61 ± 0.13 2.9 ± 0.6 0.56 ± 0.12 3.2 ± 1.2

75% 0.47 ± 0.10 4.6 ± 0.5 0.50 ± 0.11 5.1 ± 0.7

90% 0.29 ± 0.07 7.5 ± 0.6 0.32 ± 0.09 7.7 ± 0.8

100% 0.14 ± 0.06 9.9 ± 0.5 0.20 ± 0.05 9.4 ± 0.4

From Ormsbee et al. 2018

ACV = Average Concentric Velocity; RPE = Rating of perceived exertion; EB = Experienced benchers;
NB = Novice benchers
Intensities are expressed as percentages of one-repetition maximum

So, what data exist showing strength reported in Table 3.

and training experience contribute to Although this data set included only
load-velocity relationships? And what men (n=27), let’s use the experienced
exactly does this mean for load progres- benchers to represent men and the novice
sion across the intensity spectrum? to represent women because the veloci-
In support of my assertion and to help ties at 1RM match up pretty well with
answer the above questions, let’s turn to the present study (obviously, though,
recent data from Ormsbee et al (2018) these are just average numbers, and a
(2). Dr. Ormsbee and colleagues inves- fair amount of women are stronger than
tigated average velocity and associated men). From 60-100%, there is a decline
RIR-based RPE relationships between between 0.18-0.14 m.s-1 for every 15%
experienced and novice benchers at var- increment (about 20kg in Ormsbee’s ex-
ious intensities. They found that experi- perienced benchers), so let’s call it an av-
enced benchers (1RM = 133kg) had an erage decline of 0.16 m.s-1 for every 15%
average concentric velocity of 0.14 m.s-1 change in load. This would correspond to
at 1RM in the free-weight bench press, an average decline of 0.11 m.s-1 in load
and novice benchers (1RM = 89.5 kg) for every 10% change in load since 10%
had an average velocity at 1RM of 0.20 is two-thirds of 15% and 0.11 m.s-1 is
m.s-1. The data from Ormsbee et al are two-thirds of 0.16 m.s-1. For novices, it’s

22
 it seems an oversimplification to de-
termine that it’s the main factor at this
IF USING RPE AS A point. In general, a lower training age
and relative strength level should result
PROXY FOR VELOCITY, in faster (i.e. less efficient) average ve-
locities at 1RM, which has also been
IT’S PROBABLY BEST TO observed in the squat (3).

DO SO IN EXPERIENCED An additional reference point from

the Ormsbee study that can be extrapo-
LIFTERS. THAT GOES FOR lated to the present is the RPE-velocity
relationship. Using RPE as a proxy for
BOTH MEN AND WOMEN. velocity when velocity is unavailable to
an individual (as is common) was dis-
cussed in greater detail in Volume 1
Issue 2. In Table 3, the RPEs associ-
likely more difficult to make this calcu- ated with average velocity from Orms-
lation because average velocities are not bee are actually quite similar between
as reliable, especially at lower intensities. groups, with the only significant differ-
So, the above demonstrates the average ence in RPE between the experienced
decline in velocity, which can be expect- and novice being greater RPE in the
ed for the corresponding load increases experienced lifters at 1RM. This indi-
in the various populations in the bench cates that at a 1RM bench press, ex-
press. perienced lifters record more accurate
In the present study, Table 2 shows 1RMs or they are more efficient. Prac-
that women who have greater relative tically, you’ve probably witnessed this
strength have a slower average velocity if you’ve seen an inexperienced lifter
at 1RM than weaker women; however, smoke a weight and then go up 2.5-5
strong men and weak men show simi- kg and fail due to neural inefficiency.
lar velocities at 1RM (1). However, this Therefore, if using RPE as a proxy for
seems easy to explain, as there is a much velocity, it’s probably best to do so in
larger relative difference in strength be- experienced lifters. That goes for both
tween strong and weak women in the men and women.
present study than in men (1). Thus, We’ve speculated in this interpre-
the small difference in relative strength tation that training experience and
between men wasn’t enough to reveal strength account for the present differ-
a difference in 1RM velocity. In sum- ences, in addition to sex. Yet we must
mary, I do think sex plays a role, but think even further, as there are likely

23
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
1. In general, men have greater (faster) average velocities than women at low intensities,
while the opposite is true at higher intensities.
2. It’s possible that a greater proportion of type I muscle fibers in women than in men
explains the results.
3. However, this study and others also show that independent of an individual’s sex,
training experience and relative strength are related to slower velocities at very high
intensities (i.e. 100% of 1RM). So overall, as MASS has covered before, this article
further illustrates the point that load-velocity profiles are individual.

other factors as well. In the squat, fe-

mur length and height do not seem to
affect between-individual velocities at
similar relative intensities (6), nor does
femur length to height ratio (7). Thus,
as of now, my hypothesis regarding limb
lengths was incorrect (stupid science),
which means there must be other cur-
rently unknown factors that affect the
individual load-velocity relationship.

Next Steps
Obviously, we need to examine more
variables that may affect the individu-
al velocity profile. Furthermore, and as
with most topics, we need data estab-
lishing profiles across the intensity spec-
trum in the deadlift. Finally, we need to
establish what accounts for the differing
rates of velocity loss from the first to last
rep in a set. With velocity loss data, we
can individualize the amount of reps
programmed at similar relative intensi-
ties between individuals.

24
References
1. Torrejón A, Balsalobre-Fernández C, Haff GG, García-Ramos A. The load-velocity profile differs
more between men and women than between individuals with different strength levels. Sports bio-
mechanics. 2018 Mar 21:1-1.
2. Ormsbee MJ, Carzoli JP, Klemp A, Allman BR, Zourdos MC, Kim JS, Panton LB. Efficacy Of The
Repetitions In Reserve-Based Rating Of Perceived Exertion For The Bench Press In Experienced
And Novice Benchers. Journal of strength and conditioning research. 2017 Mar.
3. Zourdos MC, Klemp A, Dolan C, Quiles JM, Schau KA, Jo E, Helms E, Esgro B, Duncan S, Me-
rino SG, Blanco R. Novel resistance training–specific rating of perceived exertion scale measuring
repetitions in reserve. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2016 Jan 1;30(1):267-75.
4. García-Ramos A, Torrejón A, Feriche B, Morales-Artacho AJ, Pérez-Castilla A, Padial P, Haff GG.
Prediction of the maximum number of repetitions and repetitions in reserve from barbell velocity.
International journal of sports physiology and performance. 2017:1-23.
5. Staron RS, Hagerman FC, Hikida RS, Murray TF, Hostler DP, Crill MT, Ragg KE, Toma K. Fiber
type composition of the vastus lateralis muscle of young men and women. Journal of histochemistry
& cytochemistry. 2000 May;48(5):623-9.
6. Fahs CA, Rossow LM, Zourdos MC. An Analysis of Factors Related to Back Squat Concentric
Velocity. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2018 Apr 26.
7. Cooke DM. Relationship Between Anthropometric Measurements and Average Concentric Veloc-
ity in the Back Squat. Florida Atlantic University; 2017.

25
 Study Reviewed: Assessment of Nutrient Status in Athletes and the Need
for Supplementation. Larson-Meyer et al. (2018)

Comprehensive Nutritional
Assessments: Probably More
Than You Expected
BY E RI C HE LMS

Athletes often manipulate their diets and take supplements, believing

they know what they are doing. But could this be a case of Dunning-
Kruger? This article covers what is really involved in the process of
nutritional assessment, and you might be surprised at just how much
needs to be taken into consideration.

26
 KEY POINTS
1. A comprehensive and individualized nutritional exam can help an athlete develop
specific strategies to improve performance. Such an assessment includes
anthropometric, biochemical, clinical, dietary, and environmental components.
2. Certain aspects of a complete assessment require specific knowledge, experience,
and expertise to perform. For example, drug/supplement/food interactions are
more common than you might expect, many common biomarkers used to assess
nutritional deficiency can be impacted by factors outside of nutrition you likely
aren’t aware of, and there are many cultural, religious, and socioeconomic factors
that a practitioner needs to take into account before giving nutritional advice.
3. Other aspects of a nutritional assessment such as food records and anthropometric
assessments might be familiar to educated trainers, nutritional consultants,
coaches, and athletes; however, there are important nuances to each.

O
ver the course of my career, I’ve doctors and dietitians; and yes, the ad-
seen many practitioners assess vice as a result of these assessments is
the nutrition of their clients always to follow a fat loss diet and buy
through various methods, to varying de- a bunch of supplements.) In this article,
grees of effectiveness, both within and however (1), the authors cover the full
far outside their scope of practice. On gambit of a nutritional assessment based
one end of the spectrum, I’ve worked on current scientific knowledge from A
with registered dietitians in a research to Z. Well, actually, from A to E, as they
setting, and we have a dietitian on staff at review the five stages of a comprehensive
3DMJ who helped us develop our intake nutritional assessment: Anthropometric,
forms and goes over each application Biochemical, Clinical, Dietary, and En-
we get. On the other end of the spec- vironmental.
trum, there are popular personal training
courses that after three days of training,
tell you that not only can you assess the Purpose and Methods
status of a myriad of hormones in a cli- This review serves the specific purpose
ent with skinfold calipers alone, but that of providing guidelines and references
based on this skinfold-derived hormon- for sports dietitians based on current
al information, you can provide specific science for field use. As such, it doesn’t
nutritional advice and supplement rec- fall under the typical review categories
ommendations. (Yes, it’s complete BS; (narrative, systematic, meta-analytic)
yes, that is scope of practice restricted to and the literature searched, reviewed,

27
 covered because it was really, really com-
prehensive (however, the title is a bit de-
IF YOU SIMPLY USE THE SUM ceptive; there is actually very little data
OF SKINFOLDS ALONE, IT IS on supplementation). The outcome of a
nutritional assessment in terms of what
ACTUALLY HIGHLY RELIABLE strategies an athlete comes away with
can be contained in a relatively straight-
WHEN ASSESSED BY A forward list:
1) Eating a diet with sufficient energy
TRAINED ANTHROPOMETRIST. that also meets the macro- and micro-
A SKILLED ASSESSOR SHOULD nutrient requirements of training and
competition.
HAVE AN ERROR RATE OF 2) Achieving optimal body mass and
composition for their sport and current
LESS THAN 5% ON EACH phase of training.
SKINFOLD MEASUREMENT. 3) Adopting specific nutritional strate-
gies before, during, and after training to
optimize performance.
4) Taking supplements that can’t be
and included was dictated by the goal
obtained (or can’t be practically ob-
of providing an up-to-date scientific
tained) through diet planning to aid in
perspective on each stage of nutritional
strategies 1-3.
assessment: Anthropometric, Biochem-
ical, Clinical, Dietary, and Environmen- However, the process of obtaining
tal. the necessary, accurate, and individual-
ized information to inform the specif-
ics of these strategies is laborious and
Findings and requires both knowledge and skill. For
perspective, this publication has eight
Interpretation text-based tables, one of which is four
Based on the format of this article, it and a half pages long, and three that are
only makes sense to discuss the “find- between one and half to two and half
ings” and their interpretation in aggre- pages long. Any one of the sections in
gate, as there were no findings per se, but this paper could serve as the basis for
rather just a lot of really useful informa- a multi-part written concept review
tion. I think it’s also necessary for me to or video series, so instead of trying to
explain how much ground this article pack everything into my review, I’m go-

28
 Table 1 Advantages and Limitations of Common Anthropometry Techniques
Method Advantages Limitations

• Assumes density of fat-free tissue = 1.1 g/cm3, may

• Previously considered “Gold not be valid across all sports and ethnicities, may
Underwater Weighing:
Standard” change with training and aging, resulting in errors
Determines body composition by
• Large body of data collected • Lung volume estimate required
water displacement in a specific
in athletes for reference • Expertise required, time consuming, impacted by
tank using Archimedes’ principle.
athlete comfort in water
• Limited data across ethnicities and in strength athletes
• Many of the above issues.
• Requires temperature and moisture controlled room,
Bod Pod: Similar to underwater
• Quicker and easier than swimwear and swim cap
weighing except measures body
underwater weighing • Moisture on body or swim wear induces large errors
composition via air displacement.
• Compared to underwater weighing under or over
estimates body fat depending on athlete population
• No more than 4 scans/year recommended due to
cumulative radiation exposure
• Fast (5–15 min) • Calibration algorithms are unpublished, differ between
DXA: X-rays at two different • Good reliability at group level manufacturers, and not developed on athletes
photon energies scan body; • Provides total and regional • Not reliable enough to detect small individual changes
differentiates bone, fat, and fat- data on bone and lean tissue over time
free mass as each differentiates • Nonintrusive • Greater errors among lean or very small or large athletes
photons uniquely. • Minimally affected by • Taller (>1.9m) athletes may not fit scanner
hydration • Standardization of food, beverage, supplement (i.e.,
calcium), stomach contents (meal time), proximity to
exercise, clothing, and position on scanner needed
Bioelectrical Impedance:
Estimates body composition via
• One of the least accurate methods, unreliable when
resistance to electric current using
• Nonintrusive, fast, no technical measuring individual changes over time
assumptions of hydration in lean
skill needed • Sensitive to changes in hydration, impacted by
and fat mass, in conjunction with
proximity to training, alcohol and food consumption
equations using height, mass,
sex, and often activity levels.
Skinfold Thickness: Calipers • Low cost, portable, raw • Intrusive, not suitable for those with obesity, requires
or sometimes a handheld skinfolds reliable if assessed training for expertise
ultrasound device is used to by trained technician • Skinfold values not as intuitive for athletes as body fat
measure skinfold thicknesses • Sum of skinfolds can be percentage values
at standardized sites. Used in compared with standards by • Equations for skinfold body fat assessment have low
isolation as raw values, or in sport or monitored over time accuracy, and many are available all with different
equations with other measured due to high retest reliability on levels of accuracy, and most are population-specific
anthropometric variables. individuals • Measures subcutaneous fat only

ing to take a section-by-section “high- a necessary part of a nutrition evaluation

light-reel” approach and also cover any for a number of reasons. For one, it can
particular concepts that are relevant to help the practitioner determine wheth-
the MASS audience. By the way, I high- er or not there is potential to improve
ly recommend the full text of this article, the strength-to-weight ratio of an ath-
as some of the tables are amazing refer- lete by loss of body fat, and also to assess
ence material. if an intervention has been successful in
the goal of body recomposition. How-
Anthropometric ever, there are a number of consider-
Assessing body fat is often considered ations that make anthropometry limited
in its utility in the grand scheme of an

