V O L U ME 3 , ISS U E 6 JUN E 2 0 1 9

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, has specializations 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. 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. As always, we’ve got heaps of great content
for you.
Mike’s first article this month covers just the second study comparing long-
term strength gains in reps in reserve-based programming versus percentage-based pro-
gramming. It was unique because the subjects followed the training programs on their
own, rather than being supervised by research staff. While that’s an unconventional move,
it may make the results more directly relevant for people who either give people training
programs online, or who find their training programs on the internet (i.e. circumstances
where there’s not going to be someone directly supervising the training). His second article
covers a study examining whether beta-alanine aids in recovery from training. Finally, his
video compares and contrasts autoregulation approaches based on RPE or velocity.
Eric’s first article this month covers just the second study comparing large versus small
caloric surpluses in the context of resistance training. Do you really gain more muscle on
a dreamer bulk? And if so, is the fat gain so large that the additional muscle may not be
worth it? The data reporting in this study left something to be desired, but we performed
an exorcism on the data for you to make sure we get the right information to you. Eric’s
second article this month explores differences in exercise preferences and tolerances. Fi-
nally, his video is the second part in his series on fatigue management during contest prep.
Greg’s first article this month covers the first study investigating reverse hypers. It’s a
little crazy that reverse hypers have been a staple of powerlifting programming for so long
without ever showing up in the literature. His second article covers the first study com-
paring velocity-based and percentage-based programming for strength gains. We’ve talked
about autoregulating using velocity a lot in MASS, so it’s good to finally have research
telling us whether those autoregulation strategies actually help you build strength faster.
Finally, his last article covers a systematic review on strategies to help you make the most
of your time between sets.
We hope you enjoy! As always, if you have questions or feedback, let us know in the
MASS Facebook group.

The MASS Team

Eric, Greg, and Mike

3
 Table of Contents

6
BY G R EG NUCKOL S

Are Hyperextensions or Reverse Hyperextensions Better for Posterior

Chain Training?
After decades of popularity in strength gyms, reverse hypers were just studied for
the first time. Are they as magical as we’ve been told, or are they comparable to the
trusty old hyperextension?

16
BY M I CHAEL C. ZOUR DOS

Autoregulation is Good, but Percentages Don’t Have to be Bad

This study shows that long-term load prescription using repetitions in reserve led to
greater strength gains than using percentages. However, significant limitations exist
in this study. Here I discuss the findings, the aforementioned limitations, and how
load prescription strategies don’t have to be mutually exclusive.

27
BY E RI C HEL MS

When Gaining Muscle, the Tortoise Beats the Hare

This study suggests a larger energy surplus produces larger lean mass gains
than a smaller surplus. But, it also results in much larger increases in body fat
and a substantially poorer ratio of lean to fat gain. Furthermore, a larger surplus
might not boost strength gains any more than a smaller surplus. So, is there ever
a time you’d want to use a large surplus?

38
BY G R EG NUCKOL S

Using Velocity to Autoregulate May Increase Strength Gains

We’ve talked about using velocity to autoregulate training before in MASS, but
when the rubber meets the road, does autoregulating training using velocity targets
and velocity stops ultimately lead to larger strength gains than percentage-based
training? This study says “yes.”

4
48
BY M I CHAEL C. ZOUR DOS

Understanding Your Supplement’s Mechanism Reveals When it May

Be Useful
Beta-alanine may help improve volume capabilities by serving as a physiological
buffer. However, can it help recovery? The presently reviewed study is the first to
examine the beta-alanine-recovery paradigm.

57
BY E RI C HEL MS

Give Better Guidance than “Just Work Harder”

As a new trainer, I couldn’t figure out why my clients didn’t get it. If they’d go to the
gym as much me and push themselves as hard, they’d succeed. All my “advice”
was a variation on “be more like me” because I didn’t understand our differences,
and I did them a disservice because of it.

67
BY G R EG NUCKOL S

How to Make the Most of Your Time Between Sets

Unless you spend your entire workout doing circuits or supersets, you probably
spend more time in the gym resting between sets than actually slinging iron. So,
how can you get the most out of those interset periods? This systematic review
details the strategies that’ll give you the most bang for your buck.

75
BY M I CHAEL C. ZOUR DOS

VIDEO: Long-Term Velocity and RPE Loading

Recent evidence suggests that both velocity- and RPE-based load prescription
yields superior strength compared to percentage-based training over the long-
term. This video examines each of these studies and provides examples of how
these methods can be intertwined in the long run.

77
BY E RI C HEL MS

VIDEO: Global Contest Prep Fatigue Management, Part 2

The demands, requirements, barriers to prep success, their causes, and anecdotal
experiences of competitors gives us insights for improvement. In part 2 of this
series, Eric discusses cardio modifications to help manage fatigue and begins the
discussion of nutrition modifications.

5
Study Reviewed: Biomechanical Comparison of the Reverse Hyperextension
Machine and the Hyperextension Exercise. Lawrence et al. (2019)

Are Hyperextensions or Reverse

Hyperextensions Better for
Posterior Chain Training?
BY G RE G NUC KO LS

After decades of popularity in strength gyms, reverse hypers were just

studied for the first time. Are they as magical as we’ve been told, or are
they comparable to the trusty old hyperextension?

6
 KEY POINTS
1. Integrated EMG of the hamstrings and glutes was higher with hyperextensions
than with reverse hyperextensions.
2. Spinal flexion was greater during hyperextensions, but hip flexion was greater
during reverse hyperextensions.
3. Lumbar spine loading was greater during reverse hyperextensions, in spite of
less spinal flexion.
4. Overall, the reverse hyper may be a slightly better exercise based on these acute
data, but both are excellent accessory lifts for your posterior chain, and we
shouldn’t rush to strong conclusions until we have longitudinal research.

I
f you were a powerlifter in the mid- (hamstrings, glutes, and spinal erectors).
2000s, you would have been bap- Fast forwarding 10-15 years, raw lift-
tized into the church of the reverse ing overtook equipped lifting. Louie,
hyper. Multi-ply, equipped powerlifting while still generally respected, no lon-
was the biggest game in town (at least ger holds the status of a near-deity, and
in the US), and Louie Simmons was its the mythos around the reverse hyper has
god. He claimed that reverse hyperex- shrunk back to more appropriate propor-
tensions were what allowed him to re- tions. However, it took until April of this
hab multiple broken vertebra and get year for any research on the machine to
back to the elite echelons of powerlift- be published. Incidentally, the presently
ing, and he gave reverse hypers partial reviewed study (1) comes from the same
credit for the countless world records his lab that did the safety squat bar study (2)
lifters set during their run of dominance. we reviewed a few months back (which
Most people think that Louie invented was also the first of its kind), so we owe
the reverse hyperextension (and I know Lawrence and colleagues a debt of grat-
that, at least at one point, he held the itude for finally giving us empirical ev-
patent for it; he may still have it), but it idence concerning pieces of equipment
seems that the exercise pre-dates West- that people have been using for decades.
side Barbell by at least several decades.
In this study, 20 subjects performed
But regardless of who invented it, Lou-
two sets of 10 hyperextensions and re-
ie convinced a whole generation of lift-
verse hyperextensions with matched
ers – myself included – that the reverse
loads, and the researchers assessed
hyperextension was THE best accessory
muscle EMG, hip and spinal flexion,
lift for developing the posterior chain

7
Table 1 Subject characteristics

N Age (years) Body mass (kg) Height (cm)

20 (10 men, 10 women) 26.8 ± 7.8 74.7 ± 21.5 1.68 ± 0.08

Data are mean ± SD

and lumbar extension forces. Integrat- 2. Would the hyperextension or re-

ed EMG of the hamstrings and glutes verse hyperextension produce larger
and spinal flexion were greater for the hip and spine ranges of motion?
hyperextension, whereas hip flexion and 3. Would the hyperextension or re-
lumbar extension forces were greater for verse hyperextension produce larger
the reverse hyperextension. In aggregate, lumbar spine extension moments?
these results may suggest that reverse
hyperextensions are a slightly better ex- Hypotheses
ercise, but there’s reason to believe that
The authors hypothesized that reverse
both can serve different valuable roles in
hyperextensions would lead to great-
your training program.
er EMG values, ranges of motion, and
lumbar spine extension moments.
Purpose and Research
Questions Subjects and Methods
Purpose Subjects
The purpose of this study was to com- The subjects were 10 men and 10 wom-
pare hyperextensions to reverse hyperex- en who were recreationally active and
tensions, with a focus on EMG, range of did not have any back issues or history
motion, and lumbar extension moments. of back issues. Resistance training expe-
rience wasn’t reported, but at least sever-
Research Questions al of the subjects had some prior training
1. Would the hyperextension or re- experience: Eight subjects reported hav-
verse hyperextension produce larger ing experience with the reverse hyperex-
EMG values for the spinal erectors, tension. More details about the subjects
glutes, and biceps femoris (a ham- can be seen in Table 1.
strings muscle)?

8
 Figure 1 Exercise bottom and top positions

Bottom Top
Hyperextension
hyperextension
Reverse

Design tem). Then, they performed 2 sets of 10

Hyperextension and reverse hyperex- repetitions for both the hyperextension
tensions are illustrated in Figure 1. and the reverse hyperextension, alternat-
ing exercises set-to-set. The first exercise
All data collection took place during a
was alternated for each subject, so that
single visit to the lab. The subjects were
10 started with the hyperextension and
outfitted with electrodes (for EMG) and
10 started with the reverse hyperexten-
reflective markers (for assessing range
sion.
of motion via a high-speed camera sys-

9
 Figure 2 Integrated EMG in the hyperextension and reverse hyperextension

180
Integrated EMG amplitude

160
140
120
(%MVIC)

100
80
60
40
20
0
Biceps femoris Spinal erectors Glutes

Hyperextension Reverse hyper

* = Significant (p < 0.05) difference

For the hyperextension, the subjects exercises more-or-less naturally.

held a standard 45lb plate to their chest.
For the reverse hyperextension, weight Measures
was added to the machine so that the EMG of the biceps femoris, spinal
loads would be equal between exercises erectors, and gluteus maximus was nor-
(when accounting for body mass). Since malized, based on the values recorded
the upper body is heavier than the lower during a maximum voluntary contrac-
body (~⅔ of body mass vs. ~⅓ of body tion in the top position of a hyperex-
mass), that means the external resistance tension. Mean, peak, and integrated (i.e.
loaded on the reverse hyperextension the area under the curve) EMG were
would have been heavier than the 45lb recorded.
used for the hyperextension. For both
Hip flexion was assessed by looking at
exercises, the subjects were asked to keep
the change in angle between the trunk
a 1:1 (1 second concentric, 1 second ec-
and right thigh, and spinal flexion was
centric) cadence, but using momentum
assessed by looking at the change in an-
was neither encouraged nor disallowed
gle between the trunk and pelvis.
so that the subjects would perform both

10
 Table 2 Range of motion (degrees)

Trunk to pelvis Trunk to right thigh

Hyperextension 31.1 ± 9.0* 65.7 ± 13.8

Reverse hyper 20.4 ± 9.3 76.6 ± 9.5†

* = significantly greater than reverse hyper (p<0.05)

† = significantly greater than hyperextension (p<0.05)

It’s not clear how, exactly, the low back ROM) was greater for the reverse hy-
moments were calculated. Some ap- perextension.
proaches just look at external forces, and Lumbar spine moments were higher
others model the contributions of the for the reverse hyperextension than the
muscles that can act on the spine to es- hyperextension. This was true for mean,
timate total forces acting on the spine. I maximum, and integrated measures.
think this study only accounted for ex-
ternal forces, because it doesn’t mention
the use of a musculoskeletal modeling Interpretation
library. Regardless, much like EMG, the
authors calculated mean, maximum, and Interpreting these results isn’t incred-
integrated low back moments. ibly straightforward. That’s true of any
acute study (by now, MASS readers
should know to be cautious about as-
Findings suming that acute differences will neces-
sarily lead to chronic differences in hy-
Integrated EMG of the biceps femo- pertrophy or strength gains), but it’s even
ris and gluteus maximus were higher for trickier here because the “wins” don’t
the hyperextension than the reverse hy- all lean in one direction. On one hand,
perextension. There were no significant greater integrated EMG for the glutes
differences for any muscle when looking and hamstrings is a win for hyperexten-
at mean and maximum EMG. sions, but greater hip flexion and larger
Spinal flexion (trunk to pelvis ROM) lumbar spine moments, in combination
was greater for the hyperextension, with less spinal flexion, seem to be wins
whereas hip flexion (trunk to thigh for reverse hypers.