29
assessment. For one, many of the “gold ity and reliability all depends on what you
standard” methods of body composition do with the skinfold assessment data. If
analysis such as DXA and, previously, you were to take the skinfold thickness
underwater weighing have substantial values and plug them into an equation
enough error rates that they lose utility with other anthropometric values to es-
at the individual level (Table 1). When timate body fat percentage, you’re look-
properly done, a DXA assessment can’t ing at hugely variable and largely useless
typically get below a ±2% error rate for information. For example, I have un-
repeated body fat percentage assessment published data from a study I conducted
within the same individual (2). Thus, a on 13 male lifters (4), and plugging the
measurement of 10% body fat is actual- same baseline skinfold values of those
ly a measurement of 8-12% body fat … lifters into three different equations re-
and that’s the best-case scenario when sults in an average body fat percentage
the test is conducted by an experienced of either ~10, ~15, or ~20%. However,
lab technician using research-grade if you simply use the sum of skinfolds
equipment, standardized protocols, and alone, it is actually highly reliable when
the person being assessed doing every- assessed by a trained anthropometrist. A
thing in their power to replicate pre- skilled assessor should have an error rate
vious testing conditions. Meaning, an of less than 5% on each skinfold mea-
athlete who solicits an assessment from surement (5). That means that if your
a tester with limited experience us- sum of six skinfolds was 80 mm, if you
ing commercial grade equipment, who were immediately reassessed by that
doesn’t ensure that subsequent tests are same assessor, the second sum would be
performed at the same time of day, in a within 76-84 mm. This level of reliability
similar proximity to training (of a simi- allows an athlete to be assessed semi-fre-
lar volume and intensity), under similar quently (say, monthly) to see if skinfolds
dietary conditions, with a similar hydra- changed more than 5% (or less, in the
tion status, and at a similar phase of the case of highly skilled assessors), which
menstrual cycle for females, could easily would indicate a true change. Unfortu-
be looking at a ±10% variation (3). nately, athletes often don’t like this data
Interestingly enough, one of the most because they can’t conceptualize what a
reliable forms of body fat assessment is sum of skinfolds means in the same way
skinfold analysis by a trained anthropo- they can a body-fat percentage, and it
metrist. While you often hear that skin- makes it harder to compare themselves
fold analysis is one of the least reliable to an actual or imagined norm. However,
forms of body fat assessment, this is only a body-fat percentage is largely useless
partially true. Skinfold assessment valid- information anyway from the perspec-
tive of it being a useful metric to track

30
for an athlete. If you care about how you
look, or if you are a competitive body-
builder, you aren’t going for a number; A LIFTER HAS TO FIND THE
you’re going for a look. Likewise, if you ANSWER TO THE FOLLOWING
are a performance athlete, you should
focus on determining the “sweet spot” in QUESTIONS TO DETERMINE WHERE
terms of body fatness that allows you to THEIR INDIVIDUAL SWEET SPOT
be sustainably (key point) at your best
both mentally and physically, as this will IS IN TERMS OF LEANNESS: AT
result in the best long-term (another key WHAT BODY-FAT LEVEL CAN I
point) performance outcomes. To know
this, you need reliable data to correlate EAT ENOUGH TO SUPPORT MY
to your best performances over time, and
raw sum of skinfold values are by far the
TRAINING, GAIN MUSCLE TO
most reliable. (If you’re interested, seek SUPPORT LONG-TERM STRENGTH
out someone accredited by ISAK: The
International Society for the Advance-
GAIN, REDUCE MY RISK OF INJURY,
ment of Kinanthropometry.) OPTIMIZE SLEEP AND RECOVERY,
However, even with reliable infor- AND LOWER MY STRESS LEVELS
mation, there is the question of what it
means and what you should do with it. BY NOT BEING FOOD-FOCUSED
Sure, if you can get a sprinter leaner, that AND MICROMANAGING MY DIET?
will often reliably result in faster times
because they weigh less … so long as
they aren’t so lean that health, sanity, re-
covery, training, and subsequently long- though Wilks has its issues), and only
term performance aren’t hampered. It is 80% of the muscle mass of heavyweights.
even less clear cut in strength sport. In a The heavyweights also had significantly
2007 study by Keogh and colleagues (6), larger bone breadths than the middle-
they found that when breaking power- weights, in most cases. Nonetheless, if it
lifters into light (75kg class and below), was as simple as maximizing strength-
middle (82.5kg, 90kg, and 100kg class- to-weight ratio, you would just get as
es) and heavy (110kg class and above) lean as you could possibly be to deter-
weight classifications, the middleweights mine what weight class you should com-
were the same height on average as the pete in. As a result, you’d think the top
heavyweights, but on average had half as five at worlds in each weight class (except
much body fat, a lower Wilks score (al- for the super heavyweights) would all be
shredded, and the top lifters in each class

31
would differ only by height and skele- blood work. For the most part, tests fall
tal frame size. At least at this stage, that under the category of static or function-
doesn’t appear to be the case. Now, this al. Static tests measure the concentra-
could change over time as powerlifting tion of a nutrient or its metabolites in a
becomes more developed (considering body fluid. By nature, these assessments
most non-super heavyweight top Olym- are typically acute and act as a snapshot
pic lifters are pretty lean and at the top of your nutrient status, so they are limit-
of their weight class), as average skinfold ed in their ability to tell you much if you
sums tend to scale upward with weight don’t have a consistent diet. Additional-
class (7). In truth, it comes down to a ly, many of the tests can be affected by
multitude of factors beyond any simple hydration status or proximity to exercise.
assessment of anthropometry. A lifter For example, the authors point out that
has to find the answer to the following ferritin (a common biomarker used to
questions to determine where their indi- assess iron status) may be raised in re-
vidual sweet spot is in terms of leanness: sponse to a strenuous exercise session,
at what body-fat level can I eat enough and zinc is preferentially stored in mus-
to support my training, gain muscle to cle after exercise training, subsequently
support long-term strength gain, reduce lowering serum levels.
my risk of injury, optimize sleep and re- Functional tests, on the other hand,
covery, and lower my stress levels by not measure the physiological outcome of a
being food-focused and micromanaging nutrient deficiency (or excess consump-
my diet? Ultimately, in my experience, tion of a nutrient). Functional tests un-
the weight at which a lifter will be the fortunately don’t serve as “early warning
strongest in the real world is much more systems,” as they only show up once an is-
dependent on the answers to these ques- sue is already physiologically detectable.
tions than by a simple assessment of an- Also, some deficiencies aren’t caused by
thropometry. a lack of a specific nutrient in the diet,
but rather by a pathophysiological con-
Biochemical dition in the body that could alter the
While assessing dietary logs or doing body’s ability to uptake a nutrient. Fur-
a dietary recall can give indications as to thermore, because many nutrients inter-
whether or not there are “holes” in your act with one another in the body, certain
nutrition, the only way to truly know for tests aren’t able to distinguish the cause
sure is to actually measure biomarkers of a deficiency. For example, the authors
that indicate if a nutrient is lacking in note that plasma homocysteine can in-
the body (or is being consumed in ex- dicate folate status but is also influenced
cess). Typically, this is done through by vitamin B6 and B12 consumption.

32
 Table 2
Biochemical Marker and Direction
Stage General Description
of Change with Deficiency*
Progressive reduction in hepatic iron
I. Iron Depletion Ferritin
storage
Ferritin
Transferrin saturation
II. Iron-deficient Iron stores exhausted; iron supply
Serum iron
erythropoiesis to RBC progressively reduced
Soluble transferrin receptor
ZnPP concentration
Ferritin
Complete exhaustion of iron stores,
III. Iron-deficiency anemia declining circulating iron, frank HGB
HCT
microcytic, hypochromic anemia
MCV

ZnPP = zinc protoporphyrin; HGB = hemoglobin; HCT = hematocrit; MCV = mean corpuscular
* Refers to clinic / laboratory specific reference ranges. Combined Sources: Gibson, 2005; Lee & Nieman, 2013;
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1998; Zoller & Vogel, 2004.

Therefore, even if you do go to the trou- of certain test results, it is best done in
ble of getting comprehensive blood conjunction with a dietary and clinical
work done, without the knowledge of a assessment.
trained professional, you won’t be able to
discern whether certain biomarkers that Clinical
could indicate a nutrient deficiency (or A clinical exam for the purpose of nu-
excess) are caused by a pathophysiologi- tritional assessment is done by either a
cal condition, proximity to exercise, how dietitian or a physician (ideally a dieti-
much water you drank that day, a medi- tian or physician with experience and
cation you are taking, a medication/sup- training in sports nutrition). It involves
plement/food interaction, or – in some 1) obtaining personal medical history
cases – which specific nutrient is causing and a physical examination as it relates
the abnormal test outcome. to one’s diet and 2) the interpretation of
As an example of the complexity of this information. It might involve inter-
some of these biomarkers, Table 2 dis- viewing techniques to assess the presence
plays the various stages of iron deficiency of an eating disorder, questions related
and the various biomarkers used to as- to any unexplained changes in function,
sess these levels. Overall, a biochemical feeling or appearance, family medical
assessment of nutrient status can be very history, previous and current medical
useful, but to overcome the stated lim- conditions and medications to assess the
itations and to elucidate the outcomes possibility of medication/food/supple-

33
 Table 3
Other Possible
Body System Expected Outcome Signs of Malnutrition
Non-nutritional Causes

Easily pluckable (PEM), sparse hair (protein, biotin,

zinc), transverse depigmentation of hair (cyclic PEM, Excess bleaching, coloring;
Scalp hair Shiny, firm in scalp
rare), corkscrew hairs (copper, vitamin C), dry, coarse, chemotherapy or radiation therapy
receding hairline (iodine)

Bright, clear conjunctive

Pallor (pale color) of conjunctiva (iron); spots, dryness,
Eyes covering white sclera, eyes Allergies, non-nutritional anemia
night blindness (vitamin A)
adjust easily to light
Dry, cracked or with sores in corners (e.g., angular Sunburn, windburn, lip licking,
Lips Smooth, pinkish
cheilosis) (B vitamins) excessive salivation

Pinkish-red tongue (without Glossitis, general (folate, B6), scarlet, raw or “beefy”
swelling), sense of taste, tongue (riboflavin, niacin, B6, folate, vitamin B12);
gums without bleeding, slick tongue/atrophic lingual papillae (riboflavin, Certain medication side effects, poor
Mouth
swelling or pain, teeth with niacin, folate, vitamin B12), protein, iron, lack of dental hygiene, periodontal disease
normal enamel and without taste (zinc), bleeding, retracted gums (vitamin C),
spotting white spots or mottling of teeth (excess fluoride)

No enlargements of parotid Thyroid nodule or enlarged thyroid (iodine, Goiter from non-nutritional cause;
Neck
or thyroid glands selenium), enlarged parotid (PEM, bulimia) mumps, stones, tumors

Pallor of nail beds, spoon-shaped nails (iron, Exposure of nails to damaging

Nails Smooth, firm, pinkish color
possibly B12, folate), transverse ridging (PEM) chemicals

Reduced skin turgor (dehydration, inadequate fluid

intake), dry rough, (iodine) with lack of fat under skin
(essential fatty acids, PEM, B vitamins), scaling
(essential fatty acids, vitamin A, zinc), pigmentation,
desquamation of sun-exposed areas (niacin), skin Non-nutritional dermatitis or skin rash,
Skin Smooth, firm, good color rash (niacin, B6), dermatitis, general (B vitamins), poor skin care, diabetes mellitus,
follicular hyperkeratosis (vitamins A and C), medication side effects, aging
perifollicular petechiae (vitamin C), easy bruising/
purpura (vitamin C and K), cellophane appearance
(PEM), poor healing of cuts and wounds (PEM,
vitamin C, zinc), skin peeling (excess vitamin A)

Unexplained joint pain, bending of ribs, epiphyseal

Bones and Joints Normal anatomy
swelling, bow legs (vitamin D)

Unexplained muscle pain (vitamin D), unexplained

weakness (PEM, magnesium, phosphorus, vitamin
D), undue pain with sternal or tibial pressure (vitamin
Normal musculature with D), muscle cramping, tetany (magnesium, calcium),
Neuromuscular no pain or neuromuscular myopathy (vitamin E), peripheral neuropathy (e.g., Injury, neuromuscular disorders
dysfunction weakness, paresthesia, ataxia), decreased tendon
reflexes, fine tactile, vibratory and position sense
thiamine, B12, excess or insufficient pyridoxine,
vitamin E), spinocerebellar ataxia (vitamin E)

Headache (vitamin A excess, dehydration), dementia

(niacin, vitamin B12), peripheral, vibratory sense and
Non-nutritional neurological
Neurological Normal position sense (thiamine, B12, excess or insufficient
conditions, aging
pyridoxine, vitamin E); general neurological
dysfunction (vitamin E)

Note: Table outlines common signs and symptoms of malnutrition. Unless otherwise specified, nutrient(s) provided in parenthesis is most probably
cause of marginal intake/nutrient deficiency.
PEM = protein energy malnutrition.

ment interactions, and an actual phys- physical exam can only tell you so much.
ical exam of various body systems that Especially among athletes, nutritional
can show signs or symptoms of nutrient deficiencies are very rare, and sub-clin-
deficiency (Table 3). ical deficiencies that might affect per-
Much like a biomarker assessment, a formance, but not overt health, can’t be

34
picked up in a clinical exam. Howev-
er, an exam can go a long way in help-
ing to interpret the outcomes of other WITHOUT INTENTIONAL AND
tests. Specifically, an exam that reveals
which medications (prescribed or over INDIVIDUALIZED MENTORSHIP
the counter) or supplements an athlete
is taking can help to explain ambiguous ON THE PART OF THE
biochemical test outcomes. The authors
point out many common medication
PRACTITIONER, A CLIENT NEW
and food interactions: coffee can de-
crease the absorption of certain thyroid
TO NUTRITIONAL TRACKING
medications, pepper can increase the
potency of certain antihistamines, some
IS BOUND TO MAKE ERRORS,
oral contraceptives can mildly impair fo- FEEL OVERWHELMED, AND
late metabolism, and calcium and some
antibiotics interact in such a way such PERHAPS GIVE UP AND
that absorption of both is impaired (this
is only an abbreviated list). RESORT TO A FAD DIET.
Dietary
The actual dietary assessment com- and post-testing. Other retrospective
prises the meat and potatoes (pun in- analyses such as food frequency ques-
tended) of a nutritional assessment. In a tionnaires are useful for assessing more
research setting, 24-hour food recalls are global dietary habits of individuals or
commonly used because they are done groups and can be indicative of wheth-
in a relatively short period of time, are er certain classes of foods are lacking in
“guaranteed” so long as the participant a diet. Questionnaires only require the
shows up at the lab, and – while prob- completion of a validated electronic or
lematic at the individual level (they rely paper copy of the assessment but are
on memory and ability to guesstimate imperfect, as they rely on memory and
portion sizes) – can be used to more or can’t ascertain quantitative values such
less accurately represent the nutritional as habitual energy or macronutrient in-
status of a group. They can also be used takes. The only retrospective analysis
as a reminder to participants in studies of that can provide a relatively complete
what they ate at a given point in time to picture of a person’s habitual nutrition is
help them replicate a specific day’s food a diet history interview. However, this is
intake for standardization of diet at pre- a lengthy process, requires specific and

35
comprehensive training to conduct, of- Table 4 Number of Days of Diet Records Needed
ten requires visual aids to help the ath- to Determine Average Intake in Individuals
lete report portion sizes, is still victim Nutrient Men Women

to misreporting due to embarrassment, Energy 27 35

social pressure, or faulty memory, and
Protein 23 23
requires subsequent analysis of the in-
Carbohydrate 37 41
terview on the part of the assessor to
determine habitual quantitative nutrient Fiber (crude) 82 86

values (macronutrients and energy in- Fat 57 71

take). Saturated Fat 71 87

For the most part, a prospective anal- Oleic Acid 68 85

ysis of diet (i.e. instructing an athlete to Linoleic Acid 145 166

record their nutritional habits and report Cholesterol 139 200

back) is the go-to method used by prac- Vitamin A 390 474

titioners to assess an athlete's diet (espe- Thiamine 138 198

cially in the case of ongoing nutritional 57 90
consulting), as it avoids many of the pit-
53 78
falls of retrospective analyses (Table 4).
Teaching an athlete to use food-track- Vitamin C 249 222

ing software (like MyFitnessPal, for ex- Calcium 74 88

ample), how to use a digital food scale, Iron 68 66

what to look for on a nutrition label to Phosphorus 32 41

ensure a database entry’s accuracy, how Potassium 34 48

to estimate nutrient values when eating Sodium 58 73

out, what needs to be counted, what state Fiber 82 86
to weigh food in, and other “tricks of
the trade” are the bread and butter (pun Note: Estimates with intake data from the 1-year dietary intake study by
the USDA’s Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center in nonathletic

also intended) of what most nutritional men and women.

practitioners do with clients. However,

this shifts the onus and required moti-
vation largely onto the client, which can and individualized mentorship on the
be a barrier for clients who are time-re- part of the practitioner, a client new to
stricted, uneducated with regards to nu- nutritional tracking is bound to make
trition, aren’t used to preparing food, errors, feel overwhelmed, and perhaps
or who might not have the computer give up and resort to a fad diet or less
literacy to use common tracking data- complicated (but often more restrictive)
bases. Additionally, without intentional approach such as cutting out all carbs,

36
 Table 5 Advantages and Disadvantages of Diet Assessment Methods
Method Advantages Disadvantages and Potential Errors

Diet Recall (24-hr recall): Interviewer

helps athlete recall consumption of food, • Provides reasonably accurate data about • A single 24-hr recall does not reflect usual intake
beverages, and condiments over the previous the preceding day’s intake • Relies on athlete’s memory/ability to recall
day or 24 hr (or longer), and assists athletes in • Does not alter usual intake • Tendency for underreporting of energy compared with
determining portion sizes for items consumed. • Relatively quick (~15–30 min) and easy to direct measurement by doubly-labeled water
Interviewer typically begins either with first administer • Omission of dressings, sauces, beverages and snacks
thing consumed upon waking the previous • Relatively inexpensive common; contributes to underreporting
day or at the point exactly 24 hr prior and • Low respondent burden • Food coding and analysis using nutrient analysis software
working forward. Asking about activities • More objective than diet history is time-consuming and introduces additional error
during the day helps recall intake.
Food Frequency Questionnaire: Process
• Relies on memory/ability to recall
asks athletes to identify how often they eat
• May not represent usual foods or portion sizes consumed
a specific list of individual foods/beverages
• May be more representative of usual by athletes
(or food categories) with frequency typically
intake than a few days of collected data • Intake data compromised when multiple foods are
recorded in times per day, week, month, or
• Cost-effective for analysis of large groups grouped within single listings
year. Qualitative FFQs ask respondents to
of athletes • Tendency for progression to mean (overestimates intake
describe the size of usual servings relative
• Can be self-administered via paper or in low-energy consumers and underestimates intake in
to typical servings; semi-qualitative states
electronically; electronic questionnaires higher intake consumers), but underestimation of energy
standard servings and nonqualitative does
save time and resources also reported
not address portion sizes. FFQs can be
• Modest demand on respondent • A FFQ developed in male athletes predicted intake of
implemented by a trained interviewer or self-
group but not individuals
administered by the athlete, using paper or
• Does not collect information on meal or eating patterns
electronic questionnaire.
• Useful for gaining insight into usual intake
• Interview is lengthy (up to an hour); highly-trained
and pattern of meals, snacks, intake
interviewer required
Diet History: Trained interviewer asks athlete around training sessions/events, and
• Difficult to code for analysis, given that “typical” intake
details of typical diet, including information dietary supplement use
may include several examples of meals
on meals consumed, appetite, dislikes, • Can detect seasonal intake differences
• Errors in food coding and nutrient analysis (as noted
presence of gastrointestinal problems, dietary • Often correlates well with biochemical
above)
supplement use, lifestyle habits, sleep, rest, measures
• Tendency to overestimate nutrient intake but
work, exercise, etc., then follows with a • Less dependent on memory. Most people
underestimation also observed
“typical day” recall. can recall what they typically eat better
• Requires cooperative respondents with ability to recall
than exactly what they ate during a
specific period of time usual diet and habits

• High subject burden

• Results depend on athlete’s cooperation, attention to
detail, and ability/desire to record foods at the time of
consumption
• Act of recording may alter diet toward progression of
perceived better eating patterns
Food Records (food diaries): Athlete • Not dependent on memory • Weighed food record more accurate than estimated ones
records all food and beverages consumed • Can provide detailed intake data and in nonathletes; this may be different in athletes. Weighing
for the desired period with details provided quantitative information about eating of individual food items at time of consumption may not
on specific brands, cooking methods, etc. habits, particularly with weighed records be convenient for athletes consuming food before, during
Food/beverage consumption quantified using • Intake of multiple days more or after practice or “on the move”
standard household measures or by weighing representative of usual intake • Under-recording error (unintentional or intentional) is high
all consumed items on a food scale, providing • Reasonably valid depending on physical and may account for ~10–45% of total energy expenditure
information from a food label. and psychological profiles of athlete when compared to doubly labeled water; magnitude of
error of underrecording higher with higher energy intakes
• Under-recording error, however, is highly variable; some
athletes underreport while others may overreport. This
precludes general adjustments of intake
• Food coding and analysis using nutrient analysis software
extremely time consuming

consuming only protein-based foods, or much shorter in athletes accustomed to

drastically reducing portion sizes across tracking and with relatively consistent
the board. To give you some perspective, dietary habits.
it can take months to determine accurate Despite these potential issues, track-
averages of nutrient intakes in non-ath- ing is by far the best way to go about
letes (Table 5). In my personal experi- assessing your diet. You can determine
ence, though, this can be reduced drasti- your energy requirements and assess if
cally with appropriate mentorship and is your habitual macronutrient intakes are

37
 Table 6 Overview of Stages of Change Associated Approaches
Stage Brief Description Strategy

Athlete not even considering change or in

denial; does not believe issue applies to him Educate on risks vesus benefits and positive outcomes
Precontemplation
her; believes consequences are not important related to change
or serious
Athlete ambivalent about change; athlete
weighs costs versus benefits of change and Help athlete identify barriers and support systems and
Contemplation
barriers to change (time, extra work, giving address concerns and misconceptions
up favorite foods, etc.)
Athlete prepares to experiment with small Work with athlete to develop realistic goals and timeline for
Preparation
changes change, provide positive reinforcement

Action Athlete takes definitive action to change Provide positive reinforcement and specific ideas/strategies

Athlete strives to maintain new behavior over Provide encouragement and support and specific ideas/
Maintenance and Relapse Prevention strategies as needed
time

in appropriate ranges for your sport. other lifestyle and social factors can have
Additionally, the process itself tends to large impacts on nutrition. Ascertaining
positively impact your diet by making information about the financial means,
you more mindful and embedding ac- living arrangements, cooking skills,
countability (who wants to report the transportation, education, culture, social
donuts they ate at work?). When stalls support system, religious practices, and
in weight gain or weight loss occur, you personal belief systems should impact
also have the quantitative data that can the nutritional guidance provided to an
provide clues as to why. However, prac- athlete. Without giving consideration
titioners should not underestimate just to the fact that an athlete regularly pre-
how much of a barrier this process can pares meals for their family, you may be
be to the uninitiated. Despite the praise inadvertently asking them to eat sep-
given to “flexible dieting” in many cir- arately or change the eating habits of
cles for being as simple as tracking your the entire family, which can cause ten-
calories and/or macros and being able to sion. Likewise, an athlete who doesn’t
eat whatever you want, it requires a sig- cook for themselves might not want to
nificant learning period and basic nutri- impose on their partner or parent who
tion knowledge to implement. It should cooks for them, which can cause tension.
be introduced in a stepwise manner spe- Or, if they are single and were reliant on
cific to the “level” of the client (see my take-out and restaurants, they might not
videos on flexible dieting: part 1, part 2). be prepared for grocery shopping and
cooking. Regional differences can also
Environmental cause issues. An online coach from the
As touched upon in the previous sec- US might not even think about certain
tion, “environmental” variables such as foods simply not being available in for-
education, socioeconomic status, and eign countries. For example, in a smaller

38
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
A truly comprehensive and individualized nutritional assessment requires more than
simply asking “what are your current macros” and looking at someone’s selfie. While
I’m not expecting every coach out there to start asking their clients to get a full blood
panel, a clinical exam, and a skinfold assessment from a university researcher, coaches
should at least be aware of just how many things can impact nutrition. Thus, they can
include certain elements in their intake processes, be more aware of factors within
their scope of practice, and know when to refer out when something outside of their
scope of practice is required.

country where foods have to be import- should be consumed (which is outside

ed, out-of-season fruits or vegetables of the scope of practice of a trainer or
may be prohibitively expensive or sim- coach). However, a practitioner should
ply unavailable. Likewise, there are reli- still collect this data to help a client pre-
gious or ethical beliefs that can impact emptively troubleshoot any issues they
dietary choices, including not eating might end up dealing with due to these
meat and dairy in the same meal ( Jew- environmental factors.
ish Orthodox), not eating pork ( Jewish Another “environmental factor” cov-
Orthodox, Hindu, Buddhist), avoiding ered by the authors is the “stage of
caffeine (Muslims, Mormons, and Sev- change” a client is in, based on the
enth Day Adventists), following plant- Transtheoretical Model of Change (8).
based diets (Buddhists, Hindu, Seventh While this is a less common issue in the
Day Adventists, vegans, vegetarians, an- case of coaching bodybuilders, as they
imal rights activists), eating in modera- are often well-aware of the necessity of
tion (Buddhists, Muslims), or extended manipulating their nutrition and typ-
periods of fasting (Muslims). Yes, many ically in the latter stages of motivation
of these restrictions can be avoided by when coming to a coach to help them
providing nutrient-based guidelines prepare for a competition, keep in mind
(calories and macronutrient targets) and that some athletes seek nutritional ad-
global food recommendations (eat x vice before they are truly ready to make
number of fruits and vegetables per day, changes. Often, this occurs simply be-
ensure your urine is clear, distribute your cause these athletes know nutrition is
protein evenly between meals, consume something they should pay attention
carbs and protein before and after train- to, but they don’t really know what they
ing, etc.) versus recommending meal are getting themselves into. In an initial
plans with specific foods and times they consultation, it’s important to identify

39
what stage of change an athlete is in and
what strategy you should subsequently
adopt (Table 6).

Next Steps
While there aren’t really “next steps,”
as this isn’t a typical review or study, I
would love to see a study that examines
exactly what typical “nutrition coaches”
include in their assessments and how it
stacks up to comprehensive nutrition as-
sessment to see what blind spots most
commonly emerge.

40
References
1. Larson-Meyer, D.E., K. Woolf, and L. Burke, Assessment of Nutrient Status in Athletes and the
Need for Supplementation. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab, 2018. 28(2): p. 139-158.
2. Hind, K., et al., Interpretation of Dual Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry-Derived Body Composition
Change in Athletes: a Review and Recommendations for Best Practice. 2018.
3. Clasey, J.L., et al., Validity of methods of body composition assessment in young and older men and
women. Journal of Applied Physiology, 1999. 86(5): p. 1728-1738.
4. Helms, E.R., et al., High-protein, low-fat, short-term diet results in less stress and fatigue than mod-
erate-protein moderate-fat diet during weight loss in male weightlifters: a pilot study. Int J Sport
Nutr Exerc Metab, 2015. 25(2): p. 163-70.
5. Perini, T.A., et al., Technical error of measurement in anthropometry. Revista Brasileira de Medicina
do Esporte, 2005. 11(1): p. 81-85.
6. Keogh, J.W., et al., Anthropometric dimensions of male powerlifters of varying body mass. J Sports
Sci, 2007. 25(12): p. 1365-76.
7. Lovera, M. and J. Keogh, Anthropometric profile of powerlifters: differences as a function of body-
weight class and competitive success. J Sports Med Phys Fitness, 2015. 55(5): p. 478-87.
8. Zimmerman, G.L., C.G.Olsen, and M.F. Bosworth, A ‘Stages of Change’ Approach to Helping
Patients Change Behavior. American Family Physician, 2000. 61(5): p. 1409-16.