11
 Figure 3 Lumbar extension moments in the hyperextension and reverse hyperextension
Lumbar extension moment (N*m/kg)

0
Maximum Integrated Mean

Hyperextension Reverse hyper

* = Significant (p < 0.05) difference

Overall, I think these results lean in fa- However, it may not be quite that sim-
vor of the reverse hyperextension being ple. For example, though the difference
a better all-around movement. We don’t in spinal flexion was statistically signif-
yet have solid evidence that EMG dif- icant, the total amount of spinal flexion
ferences of the magnitude observed in (~30 degrees) is still within the range
this study (statistically significant differ- that a healthy spine should be able to
ences, but not particularly large differ- handle without too much issue. There’s
ences) equate to chronic differences in also an argument to be made in favor
hypertrophy or strength gains, but we do of doing some controlled loading in
have good evidence that range of motion spinal flexion to build resilience in the
is an important factor for hypertrophy discs and posterior support structures of
(3). Add in the pretty large differences the spine (which is one reason Jefferson
in lumbar spine moments (which could curls are starting to become more pop-
lead to larger strength gains), in combi- ular). Furthermore, outside the scope of
nation with less spinal flexion, and re- this study, reverse hypers are often per-
verse hypers seem like the better option. formed with quite a bit of momentum,

12
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
Both exercises are great, and you’re probably fine using a combination of both or
sticking with whichever exercise is most comfortable for you. Reverse hypers may
be better all-around, but that’s a very tentative conclusion. Both exercises are great
candidates for increasing training volume for your posterior chain if your deadlift
frequency is limited.

taking full advantage of the stretch re- hypers may be a slightly better choice.
flex, while hyperextensions are typically However, that’s probably an overly re-
more controlled in both phases of the ductive way to look at it. In spite of ba-
lift; thus, it’s possible that reverse hypers sically being pure hip extension exercis-
would provide better carryover to the es, both lifts do subjectively feel quite
squat (since there’s the same stretch re- different, and I think doing both would
flex and rapid reversal of load), while hy- probably be better than sticking with
perextensions would carry over better to just one. Hyperextensions and reverse
deadlift (since, like the deadlift, there’s hypers are both clearly accessory lifts, so
less reliance on the stretch reflex). Final- you shouldn’t feel obligated to include
ly, there’s an additional variable to con- either in a program. However, anecdot-
sider: load. This study matched the loads ally, I find that they’re a good way to in-
used in both exercises, whereas in the crease volume for your posterior chain
real world, most people would use con- if you’re someone who recovers slowly
siderably more weight for reverse hypers. from deadlift. In other words, maybe you
This may mean that reverse hypers are can only deadlift hard once per week,
superior to hyperextensions in ways this and doing a second hard deadlift session
study couldn’t capture (i.e. one would as- wears you down, but you could do one
sume that EMG would increase as load hard deadlift session and one or two ad-
increased, pulling even with hyperex- ditional sessions of hyperextensions or
tensions or perhaps even pulling ahead), reverse hypers, and still recover just fine
though it’s also possible that technique for your next deadlift day. As mentioned
would change with heavier loads, negat- before, if you want to prioritize one or
ing some of the advantages (i.e. spinal the other, I think hyperextensions would
flexion may increase). probably carry over better for deadlifts,
Ultimately, I think these results suggest and reverse hypers would probably carry
that, in a vacuum, if you had to choose over better for squats. And if you have
just one accessory exercise for your pos- back issues (don’t take this as medical ad-
terior chain between these two, reverse vice), the decreased spinal flexion with

13
reverse hypers may make it the clear
better option of the two.

Next Steps
Repeat after me: Longitudinal studies
are needed. As mentioned, though, se-
lecting appropriate loads would be chal-
lenging, since most people (anecdotally)
use considerably more weight for reverse
hypers. I think it would be best to use
RPEs to adjust loading for both exer-
cises, and to also have participants do a
basic squat and deadlift program in con-
junction with their hyperextensions or
reverse hypers. Measures would include
muscle thicknesses of the glutes, ham-
strings, and lumbar erectors, along with
strength gains in the squat and dead-
lift to determine which hyperextension
variation had the best carryover to the
lifts people actually care about.

14
References

1. Lawrence MA, Chin A, Swanson BT. Biomechanical Comparison of the Reverse Hyperex-
tension Machine and the Hyperextension Exercise. J Strength Cond Res. 2019 Apr 1.
2. Hecker KA, Carlson LA, Lawrence MA. Effects of the Safety Squat Bar on Trunk and Low-
er-Body Mechanics During a Back Squat. J Strength Cond Res. 2018 Oct 22.
3. Bloomquist K, Langberg H, Karlsen S, Madsgaard S, Boesen M, Raastad T. Effect of range
of motion in heavy load squatting on muscle and tendon adaptations. Eur J Appl Physiol.
2013 Aug;113(8):2133-42.

15
 Study Reviewed: Autoregulation by “Repetitions in Reserve” Leads to Greater
Improvements in Strength Over a 12-Week Training Program Than Fixed Loading.
Graham and Cleather (2019)

Autoregulation is Good, but

Percentages Don’t Have to be Bad
BY MIC HAE L C . ZO URD O S

This study shows that long-term load prescription using repetitions in

reserve led to greater strength gains than using percentages. However,
significant limitations exist in this study. Here I discuss the findings, the
aforementioned limitations, and how load prescription strategies don’t
have to be mutually exclusive.

16
 KEY POINTS
1. This study had trained men perform the back squat and front squat for 12 weeks
using either a percentage-based program to prescribe load or repetitions in reserve
(RIR).
2. Both groups increased strength, but there were significantly greater strength gains
in the RIR load prescription group.
3. The RIR group trained at a higher intensity than the percentage group, which likely
explains the greater strength. This study did have a major limitation, which is that
subjects trained on their own and not in a laboratory setting, therefore the results
should be interpreted cautiously.

W
e have covered RIR-based rat- percentage to complete the prescribed
ing of perceived exertion (RPE) repetitions, while an RIR group was told
and autoregulation at length in to choose a load that would allow them to
MASS. However, despite the compre- complete the prescribed reps at a certain
hensive coverage, the studies we reviewed RIR. The RIR group gained significantly
were acute in nature, which means we have more strength in both the back and front
yet to cover a study that compared RPE/ squat. Although this study demonstrates
RIR-based loading to percentage-based the concept that autoregulation is a good
loading over the long term. For example, idea, we must understand there are many
percentage-based loading might be 3 sets ways to autoregulate load, of which RPE/
of 8 at 75% of 1RM, while an example RIR is only one option. Further, these
of RPE/RIR-based loading would be various loading options can be used in
3 sets of 8 @7-9RPE (i.e. 2RIR). Eric’s conjunction with each other. Lastly, we’ll
dissertation used RPE-based loading and examine how the limitation of having
reported a small benefit for squat and subjects train on their own potentially
bench strength in the RPE group versus impacted the results.
the percentage-based loading group over
eight weeks (2). The current study (1) is
a replication of sorts of Eric’s study, as it Purpose and Research
compared prescribing load with RIR ver-
sus using percentages over 12 weeks for
Questions
back squat and front squat. In brief, 31
Purpose
men went through a 12-week program,
in which one group was given an exact The purpose of this study was to exam-

17
Table 1 Subject characteristics

Front squat Back squat

Group Subjects Age (years) Body mass (kg) Height (cm)
1RM (kg) 1RM (kg)
Percentage 11 men 28.3 ± 5.6 82.5 ± 8.9 177.8 ± 6.5 111.3 ± 19.6 129.1 ± 21.3

RIR 14 men 27.9 ± 5.3 83.2 ± 9.7 179.6 ± 6.5 120.7 ± 26.3 141.2 ± 29.4

Data are mean ± SD

RIR = repetitions in reserve
Subject characteristics from Graham and Cleather 2019 (1)

ine if prescribing training load with RIR each performed once per week. Back and
would lead to greater strength gains over front squat 1RMs were tested before and
12 weeks than using percentage-based after the 12 weeks. The specific protocol
loading. is listed below; however, in the intro of
this article I mentioned a “major limita-
Hypotheses tion” of this study. That major limitation
No hypotheses were given. Curiously, was: “Subjects worked independently and
the authors did not cite Eric’s disser- were not supervised during the program.”
tation, in which he performed a sim- In other words, subjects tested a 1RM
ilar study, published over a year ago. If with the researchers, then were given the
they were aware of this study, I imagine training program and told to train on
they would have hypothesized greater their own for 12 weeks and record their
strength gains in the RIR group. training in an Excel spreadsheet. After
the 12 weeks, subjects returned their Ex-
cel spreadsheets to the researchers and
Subjects and Methods tested their post-study 1RM with the
researchers. A second limitation is that
Subjects subjects were allowed to do as much other
“sports-specific” training as they wished,
31 young men who had trained at least
and some individuals performed snatch-
twice per week for at least two years par-
es and clean and jerks. The only exercise
ticipated. Some subjects were competi-
that was prohibited during the study was
tive powerlifters and weightlifters while
squat training – although some indirectly
others were competitive in a variety of
squatted through clean and jerks. We’ll
sports (i.e. Gaelic football, field hockey,
get back to these limitations as this arti-
track and field, and golf ). The available
cle continues.
subject details are in Table 1.
Training Program
Protocol Overview
Both groups performed 3 sets of 10 in
Subjects trained twice per week for 12
weeks 1-4, 4 sets of 5 in weeks 5-8, and
weeks with the back squat and front squat

18
Table 2 Training programs

Percentage-based loading group program

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4

3x10 @ 65% 3x10 @ 67.5% 3x10 @ 70% 3x10 @ 72.5%

Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8

4x5 @ 77.5% 4x5 @ 80% 4x5 @ 82.5% 4x5 @ 85%

Week 9 Week 10 Week 11 Week 12

3x3 @ 87.5% 3x3 @ 90% 3x3 @ 92.5% 3x3 @ 95%

Repetitions in reserve-based loading group program

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4

3x10 @ 4RIR 3x10 @ 3RIR 3x10 @ 2RIR 3x10 @ 1RIR

Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8

4x5 @ 4RIR 4x5 @ 3RIR 4x5 @ 2RIR 4x5 @ 1RIR

Week 9 Week 10 Week 11 Week 12

3x3 @ 2RIR 3x3 @ 1RIR 3x3 @ 0RIR 3x3 @ 0RIR

3 sets of 3 in weeks 9-12 on both train- tions are listed in Table 3.

ing days during the week. The percent-
age group was given a fixed percentage,
and the RIR group was told to choose a Findings
weight that would allow them to com-
plete the predetermined amount of reps Strength
at a specified RIR. A session RPE value The RIR loading led to significantly
was also given by subjects after each ses- greater increases in both back and front
sion. The specific training programs for squat 1RM compared to the percent-
each group are in Table 2. age-based group (Table 3). Although, the
There were several other notable limita- between-group effect sizes were small.
tions or at least methodological points I
feel are worth mentioning. These limita-

19
Table 3 Limitations

Major limitation 1. Subjects trained on their own and not in the laboratory

1. No mention of how load was adjusted if the target RIR was

missed or number of reps was not successfully completed
2. Additional training outside of no direct squat training was
allowed and not controlled for
3. No mention of how load was adjusted from set-to-set in the
percentage-based group if the target number of reps was
not met
Other notable limitations 4. No mention of how load was adjusted from session-to-
or omissions from the session or week-to-week in the percentage-based group if
methods the target number of reps was not met
5. Subjects were not asked to keep nutritional logs
6.
took place
Note: For numbers 2 and 3 above, it is possible that subjects in the percentage
group were simply forced to use the predetermined percentages even if they
were failing on reps. However, if that is the case that is a bad design as even
in a percentage-based model someone would reduce progression if they were
failing on lots of reps.

Training Intensity, Volume, and Session limitations in a bit. For now, let’s just
RPE talk about the findings as if there are no
As time went on, the RIR group tended issues. The findings are not too surpris-
to train at a higher percentage of 1RM on ing and are somewhat in line with Er-
average than the percentage group (Fig- ic’s dissertation (read in full here). Al-
ure 1). Total volume, however, was not though the p-values in Eric’s study were
different between groups. Lastly, session not significant in favor of the RPE/RIR
RPE was, on average, greater in the RIR loading group, the magnitude-based in-
group for back squat sessions (p<0.001) ferences suggested a benefit for strength
but was not quite significant for front in favor of autoregulated loading (2).
squat sessions (p=0.056). This makes Both studies also reported that subjects
sense since the percentage of 1RM used trained at ~5% greater intensity in the
ended up being higher in the RIR group. RPE/RIR groups compared to the per-
centage group in the final weeks of train-
ing, which explains the greater strength
Interpretation gains for RPE/RIR since strength is in-
tensity driven (3, 4, 5).
We’ll get to the previously mentioned

20
Table 4 Strength results

Pre- to post-study changes in back squat

Percentage Between group
Group Pre Post
increase p-value size (Hedges’ g)
Percentage 129.1 ± 21.3 138.2 ± 19.5* 7.1%
P=0.006 in favor of
0.24 in favor of RIR group
RIR group
RIR 141.2 ± 29.4 156.4 ± 29.8*# 10.8%

Pre- to post-study changes in front squat

Percentage Between group
Group Pre Post
increase p-value size (Hedges’ g)
Percentage 111.3 ± 19.6 120.6 ± 18.3* 8.3%
P=0.004 in favor of
0.21 in favor of RIR group
RIR group
RIR 120.7 ± 26.3 134.8 ± 26.1*# 11.7%

* = Significant increase from pre- to post-study; # = significantly greater increase in RIR (repetitions in reserve group) compared to percentage group

One reason that RIR load prescription will get the same amount of reps at 70%.
led to higher intensities is that load in Thus, these universal reps-allowed tables
the percentage group was based on an are also limited in this way.
existing repetitions-allowed table (Table There are of course numerous benefits
5). The table does not take into account to RPE/RIR loading aside from load
individual difference in reps performed. individualization. Namely, RPE-based
For example, the table stipulates that loading allows you to increase or de-
12 repetitions can be performed at 70% crease load based upon daily energy lev-
of 1RM; however, two recent studies els. RPE-based loading also avoids the
(6, 7) have reported averages of 14 ± 4 pitfalls of pre-determined progression.
(range: 6-26) and 16 ± 4 (range: 6-28) Another less-obvious benefit is that
reps performed on the squat at 70% of RPE/RIR loading inherently allows you
1RM. Since the average reps at a given to more precisely track session-to-ses-
intensity is realistically higher than the sion progress since you have a rating for
repetitions-allowed table, it makes sense each set. Rating each set not only tracks
that using RPE would allow a lifter, on strength progress (i.e 100kg X 8 reps
average, to load heavier than using the @8RPE in week 2 is better than 95kg
reps-allowed table. This isn’t to say that X 8 reps @8.5RPE in week 1), but you
percentage-based training can’t work, can easily use the results of the previ-
and it’s not even saying that it can’t work ous session to assist you in choosing the
really well. It’s just to say that everything load during the next session. To be fair,
should be individualized – even per- you can do most of the above with per-
centages. Lastly, reps-allowed tables are centage-based loading too. Just because
often used to program across different you use percentage for load prescription
lifts, yet it’s unlikely that each individual doesn’t mean you still can’t track RPE/

21
 Figure 1 Training intensities in each group

110

100
Intensity (%)

90

80

70
RIR BS Percentage group
RIR FS
60
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Week
RIR BS = Repetitions in Reserve Group Back Squat,
RIR FS = Repetitions in Reserve Group Front Squat

RIR after sets. In fact, you should, and benefits for strength in velocity-based
we’ve recommended this before. So, loading versus percentage-based load-
RPE/RIR isn’t magic; it’s just one meth- ing, and was reviewed by Greg this
od of load prescription, and it has many month. Greg’s review should also make
benefits outside of just load prescription. it clear that all of the above that can be
Further, the various load prescription done with RPE/RIR can also be done
methods can and often should be used with velocity.
in conjunction with each other. The dif-
ferences in this study and Helms et al Limitations of This Study
(2) simply show that autoregulation is The main limitation is that subjects
a good idea when compared to extreme trained on their own and not in the lab-
programming rigidity. This is again ev- oratory. This presents a whole host of
ident in Dorrell et al (9), which found potential issues. First, we are taking the

22
subjects’ word that what they entered in
the log books is correct. It is possible that
Table 5 Standard reps-allowed table

subjects simply lied about what they en- Percentage Reps allowed
tered or made entry errors. Additional-
100 1
ly, subjects in the RIR group could have
consistently overshot the RIR and not 95 2

reported it (which I think is likely). Al- 92.5 3

though the authors reported average in-
90 4
tensity, they didn’t report the actual RIR
for each set, which is frustrating. Even 87.5 5

when well-intended, it is almost guaran- 85 6

teed that subjects missed the prescribed 82.5 7
RIR quite a bit, yet there was no formal-
80 8
ized way to change load (or, at least, it’s
not stated in the paper) for when sub- 77.5 9

jects missed the RIR target. If you do 75 10

prescribe load with RPE/RIR, Table 6
72.5 11
was used in Helms et al and gives you
a guide to change load if you miss the 70 12

target range. It’s also entirely possible 67.5 13

(and maybe even likely) that some lifters 65 14
cut some squat reps high during train-
Based upon Baechle and Earle (8)
ing, which could have impacted their
progress. In a laboratory, the researchers
would have (or at least should have) im- Based on the paper, it is possible that
mediately told the subjects not to squat subjects trained in a different gym than
high after seeing it one time. Further, where testing took place, but I’m not
from conducting many studies using sure. The paper just states that 1RM
RPE/RIR, we always show the subjects testing was done with the investigators.
the RPE scale after every single set to This could have been in a lab, or the in-
reinforce what the numbers mean, and vestigators could have traveled to the fa-
if someone seems unsure after giving an cility where each participant trained. If
RPE, we often ask “are you sure?” while different facilities were used, I think it’s
showing them the scale. This question possible that training in a different gym
is not to influence, but rather to allow than the laboratory affected 1RM values
them to give the most accurate RPE at post-testing and could have also af-
score; however, this entire process was fected how the weights felt during each
missed by subjects training on their own. session. For example, weights that are

23
not calibrated tend to be a bit off from Table 6 Load adjustment for next set if RPE
what is listed on them (i.e. 45lb might target is missed
be 42lb in reality); thus, the weights Actual RPE Load adjustment
used in the percentage group may have 1 Increase load by 20%
been slightly off the actual percentage,
2 Increase load by 16%
although that probably wasn’t a huge
3 Increase load by 12%
deal. Also, from conducting many train-
4 Increase load by 8%
ing studies, I can tell you that watching
the subjects train helps to give you an 5 Increase load by 4%

idea of how to conduct their post-test 6 Lifter choice

1RM. Watching a subject train is just 7 Lifter choice

like watching a client: You get to learn 7.5 Lifter choice

their demeanor and how well they can 8 Lifter choice

grind, among other traits. All of these 8.5 Decrease load by 2%

factors help give you information to get 9 Decrease load by 4%
the most accurate 1RM. Training in a 9.5 Decrease load by 6%
commercial gym or recreation center is 10 Decrease load by 8%
also not a controlled environment; thus,
the atmosphere could have been differ- This table uses a target range of 6-8 RPE for a set
Note: If you land within the RPE range it is your choice of how you want
ent between training sessions. For ex- to adjust the weight for the next set. If you land outside of the RPE
range at the end of a set there is a 2% load adjustment for every 0.5
ample, sometimes the gym could have RPE points outside of the range you are.

been packed with people and have loud

music playing, while other times the at- not controlled and nutritional logs were
mosphere could have been much calm- not conducted, although I don’t think ei-
er. The above is not a comprehensive list ther of these nutrition points are a huge
of what could affect training sessions by deal.
not being in a lab, but I think you get
As I finish up my whining about lim-
the idea.
itations, I’d like to say that the main lim-
Outside of not performing any other itation of having the subjects train on
squat training, additional exercise and their own may have inadvertently been
lifting was not controlled. However, a small benefit for ecological validity.
some participants did clean and jerks, Since subjects trained on their own, I
which includes some degree of front would be willing to bet that they over-
squatting. Further, some lifters could shot the prescribed RIR pretty frequent-
have included other lower body assis- ly, which also helps to explain the higher
tance work, which could have affected intensity in the RIR group and possibly
outcomes. Lastly, nutrient timing was contributed to the greater strength ad-

24
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
1. Trained lifters experienced greater improvement in 1RM strength when using RIR-
based loading versus percentage-based loading.
2. Despite the significant limitations of this study, the results are in line with previous
research and demonstrate that some sort of autoregulation in training is a good
idea.
3. In addition to showing that some sort of autoregulation is a good idea, these results
don’t show that RPE/RIR-based loading is magic or superior to another form of
autoregulation (i.e. velocity-based training). Rather, it shows the limitations of
prescribing percentages when they are not individualized to the lifter.

aptations. So perhaps, this study reveals may be better. However, also in this case,
to us that RPE/RIR is preferable to percentages need to be individualized as
percentage-based training when people discussed above. Therefore, I’d like to see
train on their own for strength, as they a long-term training study with a group
are more likely to go heavy. Also, the that uses individualized percentages to
findings from this study are fairly similar program load, a group that uses individ-
to Eric’s dissertation, so I don’t find the ualized velocity to program load, and a
results unbelievable at all. To the con- third group using RPE/RIR.
trary, they seem pretty realistic. Final-
ly, I don’t think a lot of the limitations
I mentioned above played a huge role,
but they must be mentioned; the reason
I’m whining about them is that none
of these limitations were mentioned as
limitations in the actual paper.

Next Steps
In my opinion, there is still a case for
percentage-based loading. First, some
personality types may simply prefer to
have a predetermined percentage and
others may always overshoot (or under-
shoot) an RPE; in this case, percentages

25
References
1. Graham T, Cleather DJ. Autoregulation by” Repetitions in Reserve” Leads to Greater Improvements
in Strength Over a 12-Week Training Program Than Fixed Loading. Journal of strength and condi-
tioning research. 2019 Apr.
2. Helms ER, Byrnes RK, Cooke DM, Haischer MH, Carzoli JP, Johnson TK, Cross MR, Cronin JB,
Storey AG, Zourdos MC. RPE vs. Percentage 1RM loading in periodized programs matched for
sets and repetitions. Frontiers in physiology. 2018 Mar 21;9:247.
3. Anderson T, Kearney JT. Effects of three resistance training programs on muscular strength and
absolute and relative endurance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 1982 Mar 1;53(1):1-7.
4. 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. European journal of applied physiology.
2002 Nov 1;88(1-2):50-60.
5. Holm L, Reitelseder S, Pedersen TG, Doessing S, Petersen SG, Flyvbjerg A, Andersen JL, Aagaard
P, Kjaer M. Changes in muscle size and MHC composition in response to resistance exercise with
heavy and light loading intensity. Journal of applied physiology. 2008 Nov;105(5):1454-61.
6. Cooke DM, Haischer MH, Carzoli JP, Bazyler CD, Johnson TK, Varieur R, Zoeller RF, Whitehurst
M, Zourdos MC. Body Mass and Femur Length Are Inversely Related to Repetitions Performed
in the Back Squat in Well-Trained Lifters. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2019
Mar 1;33(3):890-5.
7. Zourdos MC, Goldsmith JA, Helms ER, Trepeck C, Halle JL, Mendez KM, Cooke DM, Haischer
MH, Sousa CA, Klemp A, Byrnes RK. Proximity to Failure and Total Repetitions Performed in
a Set Influences Accuracy of Intraset Repetitions in Reserve-Based Rating of Perceived Exertion.
Journal of strength and conditioning research. 2019 Feb.
8. Baechle, T.R., and Earle, R.W. 2008. Essentials of strength training and conditioning. 3rd ed. Hu-
man Kinetics, Champaign, Ill.
9. Dorrell H, Smith MF, Gee T. Comparison of velocity-based and traditional percentage-based load-
ing methods on maximal strength and power adaptations. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research. 2019.

26
Study Reviewed: Effects of Different Dietary Energy Intake Following Resistance Training
on Muscle Mass and Body Fat in Bodybuilders: A Pilot Study. Ribeiro et al. (2019)

When Gaining Muscle, the

Tortoise Beats the Hare
BY E RI C HE LMS

This study suggests a larger energy surplus produces larger lean mass
gains than a smaller surplus. But, it also results in much larger increases in
body fat and a substantially poorer ratio of lean to fat gain. Furthermore,
a larger surplus might not boost strength gains any more than a smaller
surplus. So, is there ever a time you’d want to use a large surplus?