41
 Study Reviewed: Are the Hypertrophic Adaptations to High and Low-Load
Resistance Training Muscle Fiber Type Specific? Grgic and Schoenfeld. (2018)

Fiber Type-Specific Hypertrophy?

Evidence Is Still Lacking
BY G RE G NUC KO LS

People claim that heavy training will cause more type II muscle fiber
growth and that lighter training will cause more type I muscle fiber
growth. However, the scientific evidence doesn’t support that claim yet.

42
 KEY POINTS
1. We don’t yet have sufficient evidence to claim fiber type-specific hypertrophy
with high-load versus low-load training.
2. If fiber type-specific adaptations occur, their relevance would be limited.
3. People for whom fiber type-specific adaptations would matter include power
athletes and advanced bodybuilders trying to eek out a tiny marginal advantage.

O
ne of the first things you learn idence that low-load training is better
about muscle physiology is for type I fiber growth and that high-
that humans have two basic load training is better for type II fiber
types of muscle fibers. Type I fibers are growth, but the overall picture is very
generally smaller and more fatigue-re- hazy. Before being confident in fiber
sistant, while type II fibers are gener- type-specific hypertrophy, I’d need to
ally larger, take a greater stimulus to see considerably more research. How-
recruit, and have higher power output. ever, this article will also discuss the
It’s been proposed (2) that type II fi- implications if fiber type-specific hy-
bers will grow more with high-load pertrophy turns out to exist.
resistance training and that type I fi-
bers will grow more with low-load re-
sistance training. This is based on the Purpose and Research
assumption that higher loads are re-
quired to recruit type II fibers early in
Questions
a set, and the type I fibers need to be This was a narrative review, so there
under load longer in order to accumu- wasn’t a research question per se. Rath-
late enough fatigue. er, the purpose of this review was to
summarize the literature examining
Most studies measuring hypertrophy
whether fiber type-specific hypertro-
either assess lean mass or whole-mus-
phy was influenced by loading zones.
cle size, but a few studies have assessed
Does heavy training lead to more type
the growth of individual fiber types
II fiber growth, and does lighter, high-
after high-load and low-load training.
rep training lead to more type I fiber
Those studies – and the topic of fiber
growth?
type-specific hypertrophy – were the
topic of the study I’m reviewing in this
article. Overall, there may be some ev-

43
 Table 1
Type 1 Fibers Type IIa Fibers Type IIx Fibers

Size small larger larger

Recruitment Threshold low higher highest

Oxidative Capacity high moderate low

Anaerobic Capacity low high highest

Normalized Force same in all types*

Normalized Power low higher highest

Fatigue Resistance high lower lowest

*I realize this may be surprising to many people; reference provided in the discussion

Subjects and Methods Findings

To address this question, the authors Eleven studies met both of the in-
rounded up all of the studies that met clusion criteria. However, a drawback
two criteria: of many of these studies was that they
1. They had to include a training in- used training programs that didn’t
tervention comparing high-load provide any sort of fair comparison be-
(>60% of 1RM) and low-load tween high-load and low-load train-
(≤60% of 1RM) training. ing. For example, the low-load train-
ing in a 1990 study by Jackson et al
2. They had to assess muscle fiber
(3) started participants off doing knee
hypertrophy by actually taking
extensions for 20 minutes straight
muscle biopsies and measuring
with 15% of their 1RM, performing
the CSAs of type I and type II fi-
one rep every three seconds; we now
bers.
know that this load is too low to max-
The rest of the paper was essentially imize hypertrophy (19), and the rest
a brief review of the studies that met between each rep would hinder the
those criteria. accumulation of metabolic byproducts
theorized to aid in hypertrophy. So, for

44
the purposes of this review, I’m just go- study, but only two are directly compa-
ing to focus on the five studies compar- rable. The participants in this study did
ing equally challenging high-load and unilateral knee extensions, with some
low-load training (i.e. both conditions legs assigned to do three sets to failure
performed to failure or close to failure, with 80% of 1RM, and some legs as-
with a training setup at least resembling signed to do three sets to failure with
“real-world” training). 30% of 1RM. Type I and type II fiber
CSA increased by 16% and 16%, re-
Muscular adaptations in response to spectively, in the high-load group, and
three different resistance-training regi- by 23% and 12% in the low-load group.
mens: specificity of repetition maximum
training zones by Campos et al. (9) Neither load nor systemic hormones de-
This study had three training groups termine resistance training-mediated
that lifted 2-3 days per week for 8 hypertrophy or strength gains in resis-
weeks. A high-load group did 4 sets tance-trained young men by Morton et
of 3-5 reps with their 3-5RM, a medi- al. (11)
um-load group did 3 sets of 9-11 reps In this study, one group trained with
with their 9-11RM, and a low-load 20-25RM loads, while another group
group did 2 sets of 20-28 reps with trained with 8-12RM loads. Type I and
their 20-28RM. Type I, type IIa, and type II fiber CSA increased by 13%
type IIx fiber CSA increased by 12%, and 18%, respectively, in the high-load
23%, and 25%, respectively, in the high- group, and by 11% and 14% in the low-
load group; by 13%, 16%, and 27% in load group.
the medium-load group; and by 10%,
8%, and 14% in the low-load group. Of Early-phase muscular adaptations in
note, overall hypertrophy was lower in response to slow-speed versus tradi-
the low-load group in this study – like- tional resistance-training regimens by
ly because they did fewer sets and had Schuenke et al. (12)
shorter rest periods (1 minute between In this study, one group of women
sets, compared to 2 minutes for the me- trained with 20-30RM loads for six
dium-load group and 3 minutes for the weeks, while another group trained
high-load group). with 6-10RM loads. Type I, type IIa,
and type IIx fiber CSA increased by
Resistance exercise load does not deter- 26%, 31%, and 37%, respectively, in the
mine training-mediated hypertrophic high-load group, and by 0%, 9%, and
gains in young men by Mitchell et al. (10) 9% in the low-load group.
There were three conditions in this

45
Table 2 Studies Excluded from Analysis
Lead Author Title Reason for exclusion

The effect of weight-lifting

Training was substantially more challenging
exercise related to muscle
Dons (4) in the high load condition (12 total reps at
fiber composition and muscle
80%, versus 20 total reps at 50%).
cross-sectional area in humans

Skeletal muscle fiber area Load in the low load group was too low to
alterations in two opposing maximize hypertrophy (15-25% of 1RM),
Jackson (3)
modes of resistance-exercise sets weren’t performed to failure, and 3
training in the same individual seconds of rest were allowed between reps.

The purpose of this study was to compare

Expression of genes related strength training versus power training.
to muscle plasticity after As such, the low load group was doing
Lamas (5)
strength and power training basically the same sets and reps as the
regimens high load group, but with 1/2-2/3 as much
weight.

Myogenic response of human

Training intensity was too low in the low
skeletal muscle to 12 weeks
Mackey (6) load group to maximize hypertrophy
of resistance training at light
(15.5% of 1RM)
loading intensity

There were a couple issues with this study.

The first issue is that load wasn’t the only
thing being manipulated: movement, speed,
and rest periods between sets also
differed between groups. The second, more
serious issue is that some of the
purported training that occured in this study
Responses of knee extensor was literally impossible. For example, the
Netreba (7) muscles to leg press training high load group in this study supposedly
of various types in human did 6-10 reps of knee extensions with
85-90% of 1RM, at a speed of 200-300
degrees/second. The problem there is that
maximum torque at 200-300 degrees/sec
is only ~30-50% of peak torque. Unless
they just described their methods wrong,
there’s literally no way their subjects actually
performed this training.

Comparative effects of high-

Exercise intervention was much more
and low‐intensity resistance
Taafe (8) challenging (80% for sets of 7) in the high
training on thigh muscle
load group than the low load group (40%
strength, fiber area, and tissue
for sets of 14).
composition in elderly women

46
 Table 3 Increase in CSA
Type I Type II / Type IIa Type IIx

Author High Load Low Load High Load Low Load High Load Low Load

Campos 12% 10% 23% 8% 25% 14%

Mitchell 16% 23% 16% 12%

Morton 13% 11% 18% 14%

Schuenke 26% 0% 31% 9% 37% 9%

Vinogradova A 9% 18% 23% 8%

Vinogradova B 6% 18% 20% 6%

Average 14% 13% 22% 10% 31% 12%

Optimization of training: development It looks much more like similar type I

of a new partial load mode of strength fiber hypertrophy regardless of loading
training by Vinogradova (13) zone, and greater type II fiber hypertro-
This paper actually laid out the results phy with high-load training.
of three studies, but only two of them are However, even with this truncated list
relevant for our purposes here. Both in- of six studies from five papers, there are
volved one group training with 80-85% still some issues. The Campos study (9)
of 1RM and one group training with allowed the high-load group to do twice
50% of 1RM. In the first study, type I as many sets and rest three times as long
and type II fiber CSA increased by 9% between sets, and the Vinogradova pa-
and 23%, respectively, in the high-load per (13) used pretty dissimilar protocols
group, and by 18% and 8% in the low- between loading zones (straight sets to
load group. In the second study, type I failure for the high-load group and slow-
and type II fiber CSA increased by 6% speed cluster sets not to failure with the
and 20%, respectively, in the high-load low load group). I’m also not entirely
group, and by 18% and 6% in the low- sure how much I trust the Campos paper
load group. in general, since the reported strength
When you analyze those studies, it changes are absurd (the high-load group
doesn’t look much like “fiber type-spe- apparently increased their squat from
cific hypertrophy,” at least in the way 100kg to 250kg in eight weeks). The
it’s classically argued (i.e. more type I Schuenke study also sticks out as a bit of
growth with low-load training, and more an outlier (average increase in fiber CSA
type II growth with high-load training). of 5% per week? That’s … interesting).

47
 Table 4 Increase in CSA
Type I Type II / Type IIa Type IIx

Author High Load Low Load High Load Low Load High Load Low Load

Mitchell 16% 23% 16% 12%

Morton 13% 11% 18% 14%

Schuenke 26% 0% 31% 9% 37% 9%

Average 18% 11% 22% 12% 37% 9%

If you drop the Campos and Vino-

gradova papers, you’re down to the Interpretation
three studies where training was most My biggest takeaway from this article
directly equated. The picture you’re left largely mirrors the conclusion of the ar-
with is just that low-load training is ticle itself: “While some evidence indi-
garbage, and high-load training is bet- cates that low-load resistance training
ter for growth of all fibers (a conclu- (RT), when carried out to muscular fail-
sion that would disagree strongly with ure, may induce a greater hypertrophic
the most recent meta-analysis on that response in type I muscle fibers com-
topic; 14). pared to high-load RT, and that high-
If you also drop the Schuenke pa- load RT may induce preferential growth
per, you’re just left with the Mitchell of type II muscle fibers, the body of lit-
and Morton studies. This may just be erature remains somewhat equivocal on
my bias talking, but those are the two the topic. In summary, there currently
studies I trust the most anyways; they is not enough evidence to make a firm
were two of the studies with the tight- conclusion regarding changes that occur
est controls and training programs at the muscle fiber level with different
that were the most directly compara- loading schemes.”
ble between groups. They’re also both I think we can approach this informa-
from Stu Phillips’ lab, and I know Stu tion from two different perspectives: the
does good work. In those two papers, perspective of simplicity, and the per-
the differences don’t amount to much spective of speculation and optimization.
of anything. I guess you could squint From a simplistic perspective, we
just right and see evidence of fiber have sufficient evidence to know that
type-specific hypertrophy (particular- whole-muscle growth is quite similar
ly in the Mitchell paper), but the evi- with high-load and low-load training
dence you’re left with is pretty flimsy. (14). If that growth may be coming a

48
 Table 5 Increase in CSA (Cross-Sectional Area)
Type I Type II / Type IIa

Author High Load Low Load High Load Low Load

Mitchell 16% 23% 16% 12%

Morton 13% 11% 18% 14%

Average 14.5% 17% 17% 13%

bit more from type I fibers with low- cruited long enough to induce sufficient
load training, and a bit more from type fatigue, it would make sense to assume
II fibers with high-load training, that that high-load training would be better
doesn’t really matter for most of us. If for type II fiber growth and that low-load
you’re a bodybuilder, muscle is muscle. training would be better for type I fiber
If you’re a strength athlete (powerlift- growth. After all, type II motor units are
er or strongman), contrary to popular recruited much earlier during a set with
belief, force output per unit of CSA is heavier loads and will probably stay re-
virtually identical between fiber types cruited for longer – and thus accumu-
(15), so selective hypertrophy of specif- late more fatigue – than they would with
ic fiber types also wouldn’t really affect low-load training. Conversely, since type
you. Now, if you’re a power athlete (i.e. I fibers are less fatigable, you’d need to
weightlifter, thrower, highland games use a lower load to keep them recruited
competitor, etc.), it may matter because long enough to induce sufficient fatigue,
normalized power is much higher in suggesting that low-load training may
type II fibers; however, since fiber types be superior for type I fiber growth.
don’t meaningfully impact force, they’re We know that both high- and low-
not going to meaningfully impact your load training cause growth of both fiber
squat, bench, or deadlift. types, but let’s assume that the growth
From the perspective of optimization, comes 60% from type I fibers and 40%
you could make a probabilistic argument from type II for low-load training, and
in favor of fiber type-specific hypertro- that fiber type-specific growth occurs in
phy. If we assume that hypertrophy de- the opposite ratio with high-load train-
pends on both a) a muscle fiber being ing. Most muscles in the body have a ra-
recruited and b) that fiber staying re- tio of roughly 50% type I fibers and 50%

49
type II fibers (16). With that in mind, let’s
say your muscles increase in CSA by 10%
after exclusively high-load training; that
IT’S POSSIBLE THAT OPTIMAL
would be due to a 12% CSA increase in REP RANGES FOR MUSCLE
type II fibers and an 8% CSA increase in
type I fibers. If you added some low-load GROWTH VARY BETWEEN
training, maybe you could get a 12% CSA INDIVIDUALS AND EVEN
increase in both fiber types, which would
mean that average CSA across both fiber BETWEEN MUSCLE GROUPS
types increased by 12% rather than 10%.
Would that be worth it to you, based on
WITHIN THE SAME INDIVIDUAL.
nothing but a potential mechanistic ra-
tionale and some light theory-crafting?
That’s up to you. es a lot of type II fiber hypertrophy while
limiting type I growth, it may behoove
Now, if we do assume that fiber
you to eschew low-load training for hy-
type-specific growth depends on the rep
pertrophy, as type I fiber growth may
range being trained, there would be some
limit power output.
instances where that information would
be more useful. For example, the soleus However, just to reiterate, all of those
muscle is composed of ~80% type I fibers potential applications are speculative
(17); high-rep calf training (especially and rest on the assumption that fiber
bent-leg calf raises) may be worth a shot type-specific hypertrophy does occur.
if you’re aiming to grow your calves. Fur- The current evidence doesn’t refute that
thermore, while the average type I/type premise, but it’s certainly insufficient to
II split is roughly 50/50 in most muscles fully support it.
on average, those ratios can vary sub- In fact, even if we observed increases
stantially for individuals. If your quads in average type I fiber CSA with low-
are composed of 75% type II fibers, they load training, that wouldn’t be sufficient
may grow more from high-load training, evidence to claim preferential type I fi-
while the opposite may be true if they’re ber growth. That may sound confusing
composed of 75% type I fibers; it’s pos- at first, but there’s a simple explanation:
sible that optimal rep ranges for muscle fiber type conversions. Fiber types are
growth vary between individuals and much more malleable than once thought.
even between muscle groups within the Many textbooks will still claim that type
same individual. Finally, as mentioned IIa and type IIx fibers can interconvert,
previously, if you’re a power athlete and but that type I and type II fibers can’t.
you assume that high-load training caus- However, using better fiber-typing meth-

50
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
Ultimately, this paper probably shouldn’t change how you approach training, as there’s
still not clear evidence of fiber type-specific hypertrophy. Even if you assume it’s real,
most people beyond power athletes and really high-level bodybuilders probably don’t
need to worry about it.

ods, we have found that type I and type II CSA actually increased due to low-load
fiber interconversion is both possible and training, compared to the degree to which
common (18). We know that heavy resis- type II to type I fiber conversion inflated
tance training can convert type I fibers to the average size of the type I fiber pool
type II fibers and that endurance train- (assuming those ex-type II fibers didn’t
ing can convert type II fibers to type I fi- shrink when converting to type I fibers).
bers. Less is known about how low-load
training influences fiber interconversions
because (to my knowledge) none of the Next Steps
studies comparing high-load and low- We clearly need more research in this
load training have used the gold-stan- area, ideally using gold-standard fiber
dard method of fiber typing (single fiber typing methods (i.e. single fiber SDS-
SDS-PAGE), but we can get some hints PAGE) to rule out the possibility of fi-
from the Schuenke (12) study (which ber type interconversions skewing the re-
used slightly less sensitive histochemical sults. Right now, I put the most faith in
methods of fiber typing). The high-load the results of the Morton et al paper (no
group had a 29% increase in type IIa fi- significant differences, with 24-25 sub-
ber percentage and a negligible change jects per group), but a bigger study with
in type I fiber percentage (with most gold-standard methods still has the po-
of the increase likely coming from con- tential to shake things up. I do think it’s
versions of IIx fibers and hybrid fibers). an intriguing premise and look forward
Meanwhile, the low-load group had a 7% to more research in the future.
increase in type I fiber percentage and a
slight decrease in type IIa fiber percent-
age. Since type II fibers are generally
larger than type I fibers, if you observed
a larger mean increase in type I fiber size
after low-load training, it would be tough
to know the degree to which type I fiber

51
References
1. Grgic J, Schoenfeld BJ. Are the Hypertrophic Adaptations to High and Low-Load Resistance
Training Muscle Fiber Type Specific? Front Physiol. 2018 Apr 18;9:402.
2. Ogborn D, Schoenfeld BJ. The Role of Fiber Types in Muscle Hypertrophy: Implications for Load-
ing Strategies. Strength and Conditioning Journal. Apr 14;36(2):20-25.
3. Jackson CG, Dickinson AL, Ringel SP. Skeletal muscle fiber area alterations in two opposing modes
of resistance-exercise training in the same individual. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1990;61(1-
2):37-41.
4. Dons B, Bollerup K, Bonde-Petersen F, Hancke S. The effect of weight-lifting exercise related to
muscle fiber composition and muscle cross-sectional area in humans. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup
Physiol. 1979 Jan 10;40(2):95-106.
5. Lamas L, Aoki MS, Ugrinowitsch C, Campos GE, Regazzini M, Moriscot AS, Tricoli V. Expression
of genes related to muscle plasticity after strength and power training regimens. Scand J Med Sci
Sports. 2010 Apr;20(2):216-25.
6. Mackey AL, Holm L, Reitelseder S, Pedersen TG, Doessing S, Kadi F, Kjaer M. Myogenic response
of human skeletal muscle to 12 weeks of resistance training at light loading intensity. Scand J Med
Sci Sports. 2011 Dec;21(6):773-82.
7. Netreba A, Popov D, Bravyy Y, Lyubaeva E, Terada M, Ohira T, Okabe H, Vinogradova O, Ohira Y.
Responses of knee extensor muscles to leg press training of various types in human. Ross Fiziol Zh
Im I M Sechenova. 2013 Mar;99(3):406-16.
8. Taaffe DR, Pruitt L, Pyka G, Guido D, Marcus R. Comparative effects of high- and low-intensity
resistance training on thigh muscle strength, fiber area, and tissue composition in elderly women.
Clin Physiol. 1996 Jul;16(4):381-92.
9. Campos GE, Luecke TJ, Wendeln HK, Toma K, Hagerman FC, Murray TF, Ragg KE, Ratamess
NA, Kraemer WJ, Staron RS. Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training
regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002 Nov;88(1-
2):50-60.
10. Mitchell CJ, Churchward-Venne TA, West DW, Burd NA, Breen L, Baker SK, Phillips SM. Resis-
tance exercise load does not determine training-mediated hypertrophic gains in young men. J Appl
Physiol (1985). 2012 Jul;113(1):71-7.
11. 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.
12. Schuenke MD, Herman JR, Gliders RM, Hagerman FC, Hikida RS, Rana SR, Ragg KE, Staron
RS. Early-phase muscular adaptations in response to slow-speed versus traditional resistance-train-
ing regimens. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012 Oct;112(10):3585-95.
13. Vinogradova OL, Popov DV, Netreba AI, Tsvirkun DV, Kurochkina NS, Bachinin AV, Bravyĭ IaR,
Liubaeva EV, Lysenko EA, Miller TF, Borovik AS, Tarasova OS, Orlov OI. Optimization of train-
ing: development of a new partial load mode of strength training. Fiziol Cheloveka. 2013 Sep-

52
 Oct;39(5):71-85.
14. Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Strength and Hypertrophy Adaptations Between
Low- vs. High-Load Resistance Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Strength Cond
Res. 2017 Dec;31(12):3508-3523.
15. Krivickas LS, Dorer DJ, Ochala J, Frontera WR. Relationship between force and size in human
single muscle fibres. Exp Physiol. 2011 May;96(5):539-47.
16. Beardsley C. Muscle Fiber Type: Fiber Type of Different Muscles. StrengthAndConditioningRe-
search.com. Accessed 5-17-18.
17. Gollnick PD, Sjödin B, Karlsson J, Jansson E, Saltin B. Human soleus muscle: a comparison of fiber
composition and enzyme activities with other leg muscles. Pflugers Arch. 1974 Apr 22;348(3):247-
55.
18. Bagley JR, Murach KA, Trappe SW. Microgravity-Induced Shift in Human Skeletal Muscle. Grav-
itational and Space Research. 2012;26(1).
19. Lasevicius T, Ugrinowitsch C, Schoenfeld BJ, Roschel H, Tavares LD, De Souza EO, Laurentino G,
Tricoli V. Effects of different intensities of resistance training with equated volume load on muscle
strength and hypertrophy. Eur J Sport Sci. 2018 Mar 22:1-9.

53
Study Reviewed: Planned Reduction Versus Fixed Load: A Strategy to Reduce the Perception
of Effort with Similar Improvements in Hypertrophy and Strength. Lima et al. (2018)

Intra-Session Load Reduction:

Same Gains, Less Effort
BY MIC HAE L C . ZO URD O S

Sometimes we force ourselves to stick with the same weight for all sets on
an exercise, rather than reducing the weight for the latter sets. This study
shows that not only does reducing the weight lead to lower perception of
effort, but it doesn’t compromise hypertrophy and strength.

54
 KEY POINTS
1. This study examined the perception of effort, volume performed, and hypertrophy
and strength adaptations to using a top weight for all sets to failure versus reducing
load after the first set for sets two and three.
2. Reducing load by 10% for set two and again for set three led to a lower perception
of effort and similar volume to using the same load or reducing load by only 5%
from set to set.
3. Both load reduction strategies also led to similar hypertrophy and strength
adaptations as using a higher load for all sets. Thus, reducing load on subsequent
sets may decrease perception of effort without compromising hypertrophy and
strength gains.

H
ow often do we have our sets, curl (similar to a preacher curl). One
reps, and weight predetermined? group performed three sets to failure at
For example, doing 3 sets of 8 at a 10RM on each exercise, while the oth-
100kg on the bench press. Now, MASS er two groups (planned load-reduction
has frequently covered the utility of au- groups) performed the first set at their
toregulation to adjust load or regulate 10RM and then reduced load by either 5
volume. However, we haven’t answered or 10% on each subsequent set and went
the question: Should you purposefully to failure. Biceps curl 10RM and muscle
decrease load during a session? In other thickness (hypertrophy) were assessed at
words, just because you can maintain a pre- and post-study, and rating of per-
certain load for a predetermined num- ceived exertion (RPE) was taken after
ber of reps, does that mean that you all sets on each exercise in every session.
should? Or that you need to? Obvious- Total volume was not significantly dif-
ly, if you were to do 3X8 @100 kg, that ferent between groups for either exer-
would be greater volume and average in- cise despite the planned load reduction
tensity than 3X8 with descending load and training to failure; however, vol-
each set (100, 95, and 90 kg). Howev- ume was probably meaningfully higher
er, is this reduction in intensity enough for the Scott curl in the 10% reduction
to hinder strength or this reduction in group due to performing more reps, as
volume enough to hinder hypertrophy? the p-value for volume comparisons
To test the effects of planned load re- was 0.094. There were no significant
duction, this study (1) had three groups or meaningful differences between any
of men train three times per week for 17 of the three groups for hypertrophy or
weeks on the barbell curl and the Scott strength adaptations (p>0.05); however,

55
 Table 1 Subject Characteristics
Habitual
Body Mass Training Age
Subjects Age (yrs) Height (cm) Training
(kg) (yrs.)
Frequency
At least 3 times
21 Men 23.2 ± 4.2 75.1 ±7.6 175 ± 4 At least 2 years
per week

Data are Mean ± SD

Subject characteristics from Lima et al. 2018 (1).

RPE was significantly lower (p<0.05) in

the 10% reduction group. Interestingly, Purpose and Research
on an individual level, there were signif- Questions
icant and inverse correlations between
total volume and 10RM improvement Purpose
(r=-0.522, p=0.015). On the surface, The purpose was to examine hypertro-
this correlation suggests that lower vol- phy, strength gains, and perception of
ume enhances strength, and this may be effort over 17 weeks using either a fixed
correct in some cases – we know more load across three sets to failure or reduc-
volume is not always better in novic- ing load each set.
es to intermediates (2). However, total
volume is impacted by absolute strength Research Question
(your 10RM will be higher if stronger),
Does deliberately decreasing load
and since these correlations are on an
from set to set rather than maintaining
individual level, they could simply be
the same load result in completing more
showing that the weaker participants
reps, and thus, greater volume? Further,
gained more strength than the stronger
if more volume is performed with load
ones, which is a logical outcome. Most
reduction, does this enhance hypertro-
importantly, this article shows that load
phy and strength adaptations when the
reduction produces a lower perception
number of sets is equated?
of effort without compromising adapta-
tions. As always, though, it’s necessary
Hypotheses
to examine programming strategies in
a conceptual manner, so this article will The authors hypothesized that using
do that by proposing alternative load re- a pre-planned load reduction would in-
duction strategies to maximize volume crease total volume, leading to greater
while minimizing recovery time. hypertrophy. However, no hypothesis
was stated for strength adaptations.