27
 KEY POINTS
1. Competitive bodybuilders were split into groups eating higher and lower energy
surpluses. Both groups gained significant muscle mass relative to baseline, but
only the high-energy group gained significant body fat. However, the high-energy
group also gained significantly more muscle (and fat) than the low energy group.
2. The authors used an equation that is most likely inappropriate for estimating changes
in muscle mass in bodybuilders, so Greg back-calculated fat-free mass using the
changes in body fat and total body mass. The high-energy group increased fat-
free mass by 3% (2.4kg) and fat mass by 12.4% (1.8kg). The low-energy group
increased fat-free mass by 1.5% (1.2kg) and fat by 2.5% (0.3kg). Thus, the slow-
gain group was gaining lean:fat mass at a 4:1 ratio, and the fast group was gaining
lean:fat mass at a 4:3 ratio.
3. In a previous study, a group of athletes had similar results in terms of body
composition change. However, strength was also measured, and there were no
significant differences in strength improvements between groups either. Thus,
large surplus gaining diets (among natural lifters) should probably be relegated to
novice stages and only among relatively lean lifters who can afford to gain some
body fat in the process.

T
his study (1) sits among just a few One group consumed a high-energy diet,
scant pieces of research that ex- and the other group consumed a mod-
amine body composition change erate-energy diet for four weeks. The
in resistance-trained subjects during en- week before and the week after the in-
ergy surpluses of different magnitudes. tervention, anthropometric assessments
This is an important topic for perfor- were performed to estimate changes in
mance and aesthetic athletes given that skeletal muscle mass and body-fat per-
a better power to weight ratio is more centage. Only the high-energy group
likely to improve performance, and add- gained significant body fat relative to
ing muscle with minimal fat mass im- baseline, which was also significantly
proves the appearance of muscularity more than the moderate-energy group.
to a greater degree (or, at the very least, Both groups also gained significant
makes a subsequent diet easier). To in- muscle mass, but the high-energy group
vestigate the topic, a group of 11 male, gained significantly more than the mod-
amateur bodybuilders were split into erate group. However, from an efficiency
two groups that performed the same standpoint, the moderate-energy group
resistance training program, while con- had a more favorable body composition
suming sufficient energy to gain weight. change. Moreso, there is a major limita-

28
Table 1 General characteristics of the participants at baseline

G1 (n=6) G2 (n=5) p-value

Age (years) 26.5 ± 2.8 27.2 ± 1.7 0.64

Body mass (kg) 90.2 ± 13.3 89.8 ± 3.8 0.94

Height (cm) 179.1 ± 9.2 174.2 ± 2.3 0.27

RMR (kcal) 2025.0 ± 218.1 1989.9 ± 69.5 0.73

Energy above RMR

4062.6 ± 635.6 2511.6 ± 109.5 <0.001
(kcal)

Data are mean ± SD

RMR = resting metabolic rate; G1 = higher energy intake; G2 = moderate energy intake

tion in this study that I will discuss in Subjects and Study Design
this review, along with the implications Eleven male bodybuilders (26.8 ± 2.3
and practical applications of these find- years, 90.1 ± 9.7 kg, 176.9 ± 7.1 cm)
ings. were randomized into two groups, one
consuming a high-energy diet (n = 6)
and one consuming a moderate-energy
Purpose and Research diet (n = 5), both designed to produce
Questions body mass gains. Participants had to be
currently registered with the regional
Purpose bodybuilding federation for the coun-
try and have been competing for at least
The purpose of this study was to in-
one year. All participants were training
vestigate the impact of higher and lower
six days per week using various routines
energy surpluses in combination with
prior to the study’s start and were in the
resistance training on body composition
offseason. Furthermore, all participants
changes in male bodybuilders.
were required to have abstained from
anabolic steroid use for at least the pri-
Hypotheses
or three months to the study (I would
No hypotheses were provided. presume many or all were natural or had
been for a longer period, or I doubt they
would have participated). Participant
Subjects and Methods baseline details are shown in Table 1.

29
 Table 2 Dietary intake of bodybuilders according to groups

G1 (n=6) G2 (n=5) p-value

Carbohydrates

Grams 1170.2 ± 161.5 726.0 ± 30.8 < 0.05

g/kg 12.9 ± 0.32 8.0 ± 0.05 < 0.05

Energy (kcal) 4681.0 ± 646.2 2904.2 ± 123.4 < 0.05

Energy (%) 76.9 ± 0.99 64.5 ± 0.81 < 0.05

Proteins

Grams 162.2 ± 26.1 185.0 ± 6.9 0.08

g/kg 1.8 ± 0.15 2.0 ± 0.05 < 0.05

Energy (kcal) 648.8 ± 104.4 740.1 ± 27.7 0.08

Energy (%) 10.6 ± 0.80 16.4 ± 0.39 < 0.05

Lipids

Grams 84.1 ± 13.5 95.2 ± 5.8 0.12

g/kg 0.93 ± 0.05 1.06 ± 0.05 < 0.05

Energy (kcal) 757.7 ± 121.6 857.0 ± 52.3 0.12

Energy (%) 12.4 ± 0.59 19.0 ± 0.81 < 0.05

Energy

kcal 6087.6 ± 853.3 4501.4 ± 177.9 0.05

kcal/kg 67.5 ± 1.7 50.1 ± 0.51 < 0.05

Non-protein kcal/g
33.7 ± 3.1 20.3 ± 0.6 < 0.05
protein

G1 = higher energy intake; G2 = moderate energy intake

Participants had all body composition 50.1 kcal/kg/d in the higher and lower
metrics tested in weeks one and six. They energy intake groups; however, the diets
then followed a standardized resistance were individually designed for each par-
training protocol under supervision and ticipant such that they were subsequent-
were given prescribed nutrition plans to ly adjusted throughout the study based
follow during weeks two through five (a on rate of weight gain (the specific ad-
four-week intervention). justments and target rates of weight gain
were not specified by the authors). Rest-
Nutrition ing metabolic rate was also estimated via
Diets were set at 67.5 kcal/kg/d and the Harris Benedict equation (I’m not

30
Table 3 Training program

Day Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

Chest, shoulders, Chest, shoulders,
Muscles Back, biceps, forearms Legs Back, biceps, forearms Legs
triceps, abs triceps, abs

Lat pull, BB row, cable Squat, leg press, leg Lat pull, BB row, cable Squat, leg press, leg
row, BB curl, incline DB extension, SLDL, leg row, BB curl, incline DB extension, SLDL, leg
Lifts skullcrusher, tricep skullcrusher, tricep
curl, BB wrist curl, BB curl, standing calf, curl, BB wrist curl, BB curl, standing calf,
pushdown, crunch, pushdown, crunch,
reverse wrist curl seated calf reverse wrist curl seated calf
cable crunch cable crunch

Loading Pyramid: 4 sets 12RM, 10RM, 8RM, 6RM, 15-20RM for calves, abs 150-300 total reps

Rest 2-3 minute rest between exercises, 1-2 minute rests between sets

RM = repetition max; OHP = overhead press; BB = barbell; DB = dumbbell; SLDL = stiff leg deadlfit

sure why, but it may have gone into the This is a substantial limitation of this
calculations for each person’s baseline study, which I’ll address in the interpre-
diet). Participants were given written tation.
meal plans consisting of regional specif-
ic whole foods to follow on their own. Training
Meals were consumed every 3-4 hours, Training consisted of a body part split
and the energy and macronutrient spe- using descending repetition maximums
cifics of each diet are shown in Table 2. over a four-set pyramid style over six
days. The participants were instructed
Body Composition Assessments to control the eccentric with ~2 second
Height and weight were measured lowering and ~1 second lifting phases.
via scale and stadiometer. Skinfold as- When possible, training loads were pro-
sessments were used to estimate body gressively increased for each set by 2-4kg
fat percentage via a seven-site equation. for upper body exercises and 4-10kg
Skinfold thicknesses were taken on the for lower body exercises. Details of the
right side of body, with three measure- training program are shown in Table 3.
ments at each site, using the median
value. Skeletal muscle mass (SMM) was
estimated using a previously validated Findings
equation (2): Estimated skeletal muscle mass sig-
SMM (kg) = 0.244 x BW + 7.8 x height nificantly increased relative to baseline
+ 6.6 x S – 0.098 x A + R – 3.3 where in both groups; however, body fat per-
BW = body weight (kg), H = height (m), centage only significantly increased rel-
S = sex (male = 1, female = 0), A = age ative to baseline in the higher energy
(years), R = race (−1.2 for Asians, 1.4 for group. Details are shown in Table 4.
African-Americans and 0 for Cauca- Effect sizes for the changes in body fat
sians). and skeletal muscle mass were small in

31
Table 4 Body composition percentage changes

G1 (n=6) G2 (n=5) between-group p-value

Muscle mass (kg) 36.7 ± 3.7 37.7 ± 3.9* +2.7% 36.1 ± 1.1 36.5 ± 1.2* +1.1% <0.05

Body fat (%) 16.2 ± 4.6 17.4 ± 4.6* +7.4% 13.3 ± 2.7 13.4 ± 2.6 +0.8% < 0.05

* p < 0.05 pre vs post; G1 = higher energy intake; G2 = moderate energy intake

the high-energy group and trivial in the gain more of everything – both mus-
moderate-energy group, with the dif- cle and fat. However, from an efficien-
ferences in these effects between groups cy standpoint, the moderate-energy
being small. Details are shown in Table group is the clear winner. This is easy to
5. see visually looking at Figure 1. From
Regarding differences between groups, the practical perspective of a strength
the high-energy group gained signifi- or physique competitor, gaining a ton
cantly (take this “significant” finding of body fat each time you try to put on
with a grain of salt given the sample size) muscle is a losing proposition. As a com-
more body fat and muscle mass than the petitive powerlifter or weightlifter, the
moderate-energy group. This is graphi- purpose of gaining muscle is to help you
cally represented in Figure 1. get stronger. Presumably, the greater the
proportion of weight gained as muscle,
the better the strength gain. Thus, the
Interpretation only time you wouldn’t care if the ratio
of muscle to fat gain was heavily skewed
Because of how little research there is toward fat (as was observed in the high-
in this area, this is an important study. er energy group), would be if you were a
Likewise, the use of competitive body- superheavyweight (e.g. in a weight class
builders as participants makes this study with no upper limit). If you were trying
especially relevant for MASS readers. to stay in any weight class with an upper
At face value, the results are straightfor- limit though, you’d want to “fill out” that
ward: If you eat a larger surplus, you’ll

Table 5 Body composition effect sizes

G1 (n=6) G2 (n=5)

Skeletal muscle mass 0.42 0.17 0.25

Body fat 0.33 0.03 0.30

G1 = higher energy intake; G2 = moderate energy intake

32
 Figure 1 Percentage changes from pre- to post- training according to groups

G1
14
G2

12

10

8
%

0
Muscle mass Body fat
Data are mean ± SD
G1 = higher energy intake; G2 = moderate energy intake; * = p < 0.05 pre vs post-training; # = p < 0.05 G1 vs. G2

weight class with as much muscle mass discussing the implications of this re-
as possible, rather than rapidly reaching search. First, I should address a substan-
the top of the class by gaining a lot of fat. tial limitation. An anthropometric equa-
In the case of a competitive bodybuilder, tion was used to calculate skeletal muscle
gaining muscle mass is important in and mass (3). Don’t get me wrong, the cre-
of itself, but it only helps if that’s muscle ators of the equation did a great job by
mass you can display on game day. By cross-validating it with MRI measure-
gaining a large amount of fat, you put ments of skeletal muscle mass in a large
yourself in a position to either have to sample size. Furthermore, the equa-
diet harder or diet longer to strip it all tion was subsequently validated against
away for competition. DXA for evaluating changes in muscle
Now, I’ve gotten ahead of myself by mass following resistance training in
trained males (2). However, if you look