56
 Table 2 Example of Training Protocol in Each Group
Group Set 1 Set 2 Set 3

3x failure at
100kg to failure 100kg to failure 100kg to failure
10RM*

5% Reduction 100kg to failure 95kg to failure 90kg to failure

10% Reduction 100kg to failure 90kg to failure 80kg to failure

*RM = Repetition Maximum

Subjects and Methods sets to failure three times per week on

only the barbell and Scott curl exercis-
es. There were three groups:
Subjects
1. Three sets to failure at 10RM
Twenty-one men who were described (n=7)
as having at least two years of recre-
ational resistance training experience 2. One set to failure at 10RM and
participated. More details of the sub- then two sets to failure with a 5%
jects are available in Table 1. load reduction on each subsequent
set (n=7)
Study Protocol 3. One set to failure at 10RM and
This study spanned 17 weeks with then two sets to failure with a
week 1 and the end of week 17 as 10% load reduction on each sub-
pre- and post-testing, respectively, for sequent set (n=7).
muscle thickness (of the biceps via There was a one-minute rest interval
ultrasound), 10RM barbell curls, and between sets (three minutes between
10RM Scott curls. Further, Borg RPE exercises). A hypothetical example of
(this is not repetitions in reserve and is how a training session would play out
explained here) was assessed after the in each group is in Table 2.
completion of each exercise in every
session. All subjects performed three

57
 Figure 1A & 1B Average RPE Following Each Exercise

A B

10 10

8 8 #
RPE - Biceps Curl

RPE - Scott Curl

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
3x10RM 5% RED 10% RED 3x10RM 5% RED 10% RED

RM = Repetition maximum; 3x10RM = 3 sets to failure group at 10RM; 5% RED = 5% Load reduction group;
10% RED = 10% load reduction group; * = Significantly lower RPE than 3x10RM (p<0.05);
# = Significantly lower RPE than both 3x10RM and 5% RED groups (p<0.05)

Findings the barbell curl and had lower RPE

than both groups after the Scott curl
(p<0.05). The findings for RPE can be
Volume and RPE seen in Figures 1A and 1B.
There was no significant difference
between groups in volume performed Strength and Muscle Thickness
for the barbell curl (p=0.649); how- Biceps muscle thickness significantly
ever, for the Scott curl, the 10% re- increased across all groups (p<0.001),
duction group performed 9.7% more but there wasn’t anything even close
volume than the no-reduction group to a group difference with a p-val-
and 12.2% more volume than the 5% ue of 0.976. Similar to hypertrophy,
reduction group, which resulted in a strength increased across all groups
p-value approaching significance of for both exercises (p<0.001), but there
0.094. The 10% load-reduction group were no group differences (barbell curl:
also had lower RPE, on average, than p=0.401; Scott curl: p=0.238).
the 5% reduction group following

58
 Figure 2 Relationship Between Volume and 10RM Bar Curl Increase

55
10RM Barbell Curl (kg)

50

45

40

35
r = -0.522
p = 0.015
0
0 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000

Volume Load - Barbell Curls (kg)

The dots are individual subjects. This figure indicates that on the individual level,
less volume was associated with a greater increase in 10RM bar curl over the 17 weeks.
RM = Repetition maximum

Relationships p=0.015), indicating that less volume

There were no relationships between was correlated with greater 10RM in-
volume performed or RPE and chang- creases.
es in muscle thickness (p>0.05). How-
ever, on the individual level, there was
an inverse relationship between vol- Interpretation
ume performed on the barbell curl This study covered a very practical
and increase in strength (r=-0.522, and common question: Should load be

59
 Table 3A RPE (Rating of Perceived Exertion) Target Example

Approach Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4

10 reps @ 10 reps @ 10 reps @

10 reps @ 8RPE
6-8RPE 6-8RPE 6-8RPE
RPE target
Load = 100kg Load = 95kg Load = 92.5kg Load = 90kg
Actual RPE = 8 Actual RPE = 8 Actual RPE = 7 Actual RPE = 6

kept the same for all sets or should load even though volume was 9-12% higher.
change? Of course, there are many ways While the lower perception of fatigue
to manipulate load from set to set, and didn’t translate to greater outcome mea-
we’ll discuss various strategies and po- sures, it seems logical that using a 10%
tential outcomes in this interpretation. load reduction strategy may simply be
But first, let’s take a straightforward preferred by some. As always, personal
look at these results. Training to failure preference should play a role when se-
across all sets using a 5 or 10% load re- lecting a programming approach.
duction might produce a few more reps The other finding to analyze direct-
than keeping load the same, but it’s not ly before speculating on various load
enough to have a meaningful increase in reduction strategies is the inverse cor-
volume; thus, it doesn’t lead to any add- relation between volume and bar curl
ed performance benefit. Further, in all 10RM strength improvement (r=-0.52,
three groups, the top-end intensity was p=0.015). At first, this seems contra-
the same; thus, strength was the same. dictory, as higher volumes (i.e. 5+ sets
In other words, if all sets are to fail- per week) are associated with great-
ure, it seems to be of little consequence er strength adaptation (3). However,
whether load is the same or reduced by the 9 sets per exercise and 18 sets per
5-10% on subsequent sets. The 10% re- muscle group during each week in the
duction group did have lower Borg RPE present study likely reached the point of
than the other groups after each exer- diminishing returns for strength adap-
cise. Unlike repetitions in reserve-based tation. This phenomenon has been writ-
RPE, Borg RPE is more of a measure ten about in MASS before, and various
of overall session fatigue. So, in a prac- studies have shown that in beginner to
tical sense, the lifters in this study tend- intermediate lifters, a moderate degree
ed to perceive that they didn’t work as of volume is at least equal to (2), if not
hard when they reduced load by 10%, better than, high volumes (4) for strength

60
 Table 3B RPE (Rating of Perceived Exertion) Stop Example

Approach Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4 Set 5

10 reps
RPE target 10 reps 10 reps 10 reps 10 reps
Load = 100kg
Stopping point Load = 100kg Load = 100kg Load = 100kg Load = 100kg
Actual RPE = .5
set at 8RPE Actual RPE = 5 Actual RPE = 6 Actual RPE = 7 Actual RPE = 7.5
STOP

adaptation. Nonetheless, don’t let the in- the associated implications.

verse correlation fool you. It’s not to say
that volume isn’t important for strength RPE Targets
gains; we know that it is (5). Rather, Using RIR-based RPE is an easy way
these results demonstrate that the mag- to plan load reductions and stay short of
nitude of volume performed is individu- failure. For instance, you could work to
al; thus, the benefit of very high volumes a top set of 10 reps at an 8RPE (2RIR),
for strength may be appropriate for some then perform three more sets of 10 at an
but not necessarily all. Additionally, and 8RPE. Obviously, for the subsequent sets
as mentioned above, weaker individuals to all be at an 8RPE, you would need to
performed lower absolute volume since decrease load. You could simply decrease
load is a component of volume (Volume 5kg each set or maybe 5%. Additional-
= Sets X Reps X Load), so this could ly, you could give yourself an RPE range
just be demonstrating that weaker indi- of 6-8 on the subsequent sets, so that if
viduals gained more strength. Further, you under- or over-shoot the load, you
sets were equated between groups in the can still adjust it on the back-off sets. An
present study; typically, when set volume example of this can be seen in Table 3A.
is equated, that tends to produce similar
In essence, the current study and RPE
hypertrophy.
target approach are strategies to max-
As previously stated, this study does il- imize volume while also controlling
lustrate that if you train to failure, a small stress. Approaches to accomplish this
load reduction does not cause a signif- don’t have to involve load reduction,
icant increase in volume or affect per- though, and an example of that would
formance outcomes. However, there are be an RPE Stop (6).
other ways to implement planned load
reductions or to increase session volume RPE Stop
without training to failure. Let’s take a
The RPE Stop approach would ensure
look at a couple of these approaches and

61
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
1. Reducing load by 10% from set to set, instead of reducing by 5% or keeping the
same 10RM load for each set, led to a lower perception of effort in trained lifters
without compromising hypertrophy and strength adaptations.
2. The goal of load reduction is to increase session volume, so it makes sense to
choose a load reduction strategy that avoids training to failure, especially on the
main lifts. Training to failure would elongate recovery time and potentially decrease
weekly frequency and volume.
3. There are many load reduction strategies. Don’t be afraid to try new load reduction
approaches. Just make sure it abides by the principles laid out in the second
takeaway.

staying short of failure while also max- One last point on RPE stops: You could
imizing volume. For example, if you are also combine this method with the RPE
doing 10 reps per set, you could select a target from Table 3A. To do this, you
load in which you could do 15 reps (65- could simply work to a top set of 100kg
70%) on the squat and do it for 10s, but X 8 reps @8RPE then reduce load only
without a predetermined number of sets. once to 90kg. Then, continue perform-
Instead, you would stop squats once a set ing sets of 8 reps until another 8RPE is
reached or exceeded an 8RPE. There are reached. In this way, you have a top set
many different ways to implement RPE with a target RPE and then a load reduc-
stops, and MASS has covered them in tion without a predetermined number of
detail here. The important point in the sets. However, I would set a cap on the
current context is that this approach number of sets per exercise (maybe 5 sets)
would allow you to stay short of failure to make sure volume isn’t too high.
but complete as many sets as possible at Overall, load reduction is another pro-
an appropriate level of effort. Therefore, gramming approach which requires con-
this approach may actually lead to more ceptual thinking. Specifically, one of the
volume (due to not having a predeter- stated goals of planned load reduction is
mined number of sets) and shorter recov- to increase training volume, so load reduc-
ery time between sessions (due to staying tion is probably more suited for volume
short of failure) compared to a traditional rather than intensity blocks. Ultimately, if
approach of doing a fixed number of sets you can find a way to increase session vol-
to failure. An example of this can be seen ume without lengthening recovery time,
in Table 3B. which might decrease frequency and

62
weekly volume, then purposeful load re-
duction within a session would have great
utility. Just don’t do it at the cost of excess
fatigue.

Next Steps
I would like to see a study with three
groups to further this area of research:
one group training similarly to the load
reduction strategy in the present study,
another using RPE targets, and anoth-
er using RPE Stops. It’s likely that RPE
Stops would lead to the most training
volume, potentially leading to greater
outcomes. Additionally, the above design
should be carried out on one of the main
lifts (i.e. squat, bench press, or deadlift),
as the present study only investigated bi-
ceps curls.

63
References
1. Lima BM, Amancio RS, Gonçalves DS, Koch AJ, Curty VM, Machado M. Planned Load Reduction
Versus Fixed Load: A Strategy to Reduce the Perception of Effort With Similar Improvements in
Hypertrophy and Strength. International journal of sports physiology and performance. 2018:1-20.
2. González-Badillo JJ, Gorostiaga EM, Arellano R, Izquierdo M. Moderate resistance training vol-
ume produces more favorable strength gains than high or low volumes during a short-term training
cycle. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2005 Aug 1;19(3):689.
3. Ralston GW, Kilgore L, Wyatt FB, Baker JS. The effect of weekly set volume on strength gain: a
meta-analysis. Sports Medicine. 2017 Dec 1;47(12):2585-601.
4. 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.
5. Zourdos MC, Jo E, Khamoui AV, Lee SR, Park BS, Ormsbee MJ, Panton LB, Contreras RJ, Kim
JS. Modified daily undulating periodization model produces greater performance than a tradi-
tional configuration in powerlifters. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2016 Mar
1;30(3):784-91.
6. Helms ER, Cross MR, Brown SR, Storey A, Cronin J, Zourdos MC. Rating of perceived exertion as
a method of volume autoregulation within a periodized program. The Journal of Strength & Condi-
tioning Research. 2018 Jan 17.

64
Study Reviewed: Effects of β-Alanine Supplementation During a 5-Week Strength
Training Program: A Randomized, Controlled Study. Maté-Muñoz et al. (2018)

Does Beta-Alanine
Increase 1RM?
BY E RI C HE LMS

Meta-analytic data has established beta-alanine as an effective

ergogenic aid for efforts lasting longer than one minute, but
surprisingly, this study found that training with beta-alanine actually led
to larger increases in 1RM strength. Why did this occur?

65
 KEY POINTS
1. Beta-alanine has been well-established to only impact performance for exercise
efforts lasting roughly a minute or longer, largely precluding it from having an
ergogenic effect on traditionally performed resistance training.
2. In the current study, the beta-alanine group did get stronger, but they followed
a protocol that had long-lasting sets, short rest periods, and exercises that
overlapped muscle groups, creating an environment in which beta-alanine could
be beneficial. However, this is not an ideal way to train for improving strength and,
based on the large magnitude of gains after just five weeks following this protocol,
these were likely relatively novice lifters.
3. The authors reported an increase in velocity at 1RM; however, with increasing
experience, velocity at 1RM either stays the same in trained lifters or slightly
decreases in untrained lifters, so it is possible they re-tested their previous 1RM to
see how much velocity increased in addition to re-testing 1RM.

T
he present study (1) is one of circuit training three days per week and
many examining beta-alanine provided them with either beta-alanine
supplementation, but its find- or a placebo throughout. Compared
ings contrast with the current scientific to the placebo group, the beta-alanine
consensus. To understand the relevance group increased Smith machine squat
of this study, we have to know how be- 1RM, power output during submaximal
ta-alanine works, which comes down to Smith machine squats, and total sets
its role as a precursor to carnosine. Car- performed during an incremental sub-
nosine is abundant in skeletal muscle maximal loading test (also on the Smith
tissue and is made up of the amino acids machine squat). However, some of these
histidine and beta-alanine. It serves to findings are quite puzzling in the con-
buffer acidity, regulating the pH levels text of the entire data set, which we’ll
in muscle, which can subsequently im- explore in the interpretation.
prove performances that are limited by
metabolite build up. While carnosine
can’t enter muscle cells to a significant Purpose and Research
extent, beta-alanine can, and is the Questions
rate-limiting step in carnosine synthesis
(2). In the present study, the research- Purpose
ers took college-aged, resistance-trained
Subjects completed a five-week resis-
males through five weeks of lower body
tance training program. At the end of

66
 Figure 1 Study Design

Resistance Training
Pre-Test Program + Supplementation Post-Test

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Weeks

the five weeks, researchers examined

the effects of beta-alanine supplemen- Subjects and Methods
tation on Smith machine squat power
output during an incremental load test, Subjects and Study Design
ending with a 1RM. Additional goals Twenty-six healthy males (age = 21.85
were to assess the effects of beta-ala- ± 1.6 years; weight = 80.27 ± 6.9 kg;
nine on jump height and height losses height = 179.62 ± 6.1 cm; body mass in-
in jump height after exercise (to assess dex = 24.85 ± 1.8 kg/m2) completed this
fatigue). placebo-controlled, randomized study.
Twelve were assigned to the placebo
Hypothesis group, and 14 were assigned to the beta
The authors hypothesized that be- alanine group. Beta-alanine was given
ta-alanine supplementation would 1) to participants to self-administer on a
improve power output and volume daily basis in the form of eight 800mg
during the incremental load test and capsules to be taken at least 1.5 hours
2) reduce power losses (fatigue) in re- apart, resulting in a daily dose of 6.4g.
sponse to exercise. Likewise, non-distinguishable place-
bo pills were given in the same dosing
pattern. Participants were required to
have at least a year of resistance train-