33
at the equation, the variables are height,
weight, sex, and race. That’s it. I don’t
doubt this equation lines up nicely at the THE SLOW GAIN GROUP WAS
group level with skeletal mass at baseline
in untrained individuals, or even chang- GAINING LEAN:FAT MASS AT
es in standard, research-level, “trained”
participants in the short term. However, A 4:1 RATIO, AND THE FAST
I’m highly skeptical it can accurately as-
sess hypertrophy in bodybuilders, espe-
GROUP WAS GAINING LEAN:FAT
cially in a small sample size. MASS AT A 4:3 RATIO.
Logically, when using this equation,
whichever group gains more weight will
always be shown to gain more muscle. while the fast gain group put on 1.8kg,
Someone’s height, sex, age, and race for a 2.5% versus 12.4% increase in fat
won’t change during a study, and the mass. Meaning, the slow gain group was
only other input is weight. That means gaining lean:fat mass at a 4:1 ratio, and
if you gain more weight, the equation the fast group was gaining lean:fat mass
will register a larger increase in muscle at a 4:3 ratio.
mass. Unfortunately, this means we can
Now, these calculations are almost cer-
only confidently infer that the chang-
tainly better than what was published
es in body fat are accurate in this study.
due to the limitation of the equation,
Fortunately, Greg stepped in during
but they are still based on skinfold de-
peer review for this MASS article and
rived body-fat percentage, which is not
did some back-calculations using the
the most accurate metric. But, this can
body fat and total body mass changes
be bridged with prior research. Garthe
to estimate changes in lean body mass.
and colleagues (4) took elite athletes
You can view his calculations here, but
from various sports, split them into two
I’ll summarize shortly. Also, he point-
groups differentiated by diet, put them
ed out that Figure 1 reports changes in
on a hypertrophy program, and mea-
body fat percentage, which is non-intu-
sured their pre- and post-study 1RMs
itive if we are trying to get an idea of
and body composition by DXA. One
the ratio of lean to fat mass gains. All
group received individualized diets from
in all, the slow-gain group gained 1.2kg
sports dietitians to produce weight gain
of lean mass, while the fast-gain group
via a caloric surplus, while the other
gained 2.4kg, or 1.5% versus a 3% in-
group was told to eat in a self-guid-
crease in lean mass. Likewise, the slow-
ed fashion to gain muscle. Importantly,
gain group gained only 0.3kg of fat mass,
these were not lifters, so a self-guided

34
diet did not turn into a “see-food” diet
Figure 2 Strength and body composition changes from Garthe 2013 (4)
like it might in iron-gamers indoctrinat-
ed in the ways of “bulking up.” Instead,
the dietitian-lead group ate ~600kcals/d 20
NCG
more than the self-guided group. While ALG
these were elite athletes, they were pri- 15

Change (%)
marily doing sport specific condition-
10
ing work without much weight training.
Thus, you’d expect them to be far from
5
their genetic ceiling for hypertrophy and
capable of putting on muscle relatively 0
quickly in response to training and eat- BW LBM FM
ing. However, the findings largely repli-
15
cated the present study, but to an even
more extreme degree. 10

If you view Figure 2, you can see the Change (%)

5
1RM strength and body composition
changes from Garthe 2013 (4). With 0
their use of DXA, we can be more confi-
dent in the lean body mass changes than -5
1 RM 1RM 1RM 40m CMJ
the present study’s assessment of muscle bench bench squat sprint
press pull
mass, and we also have the added benefit
of observing the changes in strength. * = Significantly different from baseline. ** = Significantly different between groups.

Both the large and small surplus groups

gained total body mass, lean body mass, and row gains being greater in the larg-
and improved their 1RMs relative to er surplus group. However, the smaller
baseline. However, only the large sur- surplus group had a non-significantly
plus group increased fat mass relative to greater increase in 1RM squat and more
baseline, and they gained more total and importantly, adipose tissue is composed
fat mass than the smaller surplus group of roughly ~13% lean body mass (5). In-
(4). When you look at the magnitude of deed, a recent paper showed that DXA
change in each compartment of body derived changes in fat mass result in au-
composition, you can see the larger gain tomatic changes in lean body mass as the
in body weight was almost completely lean body mass component of adipose
composed of body fat. To be very gen- tissue changes as fat is lost or gained
erous, you could point to the non-sig- (6). Meaning, given the large increase
nificant lean body mass and 1RM bench in fat mass, small non-significant differ-

35
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
Based on the available research, and my anecdotal experience having worked with
many natural lifters, I recommend setting a surplus to produce weight gain at a rate
of 0.5-1.5% of bodyweight per month. For novices, you can use the high end of this
range, and advanced trainees should use the lower end of this range. If you find you
have to cyclically do cuts to shed excess body fat (more than twice or three times per
year), you’re probably attempting to gain weight too quickly or you need to improve
the effectiveness of your training.

ence in lean mass, and similar changes in amazing. From such a study, we’d be able
strength, I’m confident the larger surplus to determine what an appropriate rate
group didn’t gain any more muscle than of weight gain might be. Ideally, such a
the smaller surplus group in Garthe et study would have multiple groups with
al. surpluses of different magnitudes, as
Overall, this leaves us with a relatively both Garthe and the present study had
bleak view of “bulking,” at least in nat- pretty big gaps in energy intake between
ural lifters. A modest surplus is all that groups.
is required, and it appears a surplus of
any substantial size is largely allocated
toward fat gain, indicating the tortoise
beats the hare in most cases. With that
said, if you are a novice who is lean, or
someone who only cares about absolute
strength gain with no regard toward
body composition or relative strength,
feel free to order a large pizza right now.

Next Steps
I’d really like to see a study bridge the
gap between the strengths and limita-
tions of the present study and Garthe’s
previous study. A study longer than four
weeks, on bodybuilders (or at least well-
trained subjects), using DXA would be

36
References
1. Ribeiro AS, Nunes JP, Schoenfeld BJ, Aguiar AF, Cyrino ES. Effects of different dietary energy in-
take following resistance training on muscle mass and body fat in bodybuilders: a pilot study. Journal
of Human Kinetics. 2019 (epub ahead of print).
2. Gobbo LA, Ritti-Dias RM, Avelar A, Silva AM, Coelho-e-Silva MJ, Cyrino ES. Changes in skele-
tal muscle mass assessed by anthropometric equations after resistance training. International journal
of sports medicine. 2013 Jan;34(01):28-33.
3. Lee RC, Wang Z, Heo M, Ross R, Janssen I, Heymsfield SB. Total-body skeletal muscle mass:
development and cross-validation of anthropometric prediction models. The American journal of
clinical nutrition. 2000 Sep 1;72(3):796-803.
4. Garthe I, Raastad T, Refsnes PE, Sundgot-Borgen J. Effect of nutritional intervention on body com-
position and performance in elite athletes. European journal of sport science. 2013 May 1;13(3):295-
303.
5. Hall KD. What is the required energy deficit per unit weight loss? International journal of obesity.
2008 Mar;32(3):573.
6. Abe T, Dankel SJ, Loenneke JP. Body Fat Loss Automatically Reduces Lean Mass by Changing the
Fat‐Free Component of Adipose Tissue. Obesity. 2019 Mar;27(3):357-8.

37
 Study Reviewed: Comparison of Velocity-Based and Traditional Percentage-Based
Loading Methods on Maximal Strength and Power Adaptations. Dorrell et al. (2019)

Using Velocity to Autoregulate

May Increase Strength Gains
BY G RE G NUC KO LS

We’ve talked about using velocity to autoregulate training before in MASS,

but when the rubber meets the road, does autoregulating training using
velocity targets and velocity stops ultimately lead to larger strength gains
than percentage-based training? This study says “yes.”

38
 KEY POINTS
1. Over six weeks, velocity-based training led to significantly larger gains in bench
press strength and jump height than traditional percentage-based training in
trained lifters.
2. Across four lifts – squat, bench press, overhead press, and deadlift – strength
gains were almost 50% larger with velocity-based training, in spite of the fact that
training volume was slightly lower.

S
ome days, you hit the gym feeling ditional percentage-based approach. A
great, and your prescribed work- recent study (1) found that, in trained
out barely challenges you. Other subjects, velocity-based training led to
times, you’re tired and fatigued, and your significantly larger increases in jump
performance in the gym is well below height and bench press strength than
your usual level. Autoregulation strate- traditional percentage-based training
gies, which we’ve talked about in MASS over six weeks. This finding puts auto-
many times before (one, two, three, four, regulatory strategies using velocity on a
five, six), help you take advantage of the much firmer footing.
good days and pull back on the bad days
in a logical, controlled manner.
One method of autoregulation is via Purpose and Research
the use of velocity. As loads increase, Questions
mean concentric velocity decreases in an
almost perfectly linear fashion. Because Purpose
of this, you can use velocity as a stand-
The purpose of this study was to com-
in for traditional percentages of 1RM
pare the effects of velocity-based train-
for prescribing intensity. However, per-
ing and percentage-based training on
centages of 1RM don’t change until the
strength and power adaptations after a
next time you max, whereas velocity is
six-week block of training.
responsive to day-to-day fluctuations in
strength, making velocity a prime candi-
Research Questions
date for autoregulation strategies.
1. Would velocity-based or percent-
However, until now, we didn’t have
age-based training lead to larger
firm evidence that autoregulating train-
strength gains in the squat, bench
ing using velocity actually led to larger
press, overhead press, and deadlift
strength gains than training with a tra-

39
Table 1 Subject characteristics

Age (years) Body mass (kg) Height (m) Squat (kg) Bench press (kg) Overhead press (kg) Deadlift (kg)

22.8 ± 4.5 89.3 ± 13.3 180.2 ± 6.4 140.2 ± 26 107.7 ± 18.2 61.3 ± 8.7 176.6 ± 27.2

Data are mean ± SD

after a six-week block of training? Design

2. Would velocity-based or percent- This study took place over approxi-
age-based training lead to larger mately seven weeks, with a day of testing
increases in counter-movement pre- and post-training, and six weeks of
jump height after a six-week block training. The pre-testing day took place
of training? at least 96 hours before the first train-
ing session, and the post-testing day
Hypotheses took place at least 96 hours after the
No hypotheses were directly stated, but last training session. Testing consisted
the wording of the introduction implies of counter-movement jump height and
that the authors expected that veloc- 1RMs for back squat, bench press, over-
ity-based training would lead to larger head press, and deadlift.
gains in strength and counter-move- Training took place twice per week.
ment jump height. Both days included back squat, bench
press, and squat jump. Day 1 also in-
cluded overhead press, seated rows, and
Subjects and Methods walking lunges, while day 2 also includ-
ed deadlifts, plyo push-ups, and barbell
Subjects hip thrusts. The program itself includ-
Of the 30 men that initially volun- ed two three-week waves, with the first
teered for this study, 3 got injured and wave increasing in intensity from 70%
11 failed to meet all inclusion criteria, 1RM to 85-88%, and the second wave
leaving a final sample of 16 subjects. increasing from 80-82% to 95%. More
Subjects were required to have at least details about the training program can
two years of resistance training experi- be seen in Table 2.
ence. They turned out to be a pretty well- One group used a percentage-based
trained sample by the standards of most program, and one group used a veloci-
research in the area; the average 1RM ty-based program. The percentage-based
squat was a little over 1.5x bodyweight, program is the one in Table 2. In order
and the average deadlift was nearly dou- to equate the two programs, the veloci-
ble bodyweight. ty-based group used velocity zones and

40
Table 2 Descriptive characteristics of the base training program* †
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6
Exercise Reps %1RM Reps %1RM Reps %1RM Reps %1RM Reps %1RM Reps %1RM
Session 1
Back squat 8, 8, 8 70, 70, 70 8, 6, 5 70, 75, 80 6, 5, 3 75, 80, 85 8, 6, 5 70, 75, 80 6, 5, 3 78, 85, 90 5, 3, 2+ 85, 90, 95
Bench press 8, 8, 8 70, 70, 70 8, 6, 5 70, 75, 80 6, 5, 3 75, 80, 85 8, 6, 5 70, 75, 80 6, 5, 3 78, 85, 90 5, 3, 2+ 85, 90, 95
BB squat jump 2 (3), 2 (3) BM 2 (3), 2 (3) BM 2 (3), 2 (3) BM 2 (3), 2 (3) BM 2 (3), 2 (3) BM
Strict OHP 8, 8, 8 70, 70, 70 8, 6, 5 70, 75, 80 6, 5, 3 75, 80, 85 8, 6, 5 70, 75, 80 6, 5, 3 78, 85, 90 5, 3, 2+ 85, 90, 95
Deadlift 5, 3, 2+ 85, 90, 95
Seated row 6, 6, 6 2 RIR 6, 6, 6 2 RIR 6, 6, 6 2 RIR 6, 6, 6 2 RIR 6, 6, 6 2 RIR
Walking Lunge 10, 10, 10 10, 10, 10 10, 10, 10 10, 10, 10 10, 10, 10
Session 2
Back squat 8, 8, 8 70, 70, 70 8, 6, 5 70, 75, 80 6, 5, 3+ 75, 83, 88 8, 6, 5 70, 75, 82 6, 4, 2 78, 88, 92 4, 4, 4 70, 70, 70
Bench press 8, 8, 8 70, 70, 70 8, 6, 5 70, 75, 80 6, 5, 3+ 75, 83, 88 8, 6, 5 70, 75, 82 6, 4, 2 78, 88, 92 4, 4, 4 70, 70, 70
BB squat jump 2 (3), 2 (3) BM 2 (3), 2 (3) BM 2 (3), 2 (3) BM 2 (3), 2 (3) BM 2 (3), 2 (3) BM
Strict OHP 4, 4, 4 70, 70, 70
Deadlift 8, 8, 8 70, 70, 70 8, 6, 5 70, 75, 80 6, 5, 3 75, 80, 85 8, 6, 5 70, 75, 80 6, 5, 3 78, 85, 90 4, 4, 4 70, 70, 70
Plyo push-up 2 (3), 2 (3) BM 2 (3), 2 (3) BM 2 (3), 2 (3) BM 2 (3), 2 (3) BM 2 (3), 2 (3) BM
BB hip thrust 8, 8, 8 +BM 8, 8, 8 +BM 8, 8, 8 +BM 8, 8, 8 +BM 8, 8, 8 +BM

*RM = repetition maximum; BB = barbell; 2 (3) = cluster set, 2x3 repetitions; BM = body mass; OHP = overhead press; RIR = repetitions in reserve; Plyo = plyometric; +BM = completed with body mass on the barbell
† = walking lunge load calculated (Ebben et al., 2008): 0.6 (6RM squat [kg; 0.52] + 14.82kg)

velocity stops, rather than percentages nated each set when velocity dropped by
and prescribed numbers of reps. Loads more than 20% from the first rep in the
were dictated by the subject’s perfor- set. I think that’s what they did in this
mance on each training day with the ve- study. However, that statement could
locity-based program, so that when their also be interpreted to mean that each set
velocities were higher or lower than was terminated when velocity fell 20%
normal, they could train with heavier or below the bottom end of the target ve-
lighter loads to stay in the correct veloc- locity range.
ity range. That’s a non-negligible distinction,
It’s not entirely clear how the veloci- because their velocity targets seem to
ty zones were defined in this study; the be fairly wide. For example, the velocity
authors note that “group zones for each target for the squat to correspond to 70%
movement were created using a com- 1RM was 0.74-0.88 m/s. If the velocity
bination of previously published data stop kicked in when rep speed dropped
and data collected within the pretesting by 20% within a set, then someone
1RM assessments,” but no additional in- whose first rep was 0.88m/s would ter-
formation is provided about how those minate a set when their velocity dropped
two data sources were integrated or how to 0.70m/s, and someone whose first rep
they determined the size of each range. was 0.74m/s would terminate a set when
The velocity stops are a bit ambiguous their velocity dropped to 0.59m/s. If the
as well. The authors state “velocity stops velocity stop kicked in when rep speed
were integrated into each set at 20% be- dropped to 20% below the bottom of the
low the target velocity of each specific target range, then each squat set in this
zone.” They cite this paper (which was intensity range would terminate at a ve-
previously reviewed in MASS) as a ref- locity of 0.59m/s, regardless of where the
erence (2), and in that study, they termi- first rep fell in the 0.74-0.88m/s range.

41
 I’ll admit that I may just be being a
bit too pedantic, since I’m sure I could
do a bang-up job of approximating their NOW THAT WE CAN SEE
target velocity ranges for each intensity,
and since both potential interpretations THAT USING VELOCITY TO
of their velocity stop method would
probably be fine in practice. However, ASSIGN TRAINING LOADS
for a study that’s this novel in the lit-
erature, I’d really like to know exactly
ACTUALLY LEADS TO FASTER
how the velocity-based program was ex- STRENGTH GAINS THAN
ecuted, but the methods section doesn’t
provide me with enough information to USING PERCENTAGES, THAT
know exactly how they prescribed loads
and how they decided when to termi-
LETS US KNOW THAT ALL
nate each set. OF THAT WORK FLESHING
OUT THE LOAD-VELOCITY
Findings
Both groups got significantly stronger
LITERATURE WASN’T IN VAIN.
in the squat, bench press, and overhead
press. Only the velocity-based group got
significantly stronger in the deadlift. Ad- velocity-based group was a little stron-
ditionally, only the velocity-based group ger at baseline (~8.4% stronger), so rel-
had a significant increase in count- ative volume load (sets x reps x %1RM)
er-movement jump height. There were was closer to 19% lower in the veloci-
only significant between-group differ- ty-based group.
ences for the bench press and count-
er-movement jump. Overall, the veloc-
ity-based group added an average of Interpretation
37.3kg to their four main lifts, while the This was a really cool study that was
percentage-based group added 25.1kg. much-needed. In the past decade, there’s
Interestingly, volume load (sets x reps been a lot of work digging into load-ve-
x weight) was slightly – though sig- locity profiles. We’ve reviewed several
nificantly – lower in the velocity-based load-velocity papers for MASS already
group for the squat, bench press, and (one, two, three, four, five, six). Howev-
overhead press. The overall difference in er, with any new form of monitoring,
volume load was small (5.9%), but the or new way to assign training loads, the

42
 Figure 1 Mean changes in back squat, bench press, strict overhead press, and deadlift 1RM and counter-movement jump after 6 weeks of training

Overhead press Deadlift

Back squat Bench press 80 220 Pre-training

210 Post-training
75
200
190 140
70
190
180
130 180
65
170
120 170
60
160
160 Countermovement jump
150 110
55 150
70
140 140
100
50
130 65
130
90 45 60
120 120

Load (kg)

Load (kg)
110 80 55
40 110
Load (kg)

Load (kg)

100 50
70 100
35
90 45
90
60
40

Height (cm)
80 30
80
70 50 70 35
25
60 60 30
40
20
50 50 25
30
40 15 40 20

30 20 30 15
10
20 20 10
10
5
10 10 5

0 0 0 0 0
VBT PBT VBT PBT VBT PBT VBT PBT VBT PBT

Training group Training group Training group Training group Training group

* = significant difference pre vs. post; ** = significant group by time effect

most important question is, “does this considering the possibility that results
actually matter?” If it doesn’t ultimately would have been different if the study
help people reach their goals more ef- ran longer. More substantially, I think
fectively and efficiently, it’s ultimately there was an important confounding
just mental masturbation and overcom- variable in this study: The subjects in the
plication for the sake of feeling more in velocity-based group were told their ve-
control. Now that we can see that using locity for each rep. Some research sug-
velocity to assign training loads actually gests that intentionally moving the bar
leads to faster strength gains than using as fast as possible leads to larger strength
percentages, that lets us know that all of gains, and velocity feedback improves
that work fleshing out the load-velocity acute performance (3, 4). An assump-
literature wasn’t in vain (assuming these tion with velocity-based training is that
results replicate). you move each rep as fast as you can. If
With that being said, I do have a few you don’t, your velocity data is essentially
reservations about these results. First, worthless, since all of the ways you can
this study was just six weeks long. Yes, prescribe training using velocity is pred-
that’s a cheap critique, and I don’t hold icated on the linear relationship between
that against the authors (that’s still a load and velocity, and between proximi-
TON of work), but it’s at least worth ty to failure and velocity when maximum

43
Table 3
Volume load (kg) Relative volume load

Velocity-based Percentage-based Percent difference Velocity-based Percentage-based Percent difference

Back squat 114896 125010 8.8% 777.4 947.8 21.9%

Bench press 117457 123982 5.6% 1060.1 1319.0 24.4%

Overhead press 65742 69593 5.9% 1017.7 1197.8 17.7%

Deadlift 66827 67735 1.4% 378.8 382.9 1.1%

Total 364922 386320 5.9% 3234.0 3847.4 19.0%

Relative volume load = volume load / pre-training 1RM

effort is exerted. Thus, the velocity-based makes sense: On days you’re strong, a
group a) knew (or at least should have velocity-based approach will allow you
known) that they really needed to put to train with heavier loads or do more
forth their full effort on each rep to volume, and on days you’re weak and un-
make the velocity-based load and vol- der-recovered, a velocity-based approach
ume prescriptions work in the first place, will have you pull back on your training
and b) the velocity feedback on each rep loads and/or volume to allow you to re-
essentially functions as external cuing cuperate. Over time, those small mar-
(reminding you to move the bar fast). As ginal advantages in each session, result-
MASS readers should know by now, ex- ing from improved matching of training
ternal cueing improves performance (5). stress and readiness, should lead to better
Thus, the superior strength gains in the results. I do think the ~50% faster av-
velocity-based group may have been due erage strength gains with velocity-based
to the velocity-based training, but they training in this study is pretty unrealistic
may have been at least partially due to (I think the effect they found is correct,
the constant velocity feedback. How- but the relative magnitude of the effect is
ever, that may be a distinction without larger than the “true” magnitude), espe-
a difference, as velocity-based training cially since the study ran just six weeks.
does force you to stay intimately aware of I do think the theory is sound, though,
your velocity on each rep and does force and I feel even better about it now that
you to move each rep as fast as possible, it’s been directly tested.
neither of which are typical (and certain- One thing to note is that the load pre-
ly not required) for percentage-based scription in this study could have been
programs. even more individualized. The authors
With that being said, I’m less skeptical used group velocity targets for each lift
of these results than I would be if ve- and intensity, whereas individualized
locity-based training didn’t have strong targets would be easy to figure out, and
theoretical underpinnings. The idea just would do an even better job of person-

44
 to maximally autoregulated, the method
of assigning loads to the velocity-based
ON DAYS YOU’RE STRONG, A group in this study would certainly be
much closer to the maximal autoregula-
VELOCITY-BASED APPROACH tion pole than the maximal rigidity pole,
but it could get even more personalized
WILL ALLOW YOU TO TRAIN and autoregulation-y.
WITH HEAVIER LOADS OR DO If you saw this study in a vacuum, it
may surprise you. After all, the tradi-
MORE VOLUME, AND ON DAYS tional group trained with higher abso-
YOU’RE WEAK AND UNDER- lute volume loads (and even higher rel-
ative volume loads) but still managed to
RECOVERED, A VELOCITY-BASED gain less strength. However, results like
APPROACH WILL HAVE YOU this should be familiar to MASS read-
ers. Mike covered a study a while back
PULL BACK ON YOUR TRAINING showing that terminating each set after
a 20% velocity loss led to larger gains in
LOADS AND/OR VOLUME TO jump height and possibly larger strength
ALLOW YOU TO RECUPERATE. gains than terminating each set after a
40% velocity loss, even though volume
load was way lower in the 20% velocity
loss group (2). For that study, I suggested
alizing load prescriptions. I understand that perhaps the 40% velocity loss group
the decision completely: it would be a was just more fatigued at post-testing.
HUGE pain in the ass to come up with However, that explanation doesn’t fly in
individualized velocity targets for each this study. The second workout of week
lift, each intensity, and each subject (4 ex- 6 is intentionally easy (2 sets of 3 with
ercises x 9 different intensity targets x 16 70% 1RM), and post-testing didn’t take
subjects = 576 velocity targets you need place until at least 96 hours after the last
to calculate and keep track of, without training session, so both groups rolled
making mistakes during data collection), into post-testing after about a week of
but it’s entirely realistic for two individ- deloading. So, how can you equate for
uals to move the bar at speeds that differ intensity, have a lower volume load, and
by 0.1-0.2m, even when performing the still make larger strength gains? Intensi-
same exercise at the same intensity. Ba- ty is the primary driver of strength gains
sically, if you put all training programs (6), and I think that staying further from
on a continuum from maximally rigid failure during training helps ensure that

45
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
If you have a device for measuring bar velocity, you may be able to use velocity targets
and velocity stops to create a training program that is more responsive to you and
that will ultimately lead to faster strength gains. If you don’t, RPE stops and RPE load
targets may work just as well, given the emerging work on RPE programs, which Mike
reviewed this month.

subsequent workouts are also high qual- based on velocity loss criteria).
ity.
If you’re interested in making your
own load-velocity profile and having
your own personalized velocity targets,
you can make a copy or download this
spreadsheet (do not request editing ac-
cess) which will do most of the heavy
lifting for you, as long as you have a de-
vice you can use to measure velocity in
the first place.