67
 Figure 2 Resistance Training Program

3 days a week x 5 weeks

Back Barbell Loaded

Squat Step Up Jumping Lunge

ing experience, at least six months of Performance Testing

experience with the back squat, and At the start and end of the training
to have a minimum 1RM of 90kg on protocol, the participants performed an
the Smith machine squat. They trained incremental load test with the Smith
three days per week following a lower machine squat after a warm-up. In this
body, circuit-style approach consisting test, they started at 30kg, performing
of Smith machine squats, barbell step- sets of two repetitions and increasing
ups, and jumping dumbbell lunges. the load by 15kg each set so long as
Participants performed the exercises in average concentric velocity remained
a progressive manner that emphasized higher than 0.7 m.s-1. Once a set was
increases in number of sets, decreases completed slower than 0.7 m.s-1, single
in rest periods, incremental increases repetitions were performed, and 1-5 kg
in load based on perceived exertion increases were made until a 1RM was
ratings, and a concomitant decrease reached. Three-minute rest periods were
in the length of sets (they performed administered between two-rep sets, and
repetitions for predetermined number five-minute rest periods were admin-
of seconds each week versus a specif- istered between singles. At the start of
ic repetition target) as load increased. these rest periods, two counter-move-
Details of the study design are shown ment jumps were performed to assess
in Figure 1, and details of the training both jump height and height loss from
program are shown in Figure 2 and the previous rest period’s jumps to mea-
Table 1. sure fatigue. During the incremental

68
 Table 1 Training Progression

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5

Working time (s) 40s 35s 30s 25s 20s

Rest between
120s 105s 90s 75s 60s
exercises (s)

Rest between sets

120s 105s 90s 75s 60s
(s)

Number of sets 3 4 4 5 5

BS workload 60% 1RM based on RPE based on RPE based on RPE based on RPE

SU workload free based on RPE based on RPE based on RPE based on RPE

LJL workload free based on RPE based on RPE based on RPE based on RPE

BS = back squat; SU = barbell step up; LJL = loaded jumping lunge; 1RM one-repetition maximum;
RPE = rating of perceived exertion; s = seconds

load test, the researchers recorded av- was observed in the beta-alanine group
erage and peak velocity and power as compared to the placebo group (p =
well as the number of sets and reps per- 0.056), likely due to their 1RM increas-
formed during the incremental load test. ing more (as power is force multiplied by
They reported these values at both 1RM velocity). Surprisingly, average velocity
and the load that produced the highest at 1RM increased in both groups com-
power output. pared to baseline (more on this later), as
shown in Table 2.
More total sets were completed by the
Findings beta-alanine group compared to the pla-
Both groups increased 1RM from pre- cebo group during the incremental load
to post-training, but the beta-alanine test up to 0.7 m.s-1 (Table 3), which is un-
group increased their 1RM to a greater surprising given the beta-alanine group
extent than the placebo group. As would gained more strength, and this test was
be expected, a greater power output at with fixed loads. Those loads would be a
1RM that nearly reached significance lower relative percentage of 1RM in the

69
 Table 2 Changes in 1RM and Average Velocity at 1RM
p for
Variable Group Pre (mean ± SD ± CI) Post (mean ± SD ± CI) Post-Pre (u) Post-Pre (%) CI (95%) p for Group p for Time
GroupXTime

PLA 123.92 ± 18.02 (112.38-135.45) 139.33 ± 15.13 (129.45-149.22) 15.41 12.44% 121.16-142.09 0.484 <0.001* 0.014*
Kg at 1RM (kg)
BA 124.57 ± 20.42 (113.89-135.25) 148.50 ± 17.73 (139.35-157.65) 23.93 19.21% 126.85-146.22

PLA 0.325 ± 0.073 (0.29-0.36) 0.370 ± 0.125 (0.29-0.45) 0.045 12.16% 0.31-0.39 0.328 0.023* 0.354

AV at 1RM (m·s-1)
BA 0.324 ± 0.049 (0.29-0.36) 0.426 ± 0.137 (0.35-0.50) 0.102 31.57% 0.34-0.41

* = Significant difference (p < 0.05).

SD = Standard Deviation and CI = Confidence Interval

group that got stronger and would sub- in 2012, found that beta-alanine had a
sequently be at a higher velocity, extend- beneficial effect on exercise performance
ing the number of sets performed until lasting 60-240 seconds but did not have
reaching 0.7 m.s-1. a significant effect on efforts of a shorter
Additionally, average power at the duration (3). Likewise, the findings of a
load that produced the highest power recent meta-analysis published last year
output was higher in the beta-alanine confirmed this outcome, finding beta-al-
group compared to the placebo group (p anine to only be effective for efforts last-
= 0.034), which again makes sense giv- ing 0.5-10 minutes in length (4).
en the beta alanine group gained more For the most part, sets of resistance
strength. Jump height was similar among training are shorter than this time period
groups, and there were no differences in in the physique and strength world, but
loss of jump height between sets. not always. A typical “natural” tempo for
lifters is roughly one second up and one
second down. For a set to last long enough
Interpretation for beta-alanine to be helpful, it would
There are two things about the out- need to be ~15 repetitions (at the very
comes of this study that should raise your least) and probably higher (this is exer-
eyebrows. The first is obvious: the fact that cise-dependent, to some degree). If you’re
beta-alanine actually improved 1RM at performing purposefully slow repetitions
all, relative to a placebo. Given its mech- (which is probably not a good idea any-
anism of action as a buffering agent and way, at least for hypertrophy or strength),
the existing data on beta-alanine, this is I could see beta-alanine benefiting mod-
an attention-grabbing outcome. To date, erate-repetition sets and higher. But for
two meta-analyses that assess the effi- the most part, unless you are doing very
cacy of beta-alanine as an ergogenic aid high-rep bodybuilding, muscle endur-
have been published. The first, published ance training, restricting your rest inter-
vals, using supersets or long drop sets, or

70
 Table 3 Changes in Volume During Incremental Load Test
Sets Post-Sets
Number of Repetitions CI (95%) F/SP
Pre
Pre Post

Placebo 9.83 ± 1.80 11.41 ± 1.50 1.58 ± 1.44a 0.82-2.35 5.709 / 0.630

ß-Alanine 10.07 ± 2.26 12.85 ± 1.74 2.79 ± 1.12 2.08-3.49

a = Significant difference between groups (p < 0.05); SP = statistical power; CI = confidence interval

maybe interspersing weight training with groups made substantial gains in five
other high intensity activity (such as in weeks using a protocol far less than opti-
a CrossFit session), you wouldn’t expect mal for improving 1RM strength: ~12%
beta-alanine to be very helpful. (16kg) for placebo and ~19% (24kg) for
However, the training used in this the beta-alanine group. To me, this in-
study was very much designed in such a dicates that the individuals in the study
way that beta-alanine would be likely to were of a pretty low training age.
provide an ergogenic effect. As you can The second eyebrow raiser is less obvi-
see in Table 1 and Figure 2, three exer- ous, and that’s the fact that average ve-
cises training the same muscle groups locity at 1RM actually increased in both
were used, with 3-5 sets per exercise, each groups from pre- to post-testing (Table
lasting 20-40 seconds, with only 60- to 1). At face value, this just doesn’t make
120-second rest periods between sets and sense. In untrained individuals, average
exercises (i.e. incomplete recovery such velocity at 1RM will typically decrease
that metabolites were not fully cleared). slightly over time as the lifters learn to
Given this style of training, it is unsur- grind through heavier loads. Among
prising to me that beta-alanine produced trained individuals, you see no changes
better effects on 1RM, as it probably al- in velocity at 1RM over time, even when
lowed the supplemental group to main- 1RM itself changes (which is why veloc-
tain higher loads on all the exercises due ity-based training has promise). There
to buffering metabolite build-up and re- are two reasons I can think of as to why
ducing the acute fatigue that likely forced this might have occurred in this study:
the placebo group to reduce loads more 1) there was a mistake of some type in
from set-to-set and exercise-to-exercise. testing, data collection, data entry, or
What is surprising is the fact that both analysis, or 2) “velocity at 1RM” is actu-

71
ally the velocity the participants recorded
at the same load that was their previous
1RM. If I had to bet, I think the latter
FOR THE MOST PART, UNLESS
outcome is the more likely. Given the be- YOU ARE DOING VERY HIGH-
ta-alanine group increased their strength
more, you would expect them to be able REP BODYBUILDING, MUSCLE
to move their previous 1RM loads fast- ENDURANCE TRAINING,
er compared to the placebo group. While
the changes in average velocity between RESTRICTING YOUR REST
groups was non-significant, the absolute
magnitude was quite different; the be-
INTERVALS, USING SUPERSETS
ta-alanine group increased their velocity OR LONG DROP SETS, OR MAYBE
by ~31%, while the placebo group im-
proved their velocity by ~12%. This paper INTERSPERSING WEIGHT
was also conducted in Spain, presumably TRAINING WITH OTHER HIGH
written in Spanish, and then translated
into English. So, it’s very possible this INTENSITY ACTIVITY (SUCH
critical element of the procedure was lost
in translation. Also, recording 1RM ve-
AS IN A CROSSFIT SESSION),
locity is useful for repeated 1RM testing YOU WOULDN’T EXPECT BETA-
because it doesn’t change. You record it
to tell if someone is approaching 1RM ALANINE TO BE VERY HELPFUL.
during post-testing by seeing when ve-
locity is near their pre-test value. But for
that same reason, it’s not worth report-
ing since it tends to be a fixed value in Next Steps
everyone except rank novices. For this Given what we know about high-load
reason, if I had to put my money on it, and low-load training both having equal
this “increase in velocity” is specific to the utility (unless you use VERY low loads)
pre-test 1RM load and is just a reflection for hypertrophy when volume is similar,
of the fact that the beta-alanine group I would be interested in seeing the out-
got stronger than the placebo group. As comes of a study with four groups:
a final note, the velocity data also support
1. A beta-alanine group doing 3 x 6-8
my thoughts that these were pretty novice
RM
individuals; their velocities at 1RM in the
pre-test line up with velocities at 1RM of 2. A placebo group doing 3 x 6-8 RM
untrained folks or those with very little 3. A beta-alanine group doing 3 x 20-
training experience. 30 RM

72
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
If you are a CrossFit competitor, bodybuilder in a high-repetition training block (20+
reps), or doing concurrent anaerobic-dominant conditioning with your resistance
training, beta-alanine might be a worthwhile supplement to consider. However,
despite the results of this study showing an improvement in squat 1RM, it is unlikely
to be useful for pure strength athletes or those training with heavy loads and complete
rest periods. This outcome favoring beta-alanine versus placebo for 1RM strength
improvement was likely a function of a low training age of the participants combined
with a protocol designed to elicit a large buildup of metabolites.

4. A placebo group doing 3 x 20-30

RM
Given what we know about hypertro-
phy training, you’d think these proto-
cols would produce similar hypertrophy.
Likewise, given what we know about be-
ta-alanine, you’d think only the high-rep
group would get a benefit, but would it
be enough to beat the other groups? Or
would it wash out any beneficial effect
because beta-alanine reduces metabo-
lite build-up to allow for enhanced per-
formance, creating a scenario where no
significant differences in hypertrophy
occurred between conditions?

73
References
1. Mate-Munoz, J.L., et al., Effects of beta-alanine supplementation during a 5-week strength training
program: a randomized, controlled study. J Int Soc Sports Nutr, 2018. 15: p. 19.
2. Bauer, K. and M. Schulz, Biosynthesis of carnosine and related peptides by skeletal muscle cells in
primary culture. Eur J Biochem, 1994. 219(1-2): p. 43-7.
3. Hobson, R.M., et al., Effects of beta-alanine supplementation on exercise performance: a meta-anal-
ysis. Amino Acids, 2012. 43(1): p. 25-37.
4. Saunders, B., et al., β-alanine supplementation to improve exercise capacity and performance: a sys-
tematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2017. 51(8): p. 658-669.

74
 Study Reviewed: An Evidence-Based Approach for Choosing Post-Exercise
Recovery Techniques to Reduce Markers of Muscle Damage, Soreness, Fatigue,
and Inflammation: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. Dupuy et al. (2018)

What’s the Best Way to

Recover from Training?
BY G RE G NUC KO LS

A recent meta-analysis compared the effects of ten different recovery

methods. Massage came out on top, but compression garments and
water immersion are also good options.

75
 KEY POINTS
1. A massage immediately after training seems to be the best thing for alleviating
muscle soreness and perceived fatigue.
2. If you’re not made out of money and can’t get massages all the time, compression
garments and water immersion are also quite effective.
3. The recovery methods reviewed in this meta-analysis don’t replace the fundamentals
(like eating enough calories and protein, and making sure you’re sleeping enough),
but they may help you recuperate faster and handle higher training volumes.