Next Steps
As I mentioned, I think the velocity
feedback in one group and not the oth-
er could have biased the results of this
study a bit. To remedy that, future stud-
ies should either a) provide velocity feed-
back to both groups or b) simply have
the researchers encourage both groups
to move every rep as fast as possible,
without providing velocity feedback to
either group (i.e. the researchers would
be watching the velocities to know when
an appropriate load has been reached,
and would tell their velocity-based sub-
jects when to cut a set and rack the bar

46
References
1. Dorrell HF, Smith MF, Gee TI. Comparison of Velocity-Based and Traditional Percentage-Based
Loading Methods on Maximal Strength and Power Adaptations. J Strength Cond Res. 2019 Feb 18.
2. Pareja-Blanco F, Rodríguez-Rosell D, Sánchez-Medina L, Sanchis-Moysi J, Dorado C, Mora-Cus-
todio R, Yáñez-García JM, Morales-Alamo D, Pérez-Suárez I, Calbet JAL, González-Badillo JJ.
Effects of velocity loss during resistance training on athletic performance, strength gains and muscle
adaptations. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2017 Jul;27(7):724-735.
3. González-Badillo JJ, Rodríguez-Rosell D, Sánchez-Medina L, Gorostiaga EM, Pareja-Blanco F.
Maximal intended velocity training induces greater gains in bench press performance than deliber-
ately slower half-velocity training. Eur J Sport Sci. 2014;14(8):772-81.
4. Nagata A, Doma K, Yamashita D, Hasegawa H, Mori S. The Effect of Augmented Feedback Type
and Frequency on Velocity-Based Training-Induced Adaptation and Retention. J Strength Cond
Res. 2018 Feb 14.
5. Wulf G. Attentional focus and motor learning: a review of 15 years. International Review of Sport
and Exercise Psychology 2013 6:1, 77-104
6. 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.

47
 Study Reviewed: Effects of Beta-Alanine Supplementation on Muscle Function
During Recovery from Resistance Exercise in Young Adults. Roveratti et al. (2019)

Understanding Your
Supplement’s Mechanism
Reveals When it May Be Useful
BY MIC HAE L C . ZO URD O S

Beta-alanine may help improve volume capabilities by serving as a

physiological buffer. However, can it help recovery? The presently reviewed
study is the first to examine the beta-alanine-recovery paradigm.

48
 KEY POINTS
1. This study had 12 untrained men and women supplement with beta-alanine for
31 consecutive days, while another 12 individuals took a placebo pill. On day 28,
all subjects then performed a damaging training session on the leg press and leg
extension and had recovery metrics tested for the next three days.
2. Beta-alanine did not improve any metric of recovery in this study.
3. The mechanism of beta-alanine is to increase intramuscular carnosine which serves
as a physiological buffer for free hydrogen. The purpose of this buffer is to delay
acidic conditions, thus delaying muscular fatigue in intermittent exercise. While
beta-alanine may have some benefit for intermittent exercise, the mechanism of
action makes it unsurprising that this supplement did not benefit recovery.

Y
ou might tolerate the paresthesia anine did not improve recovery for any
(tingling) effect that comes with metric. In fact, all of the between-group
beta-alanine because the supple- p-values for the recovery measures were
ment might help you knock out a few really high (p>0.70), so beta-alanine
extra reps. But, does the increased in- wasn’t even close to providing a recovery
tramuscular carnosine that occurs from benefit. This article will examine beta-al-
beta-alanine supplementation help ac- anine’s mechanism of action so that we
celerate recovery? This study (1) had 24 can posit why the researchers presumed
untrained men and women supplement there would be a benefit. Further, we’ll
with either 4.8 grams per day of beta-al- discuss if and when beta-alanine might
anine (n = 12) or placebo (n = 12) for be appropriate for you and what alterna-
31 consecutive days. On the 28th day, tives to beta-alanine exist.
both groups performed three high-rep
sets on both the leg press and leg ex-
tension. Each of the next three days (24, Purpose and Research
48, and 72 hours after exercise), subjects
performed max reps at 60% of 1RM on
Questions
the leg press and had quadriceps muscle
Purpose
soreness and creatine kinase levels (an
enzyme used to assess muscle damage) The purpose of this study was to exam-
assessed to examine the influence of be- ine if beta-alanine supplementation can
ta-alanine on recovery. Blood lactate was improve recovery in the days following
also tested immediately before and after resistance exercise.
the exercise session on day 28. Beta-al-

49
Table 1 Inclusion criteria and subject characteristics

Inclusion criteria
1. Had not taken any performance enhancing 2. Subjects were not taking medication that 3. Subjects were not exercising more than twice
supplements (or anabolic steroids) for the 6 a week for the 6 months prior to the study.
months prior to the study ability to train hard Had medical approval to exercise

Group Subjects Age (years) Body mass (kg) Height (cm) BMI (kg/cm2)

N=12
Beta-alanine 7 men 22.2 ± 2.9 71.9 ± 14.4 167.9 ± 7.3 25.5 ± 5.1
5 women
N=12
Placebo 7 men 22.1 ± 6.1 71.4 ± 9.0 169.2 ± 6.3 24.9 ± 2.7
5 women
Data are mean ± SD
Subject characteristics from Roveratti et al. 2019 (1)

Hypotheses servings for days 5-8, and finally settling

The authors hypothesized that be- at 4.8 grams per day split into 12 serv-
ta-alanine would allow untrained lifters ings per day for days 9-31. The protocol
to recover faster from exercise compared was double-blind, meaning neither the
to a placebo. participants nor the researchers knew
which pill (beta-alanine or placebo) the
participants were receiving. It is difficult
Subjects and Methods to double-blind a beta-alanine study, as
participants might feel the paresthesia
Subjects and know they got beta-alanine. The un-
trained subjects in this study might not
24 total individuals participated with
have known that paresthesia is a side ef-
12 subjects in each group. Further, there
fect of beta-alanine, but I’d be willing to
were 7 men and 5 women in each group.
bet that when they felt the effects, they
The inclusion criteria and subject details
told the researchers; thus, the research-
are in Table 1.
ers knew it was beta-alanine. Part of the
reason the researchers had such small
Supplementation Protocol
dosing at one time was to eliminate the
For 31 days, subjects in the beta-ala- paresthesia and try to double-blind the
nine group took beta-alanine in capsule study the best they could. However, it’s
form, while individuals in the placebo important to note that it is possible that
group took a placebo capsule. Due to the some subjects felt paresthesia and deter-
paresthesia (tingling effect) caused by mined they were taking beta-alanine.
beta-alanine, the dosage increased grad-
ually, starting with 2.4 grams per day for Exercise and Recovery Testing
days 1-4 split into 6 daily servings, in-
Prior to beginning supplementation,
creasing to 3.6 grams per day split into 9

50
Table 2 Recovery outcome measures

Exercise session day 28

Exercises performed
Leg press: 3x8-12 Leg extension: 3x8-12
2 minutes between sets at a 1 (concentric): 2
@75% of 1RM @80% of 10RM
(eccentric) cadence

Recovery Tests
Creatine kinase
(blood marker) (Pre
Muscular endurance Muscle soreness RPE (after each set on
and post-exercise
(days 29-31) (days 29-31) days 28-31)
on day 28 and days
29-31)
Palpations of the The Omni RPE scale
Leg press max reps quadriceps were used. An enzyme measured was used after each
performed during 3 Subjects then rated in the blood, commonly set (i.e. not repetitions
sets to failure at 60% their discomfort on used as an indirect in reserve), which is a
of 1RM with 2 minutes a visual analog scale marker of muscle 0-10 scale ranging from
between sets. ranging from “no pain” damage
to “unbearable pain”

RM = repetition maximum; 1RM = one-repetition maximum

all individuals performed two famil-

iarization sessions and three separate
10RM sessions for the leg press and leg Findings
extension. Three 10RMs were performed Let’s keep it simple. Beta-alanine did
to avoid a learning effect (which would not aid any metric of recovery. All re-
confound the recovery day results) and covery tests showed fatigue after the
to calculate percentages when subjects exercise session gradually moved back
trained later on. The damaging exercise toward baseline, but with no difference
session occurred on the 28th day of sup- between groups. Lactate also increased
plementation with the recovery testing to the same degree in both groups after
on days 29-31 of supplementation. The the exercise session on day 28. Figures 1
damaging exercise session and recovery and 2, respectively, show reps performed
tests are described in Table 2. Lastly, and muscle soreness during recovery.
three-day dietary logs were also collect- Additionally, there were no differences
ed between days 28-30 to ensure that in total kcal or macronutrient intakes
nutritional factors didn’t account for any between groups.
recovery differences between groups.

51
 Figure 1 Leg press reps performed during the recovery period

100 250
Placebo
ß-alanine
80 200

60 150
Repetitions

Repetitions
40 100

20 50

0 0
S1 S2 S3 Total S1 S2 S3 Total S1 S2 S3 Total Total
24h 48h 72h 24-72h

There was no difference in reps performed between groups for any individual set, total reps for a single day, or total reps for the entire recovery period
S1 = Set 1; S2 = Set 2; S3 = Set 3; The first three “totals” represent the total reps for each day and the last “total” represents the sum total for all three days.

Interpretation cular pH (pH = potential hydrogen) to

acidic levels and compromises the mus-
I’m not surprised that beta-alanine cle contraction process (3). Therefore, by
didn’t accelerate recovery. Mechanisti- taking beta-alanine, you would increase
cally, beta-alanine increases concentra- carnosine, allowing you to buffer more
tions of the dipeptide carnosine within hydrogen, in turn delaying acidic con-
muscle. Carnosine, which is comprised ditions and increasing time to fatigue.
of beta-alanine and histidine, has rela- Based upon this mechanism, beta-ala-
tively low bioavailability, so taking be- nine should primarily be effective when
ta-alanine builds up intramuscular car- acidosis is a primary reason for fatigue,
nosine more than carnosine itself (2). and not as a true recovery supplement. It
The significance of carnosine is that it is is possible that beta-alanine could have
an especially good intracellular buffer for helped reps performed on the leg press
hydrogen ions. Hydrogen ion accumula- during the recovery period, but even if
tion during exercise decreases intramus- it had, that would have been more of a

52
 Figure 2 Quadriceps muscle soreness during the recovery period

Placebo
10
ß-alanine
Muscle soreness (cm)

Basal 24h 48h 72h

Soreness peaked between 24-48 hours in both groups and then began to recover at a similar rate with no
differences between groups.

performance benefit than a true recov- ming, and 4,000km rowing, while noting
ery benefit. Further, three sets of leg inconsistent findings in the resistance
press with two minutes of rest isn’t an training literature. Thus, even though
ideal candidate for beta-alanine to be ef- leg press sets may have lasted greater
fective. Sure, with a 1:2 second cadence than 60 seconds, the lack of benefit for
and sets mostly being 15+ reps, that is beta-alanine is relatively unsurprising
often more than 60 seconds of exercise when considering the totality of data.
per set, which meta-analyses suggest to Regarding muscle soreness and cre-
be the time threshold (>60 seconds) for atine kinase levels, what is the proposed
beta-alanine’s benefits (4, 5). However, mechanism of beta-alanine to acceler-
a recent paper from Brisola and Zagat- ate recovery of these markers? I don’t
to (6) broke down the exercise modali- see one. Beta-alanine doesn’t have a role
ties where beta-alanine is effective and in increasing blood flow to an area or
suggested that the clearest benefits are enhancing calcium handling, both of
for 4km cycling races, 100-200m swim- which would be recovery mechanisms.