T
here’s an old saying in strength effective recovery modality. Among
sport circles stating that you recovery methods that are cheaper
should “train hard and recov- and more accessible, compression gar-
er harder.” Recovery from training is ments and water immersion (at any
a hugely important topic because we temperature below body temperature)
know that training volume is the key were found to be the most effective,
driver of hypertrophy and a major especially for alleviating DOMS and
driver of strength gains, but ramping perceived fatigue. On the other hand,
up training volume won’t do you any stretching didn’t do much of anything,
good if you can’t recover from training. and active recovery methods were a
Over the years, various recovery mixed bag (decreasing DOMS but in-
methods have been proposed and stud- creasing perceived fatigue 24 hours af-
ied, and there are a lot of things we ter training).
know are effective for recovery. What
we haven’t had, though, is a compre-
hensive meta-analysis comparing the Purpose
various recovery methods to see what The purpose of this meta-analysis
works the best. The study I’m review- was to compare the effects of com-
ing here fills that gap. monly used recovery techniques on
Based on the results of 99 studies markers of muscle damage, soreness,
comparing the effects of 10 different inflammation, and perceived fatigue
recovery methods (assessing DOMS, following exercise. No hypotheses
perceived fatigue, and markers of in- were stated.
flammation and muscle damage), mas-
sage was generally found to be the most

76
Subjects and Methods sessing DOMS, 17 studies assessing
perceived fatigue, 19 studies assessing
To be included in this meta-analysis, inflammatory markers, and 37 stud-
a study had to meet four main inclu- ies assessing proxies of muscle damage.
sion criteria: Recovery interventions assessed includ-
1. It had to include an exercise ses- ed active recovery, stretching, massage,
sion followed by a recovery inter- massage + stretching, electrostimulation,
vention. compression garments, water immer-
sion, contrast water therapy, cryotherapy,
2. It had to test a single recovery in-
and hyperbaric therapy.
tervention at a single time point
(i.e. a study using active recovery The recovery interventions, collective-
and massage would be exclud- ly, were effective at reducing DOMS (ES
ed, as would a study using mul- = -0.61 to -0.94) and perceived fatigue
tiple massage treatments prior to (ES = -0.89 to -1.92). For some reason,
post-testing. Though, strangely, recovery interventions were more effec-
they included one study testing tive at reducing DOMS in men than
the effects of massage + stretch- women (ES = -0.43 to -2.07). Active re-
ing). covery, massage, compression garments,
immersion, contrast water therapy, and
3. It had to include at least one valid
cryotherapy all significantly reduced
test of delayed onset muscle sore-
DOMS, while stretching, electrostim-
ness (DOMS), perceived fatigue,
ulation, and hyperbaric therapy had no
muscle damage, or inflammatory
significant effects. Of note, massage was
markers.
the most effective intervention for re-
4. It had to include healthy adult ducing DOMS.
subjects.
Massage, compression garments, and
Past that, it was a pretty straightfor- immersion were all effective at reducing
ward meta-analysis. Actually, it was clos- perceived fatigue, while stretching, elec-
er to a dozen meta-analyses. The people trostimulation, and contrast water thera-
who did this meta-analysis were crazy py didn’t have a significant effect, and ac-
(in a good way). tive recovery slightly increased perceived
fatigue 24 hours post-training. Massage
was also the most effective intervention
Findings for reducing perceived fatigue.
This meta-analysis is absolutely huge, Overall, there were small decreases in
with 99 studies meeting the inclusion several markers of muscle damage and
criteria. That includes 80 studies as- inflammation, including creatine kinase,

77
 Figure 1 Effects of Recovery Modalities on DOMS

2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
Effect Size

-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
-3.0
-3.5
-4.0
Active Stretching Massage Compression Electrostimulation Water Contrast Water Cryotherapy Hyperbaric
Recovery Garments Immersion Therapy Therapy

Effect sizes for each recovery modality (Mean ± 95% CI). The larger the negative value, the more effective the recovery modality.

interleukin-6, and C-reactive protein, its aim (comparing 10 different recov-

after recovery interventions. Massage ery modalities, while also accounting for
was the most effective at attenuating moderating factors) was very ambitious.
creatine kinase elevations (and stretch- Kudos to the authors.
ing actually led to slightly larger increas- There are three main limitations of this
es in creatine kinase), while massage and meta-analysis: 1) increasing recovery
cryotherapy were both pretty good for rate doesn’t necessarily mean training
reducing interleukin-6. When splitting outcomes would also improve, 2) this
immersion exposure by water tempera- meta-analysis didn’t assess combination
ture, all temperatures below body tem- therapies (except massage plus stretch-
perature seemed to effectively attenuate ing, for some reason), and 3) differing
creatine kinase elevations, interleukin-6, study designs make apples-to-apples
and C-reactive protein, while hot water comparisons difficult.
immersion was ineffective at reducing
The first limitation shouldn’t be a sur-
these inflammatory markers.
prise to MASS readers. As we’ve dis-
cussed before in MASS, some strate-
Interpretation gies acutely decrease soreness or reduce
inflammation (like NSAIDS and cold
This meta-analysis was not without its water immersion) while potentially de-
limitations, but I first want to reiterate creasing gains in strength and/or mus-
just how impressive it was. Synthesizing cle. The second limitation is understand-
data from 99 studies is no small feat, and able: If you included every study testing

78
 Figure 2 Effects of Recovery Modalities on Perceived Fatigue

2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
Effect Size

-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
-3.0
-3.5
-4.0
Active Stretching Massage Compression Electrostimulation Water Contrast Water
Recovery Garments Immersion Therapy

Effect sizes for each recovery modality (Mean ± 95% CI). The larger the negative value, the more effective the recovery modality.

combination therapies, the scope of the ercise protocols would mostly wash out,
meta-analysis would have gotten really but it’s at least worth keeping in mind.
unmanageable, really quickly. The third Overall, the big takeaway from this
limitation is probably the most import- meta-analysis is that if you have the
ant one. Most studies assessing recovery time and money, it would probably be a
after training either use high volumes of good idea to schedule a massage in ad-
running, lots of jump landings, or brutal vance when you know a training session
eccentric training, but those protocols is going to cause a lot of fatigue. Mas-
can differ in volume and overall brutality sage had the largest effect on DOMS,
study-to-study. Presumably, the effects of perceived fatigue, and various markers of
recovery interventions will be more pro- muscle damage (creatine kinase and in-
nounced after super fatiguing protocols terleukin-6) at 72+ hours post-training.
that cause a lot of muscle damage, which It’s worth noting that massage generally
could potentially introduce systematic took place immediately post-training in
bias (if, for example, most of the stud- these studies, so in a perfect world you’d
ies testing the effects of stretching used schedule an appointment you could go
pretty reasonable exercise sessions, and to right after leaving the gym (but please,
most of the studies testing compression for the sake of your masseuse or masseur,
garments used how-the-heck-did-this- take a shower first). It’s unclear whether
make-it-through-ethics-review exercise a massage the day after training would
sessions). There were probably enough still have a beneficial effect.
studies that the effects of different ex-

79
 This meta-analysis paints a pretty
muddy picture for active recovery. On
THE BIG TAKEAWAY FROM one hand, it was one of the most effec-
tive strategies for reducing DOMS, but
THIS META-ANALYSIS IS it actually slightly increased perceived
fatigue 24 hours post-training, on aver-
THAT IF YOU HAVE THE age (though the confidence interval for
perceived fatigue was really wide). This
TIME AND MONEY, IT WOULD meta-analysis also doesn’t do stretching
PROBABLY BE A GOOD IDEA any favors: While stretching continues
to be a popular post-workout recom-
TO SCHEDULE A MASSAGE IN mendation (with people claiming it will
reduce soreness), it didn’t have any effect
ADVANCE WHEN YOU KNOW A on either DOMS or perceived fatigue.
The last recovery modality worth dis-
TRAINING SESSION IS GOING cussing is water immersion. While cold
water immersion after training leads to
TO CAUSE A LOT OF FATIGUE. reduced muscle growth and strength
gains (2), this meta-analysis found that
basically any water temperature below
Assuming you don’t have the time or body temperature is effective at promot-
money to get massages frequently, com- ing recovery. So, while an ice bath after
pression garments seem like your next training may not be a smart call, you
best bet. Mike has covered a meta-anal- may be able to get the recovery benefits
ysis on compression garments in MASS without the gains-hindering downside
before, so this shouldn’t be too much of by taking a cool or lukewarm bath after
a surprise, but that meta-analysis didn’t training. That would depend on what ac-
compare compression garments to other tually hampers muscle growth. Is it the
recovery methods. In this meta-analysis, cold, or is it simply the water immersion,
compression garments didn’t alleviate independent of temperature?
DOMS or perceived fatigue as effectively
One interesting point of discussion in
as massage, but they were essentially tied
this meta-analysis was the mechanism
with active recovery as the second most
of action shared by many recovery strat-
effective modality for reducing DOMS,
egies – massage, compression garments,
and they were the third most effective
and water immersion, specifically. They
modality for reducing perceived fatigue
all cause compression, to varying de-
(behind massage and water immersion).
grees, which affects blood flow into and

80
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
It may be worth scheduling a massage to take place after a training session you expect
to be brutal. Beyond that, getting compression garments or taking a cool (but not cold)
bath may be your best bet if you want to decrease soreness and perceived fatigue
after training.

out of the muscles. Specifically, the au- in the long run. Now, my very strong
thors argue, they limit edema (swelling/ hunch is that rapidly cooling the muscles
inflammation) in the muscles and fa- is the main reason cold water immersion
cilitate the clearance of waste, immune hampers long-term gains (tons of body-
factors, and metabolic byproducts after builders and strength athletes swear by
training. I’d assume massage is mainly regular massages, and I assume our com-
facilitating waste clearance (since the munal bro wisdom would have sensed if
muscles aren’t being compressed long they were limiting muscle growth to any
enough to impede blood flow into the significant degree), but we’ll need more
muscle to any real degree), while com- research to know for sure. I would will-
pression garments are mainly limiting ingly volunteer for a study where I got
edema, and water immersion is having free massages after every workout.
small effects on both sides of the local
blood flow equation. However, com-
pression seems to be the one thing tying Next Steps
them together. That makes me really in- As mentioned, I’d be really intrigued
terested in seeing research testing their to see a study examining whether im-
effects on long-term muscle growth and proved recovery actually translates to
strength gains. If cold water immersion increased gains. I’d also be interested in
leads to attenuated gains due to wa- seeing more research on the long-term
ter immersion itself (rather than due to effects of water immersion at different
the cold exposure), then theoretically temperatures. If lukewarm water aids
all three strategies may improve recov- in recovery just as much as cold water,
ery but decrease training adaptations. If without hampering muscle growth and
restricting blood flow into the muscle strength gains, that would be a cheap,
attenuates gains, then massage may be easy strategy I’d feel comfortable recom-
fine, while compression garments may mending to everyone.
be problematic. If hastening local me-
tabolite clearance attenuates gains, then
massage may do more harm than good

81
References
1. Dupuy O, Douzi W, Theurot D, Bosquet L, Dugué B. An Evidence-Based Approach for Choosing
Post-exercise Recovery Techniques to Reduce Markers of Muscle Damage, Soreness, Fatigue, and
Inflammation: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis. Front Physiol. 2018 Apr 26;9:403. doi:
10.3389/fphys.2018.00403.
2. Roberts LA, Raastad T, Markworth JF, Figueiredo VC, Egner IM, Shield A, Cameron-Smith D,
Coombes JS, Peake JM. Post-exercise cold water immersion attenuates acute anabolic signalling and
long-term adaptations in muscle to strength training. J Physiol. 2015 Sep 15;593(18):4285-301.

82
 VIDEO: Training and the
Aging Process, Part 2
BY MIC HAE L C . ZO URD O S

Part I of our aging series examined the mechanisms behind sarcopenia.

Now, part II, explains how the dosage of training should be altered due
to the anabolic sensitivity associated with sarcopenia.
Click to watch Michael's presentation.

83
References
1. Borde R, Hortobágyi T, Granacher U. Dose–response relationships of resistance training in healthy
old adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports medicine. 2015 Dec 1;45(12):1693-720.
2. Gordon III JA, Hoffman JR, Arroyo E, Varanoske AN, Coker NA, Gepner Y, Wells AJ, Stout JR,
Fukuda DH. Comparisons in the Recovery Response From Resistance Exercise Between Young and
Middle-Aged Men. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2017 Dec 1;31(12):3454-62.
3. Conlon J, Haff G, Tufano JJ, Newton R. Periodization strategies in older adults: impact on physical
function and health.
4. Kosek DJ, Kim JS, Petrella JK, Cross JM, Bamman MM. Efficacy of 3 days/wk resistance training
on myofiber hypertrophy and myogenic mechanisms in young vs. older adults. Journal of applied
physiology. 2006 Aug;101(2):531-44.

84
 VIDEO: Considerations for
Dual-Sport Athletes, Part 2
BY E RI C HE LMS

It’s common these days for physique competitors and strength athletes
to look over each other’s fences and wonder if the grass is greener.
Sometimes, they decide they like the grass on both sides of the fence
and get a second mortgage. In this series, Eric explains how dual-sport
athletes can manage their efforts to succeed in both sports.
Click to watch Eric's presentation.

85
References
1. Ralston, G.W., et al., The Effect of Weekly Set Volume on Strength Gain: A Meta-Analysis. Sports
Med, 2017. 47(12): p. 2585-2601.
2. Schoenfeld, B.J., D. Ogborn, and J.W. Krieger, Dose-response relationship between weekly resis-
tance training volume and increases in muscle mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sports
Sci, 2017. 35(11): p. 1073-1082.
3. Schoenfeld, B.J., et al., Strength and hypertrophy adaptations between low- versus high-load resis-
tance training: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res, 2017.
4. Schoenfeld, B.J., D. Ogborn, and J.W. Krieger, Effects of Resistance Training Frequency on Mea-
sures of Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Med, 2016. 46(11):
p. 1689-1697.
5. Grgic, J., et al., Effect of Resistance Training Frequency on Gains in Muscular Strength: A System-
atic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Med, 2018. 48(5): p. 1207-1220.
6. Peterson, M.D., M.R. Rhea, and B.A. Alvar, Maximizing strength development in athletes: a me-
ta-analysis to determine the dose-response relationship. J Strength Cond Res, 2004. 18(2): p. 377-82.
7. Peterson, M.D., M.R. Rhea, and B.A. Alvar, Applications of the dose-response for muscular strength
development: a review of meta-analytic efficacy and reliability for designing training prescription. J
Strength Cond Res, 2005. 19(4): p. 950-8.
8. Rhea, M.R., et al., A meta-analysis to determine the dose response for strength development. Med
Sci Sports Exerc, 2003. 35(3): p. 456-64.

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.

• Schoenfeld et al. Eccentric Overload Training: A Viable Strategy to

Enhance Muscle Hypertrophy?
• Bailey et al. The Prevalence of Pseudoscientific Ideas and Neuromyths
Among Sports Coaches.
• James et al. The impact of strength level on adaptations to combined
weightlifting, plyometric, and ballistic training.
• Morales-Artacho et al. Influence of a Cluster Set Configuration on the
Adaptations to Short-Term Power Training.
• Lachlan et al. The impact of power clean ability and training age on
adaptations to weightlifting-style training.
• García-Ramos et al. Prediction of the Maximum Number of Repetitions
and Repetitions in Reserve From Barbell Velocity.
• Senefeld et al. Sex Differences in Mechanisms of Recovery after Isometric
and Dynamic Fatiguing Tasks.
• Sumiaki et al. Neuromuscular Adaptations to Work-matched Maximal
Eccentric vs Concentric Training.
• Broatch et al. The Influence of Post-Exercise Cold-Water Immersion on
Adaptive Responses to Exercise: A Review of the Literature.
• Mobley et al. Biomarkers associated with low, moderate, and high vastus
lateralis muscle hypertrophy following 12 weeks of resistance training.

87
 Thanks for
reading MASS.
The next issue will be released to
subscribers on July 1.

Graphics by Katherine Whitfield, and layout design by Lyndsey Nuckols.

88