53
Therefore, I’m not surprised beta-ala-
nine didn’t improve these indirect mark-
ers of muscle damage, and I am unsure THE BENEFIT OF BETA-
why someone would hypothesize other-
wise. ALANINE FOR RESISTANCE
Despite beta-alanine being one of the
supplements that is viewed more posi-
TRAINING IS QUITE
tively, I’m not surprised when a lifting SMALL AND THERE ARE
study fails to show an effect. As men-
tioned earlier, the data are not as con- INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
vincing for lifting performance as for
rowing and swimming performance.
IN CARNOSINE RESPONSE.
Further, the individual ability to increase
carnosine with exogenous supplementa-
tion seems to be variable and has shown el bodybuilder and perform really high
to be as low as 15% in some individuals amounts of training volume, then be-
(7). Additionally, a meta-analysis from ta-alanine might be something to con-
Hobson et al (5) noted a median perfor- sider as long as you are willing to deal
mance increase of 2.85% with beta-al- with the paresthesia. If you are going to
anine for performance tasks that lasted take beta-alanine, the top-end dose is
more than 60 seconds. However, as we 6.4 grams per day, but 4.8 grams per day
know from earlier in the article, the ben- should be enough. It is also advisable to
efit for lifting is probably smaller. So, if gradually increase the dosage of beta-al-
the benefit for resistance training is quite anine over the course of a few weeks and
small and there are individual differenc- to split up the daily dosage into multiple
es in carnosine response, we shouldn’t servings, similar to how the presently re-
be surprised when beta-alanine fails to viewed study dosed it. It may also take
show a benefit in a resistance training about four weeks to sufficiently increase
study. intramuscular carnosine content to per-
Despite my pessimism above for be- formance enhancing levels.
ta-alanine, I want to be fair and present
Next Steps
the case for it under certain circumstanc-
es. The data do suggest a small benefit
is possible under certain circumstances We’ve discussed various supplements
and that trained individuals are better that may aid muscular endurance in
candidates to be responders to carnosine MASS a few times, including on a re-
(8). Therefore, if you are a high-lev- cent audio roundtable. In addition to

54
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
1. Beta-alanine supplementation was not effective at accelerating recovery in this
study.
2. We should keep in mind that the mechanism of beta-alanine is not necessarily
one that’s related to recovery; rather, beta-alanine is primarily used to increase
intramuscular carnosine, which serves as a buffer to increase time to fatigue.
3. Ultimately, when considering a supplement, you should first understand the
supplement’s potential mechanism of action and let that determine the way it is
used.

beta-alanine, these supplements include

sodium bicarbonate, sodium citrate,
carbohydrate mouth-rinsing, citrulline,
capsaicin, quercetin, and caffeine. With
that in mind, I’d like to see a study that
combines a couple of these supplements
that have distinctly different mecha-
nisms. For example, sodium bicarbon-
ate works as an extracellular buffer in
contrast to beta-alanine’s intracellular
effects, and caffeine works as an antago-
nist to adenosine receptors. Since these
supplements have different mechanisms,
they should theoretically have additive
effects. Indeed, there is some evidence
showing an additive effect between so-
dium bicarbonate and beta-alanine (9),
but not much directly related to lifting
performance. Therefore, it would be in-
teresting to see more data in the area of
combining these supplements.

55
References
1. Roveratti MC, Jacinto JL, Oliveira DB, da Silva RA, Andraus RA, de Oliveira EP, Ribeiro AS, Agu-
iar AF. Effects of beta-alanine supplementation on muscle function during recovery from resistance
exercise in young adults. Amino acids. 2019 Jan 9:1-9.
2. Sale C, Artioli GG, Gualano B, Saunders B, Hobson RM, Harris RC. Carnosine: from exercise
performance to health. Amino acids. 2013 Jun 1;44(6):1477-91.
3. Rousseau E, Pinkos J. pH modulates conducting and gating behaviour of single calcium release
channels. Pflügers Archiv. 1990 Feb 1;415(5):645-7.
4. Saunders B, Elliott-Sale K, Artioli GG, Swinton PA, Dolan E, Roschel H, Sale C, Gualano B.
β-alanine supplementation to improve exercise capacity and performance: a systematic review and
meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2017 Apr 1;51(8):658-69.
5. Hobson RM, Saunders B, Ball G, Harris RC, Sale C. Effects of β-alanine supplementation on exer-
cise performance: a meta-analysis. Amino acids. 2012 Jul 1;43(1):25-37.
6. Brisola GM, Zagatto AM. Ergogenic Effects of β-Alanine Supplementation on Different Sports
Modalities: Strong Evidence or Only Incipient Findings? The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research. 2019 Jan 1;33(1):253-82.
7. Baguet A, Reyngoudt H, Pottier A, Everaert I, Callens S, Achten E, Derave W. Carnosine loading
and washout in human skeletal muscles. Journal of applied physiology. 2009 Mar;106(3):837-42.
8. Bex T, Chung W, Baguet A, Stegen S, Stautemas J, Achten E, Derave W. Muscle carnosine loading
by beta-alanine supplementation is more pronounced in trained vs. untrained muscles. Journal of
applied physiology. 2013 Nov 27;116(2):204-9.
9. da Silva RP, de Oliveira LF, Saunders B, de Andrade Kratz C, de Salles Painelli V, da Eira Silva
V, Marins JC, Franchini E, Gualano B, Artioli GG. Effects of β-alanine and sodium bicarbonate
supplementation on the estimated energy system contribution during high-intensity intermittent
exercise. Amino Acids. 2019 Jan 28;51(1):83-96.

56
Study Reviewed: Why Do They Do It? Differences in High-Intensity Exercise-Affect
Between Those With Higher and Lower Intensity Preference and Tolerance.
Box and Petruzzello (2019)

Give Better Guidance than

“Just Work Harder”
BY E RI C HE LMS

As a new trainer, I couldn’t figure out why my clients didn’t get it. If they’d go
to the gym as much me and push themselves as hard, they’d succeed. All my
“advice” was a variation on “be more like me” because I didn’t understand our
differences, and I did them a disservice because of it.

57
 KEY POINTS
1. Among a sample of people consisting largely of regular exercisers (82%), some
preferred high intensity exercise, while others preferred low. Regardless of
preference, both groups perceived similar levels of exertion during high intensity
and low intensity exercise.
2. Despite similar perceptions of exertion, those who preferred high intensity exercise
had a more positive experience, both during and after high intensity training, than
those who preferred low intensity exercise.
3. However, there were no differences in how positive one’s experience was during or
after low intensity exercise, regardless of preference. This indicates high intensity
training shouldn’t be presented as the only option by trainers – regardless of its
superior efficacy – if the goal is to encourage the lifelong adoption of a fitness
lifestyle to all clients.

E
very government, health, and fit- students over multiple semesters. 82%
ness body recommends resistance of these students regularly exercised,
training (a form of high inten- but not all of the students had a high
sity exercise) multiple times per week tolerance or preference for high inten-
as a part of everyone’s fitness regimen. sity training. To assess the differences
Unfortunately, over 90% of people don’t between those who did and those who
meet this guideline (2). The obvious rea- didn’t, Borg RPE, valence (in psycholo-
son is that many people simply don’t like gy research valence means the inherent
high intensity exercise. It’s hard, it hurts, “goodness” or “badness” of an experi-
and it takes a while (meaning, not im- ence), perceived physiological arousal,
mediately) before it pays off. According and enjoyment were assessed before,
to basic hedonic theory, behaviors that during, and after a high intensity train-
cause a more pleasant response will be ing circuit, a session of walking, and a
repeated (3), so this makes sense. But control session of reading. Interesting-
how do we explain the rise of CrossFit ly, those who had a higher preference
and high intensity group exercise classes, and tolerance for high intensity exercise
or the simple weirdos like me who lift experienced the same level of exertion
weights? This study (1) set out to answer (RPE) as those with a lower preference
just that question by determining what and tolerance; however, they reported a
differentiates people who prefer high more positive experience (valence) and
intensity exercise from others. To do greater enjoyment in response to high
so, data was collected from kinesiology intensity training. Equally important,

58
Table 1 Participant characteristics

Total Females Males

n 245 (100%) 149 (60.8%) 96 (39.2%)

Age (years) 20.3 ± 1.7 20.2 ± 0.9 20.4 ± 2.5

Height (cm)* 169.7 ± 11.5 165.3 ± 11.6 176.9 ± 7.1

Weight (kg)* 69.9 ± 15.3 65.5 ± 15.1 77.5 ± 12.3

BMI* 23.7 ± 3.9 22.9 ± 3.1 24.6 ± 3.5

Regular exercisers 82.0% 79.2% 86.5%

Preference* 27.3 ± 5.1 26.5 ± 5.0 28.7 ± 5.0

Tolerance* 26.8 ± 5.1 25.6 ± 4.8 28.7 ± 5.3

Data are mean ± SD

* = significant difference by sex, p < 0.05

there were no differences in the enjoy- after high intensity exercise, low intensi-
ment of walking between those who ty exercise, and a control activity among
preferred high versus low intensity exer- a group of kinesiology students.
cise. In this review, I’ll explain why these
seemingly obvious and straightforward Hypotheses
findings have an important lesson for The authors had three hypotheses for
trainers. their research: 1) tolerance and prefer-
ence would predict enjoyment and ex-
perience during and after exercise such
Purpose and Research that those who preferred and tolerated
Questions high intensity exercise would enjoy high
intensity exercise to a greater extent,
Purpose enjoy low intensity exercise to a lesser
extent, and vice versa; 2) perceived ex-
The purpose of this research was to
ertion during high and low intensity
determine how exercise preference and
exercise would not differ between indi-
tolerance influence the perceived exer-
viduals with different preferences for ex-
tion, arousal, experience (more positive
ercise intensity; 3) one’s current exercise
or negative), and enjoyment during and

59
Table 2 High-intensity circuit (HIC) condition movements

Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5

min. 1-3 min. 4-6 min. 7-9 min. 10-12 min. 13-15

1st exercise Squat thrusts Jump squats Burpees Box jumps Jumping lunges

2nd exercise Jumping jacks High knees Jump rope Plank jacks Belt kicks

3rd exercise Butt kicks Mountain climbers Right plyo lunges Tuck jumps

4th exercise Traveling push-ups Heisman Left plyo lunges Mountain climbers Squat jacks

Rest Completed valence, arousal, and RPE assessments within first 15 seconds of 1-min rest

behaviors and habits would act as mod- the participants completed three differ-
erating variables on exercise experience, ent condition-testing sessions, with a
and vice versa. week separating each: 15 minutes of high
intensity exercise, 15 minutes of walking,
or 15 minutes of reading. Before each
Subjects and Methods condition, the participants reported how
generally positive or negative they felt
Subjects and Study Design and their state of physical arousal on +5
This data was collected in a university (very good) to -5 (very bad), and 1 (low
kinesiology course taught over one year, activation) to 6 (high activation) Likert
with multiple cohorts from multiple se- scales, respectively. During each con-
mesters. The 245 college-age participants dition, the participants reported their
were a ~60/40 split of female and male general positive or negative perceptions,
students of average height and normal state of arousal, and Borg RPE (scored
BMI (BMI 18.5-25), most of whom ex- from 6-20) at three-minute intervals
ercised (82%). Details are shown in Table (e.g. minutes 3, 6, 9, etc.). Immediate-
1. To begin the study, baseline physical ly afterward, a separate questionnaire to
and demographic data was collected on determine enjoyment was administered.
the participants, and they completed a Five minutes afterward, RPE, gener-
questionnaire to determine their current al positive or negative perception, and
exercise frequency, intensity (via a tradi- arousal were collected again.
tional Borg RPE rating), and duration.
Additionally, they completed a validated Training
and reliable questionnaire to determine High intensity training consisted of
their tolerance and preference for high a body-weight calisthenics circuit pro-
or low intensity exercise. viding five rounds of a two to one min-
Following this baseline data collection, ute work:rest ratio, shown in Table 2.
The walking condition was performed

60
 Figure 1 Rating of perceived exertion between conditions

18
Rate of perceived exertion (RPE)

16

14

12

10

6
Minute-3 Minute-6 Minute-9 Minute-12 Minute-15
HIC Walking Reading

HIC = High intensity condition

around a predetermined path on campus significant differences between individ-

at a self-selected pace, and the reading uals with a higher tolerance and prefer-
condition was performed in class, with ence for high intensity or low intensity
reading material related to the day’s lec- exercise in RPE during any conditions.
ture. Enjoyment and positive perceptions
during and after high intensity training
differed based on preference and tol-
Findings erance. For those with a high intensi-
Unsurprisingly, high intensity training ty preference, they had a more positive
produced the highest RPEs, and walk- experience and enjoyed high intensity
ing was rated only slightly higher than training more than those that preferred
reading (Figure 1). There were also no low intensity exercise both during and

61
 Figure 2 Enjoyment by high and low preference and tolerance

130
d=0.525* d=0.472*
120

110

100
Enjoyment

90
80

70

60
50

40
30
Low High Low High
Preference Tolerance
HIC Walking Reading

* = Significant difference at p < 0.05, HIC = high intensity condition

after training. This effect was moderate. hard, train consistently, be disciplined in
Similarly, individuals with a high in- fitness and health, succeed in your fit-
tensity tolerance enjoyed high intensity ness goals. Hell, most trainers became
training more than those with higher trainers because fitness was such an im-
low intensity tolerance. This effect was portant part of their lives that they de-
just shy of moderate. There were no cided to make it their career out of high
significant differences between groups school, study it, and get a career in fit-
in enjoyment of low intensity exercise ness, or quit their job to start a career
(Figure 2). in fitness. Unfortunately, because fitness
is such a central aspect in most trainers’
lives, it’s sometimes difficult to empa-
Interpretation thize with clients who don’t have the
As trainers, we know what works: hard same relationship with fitness.
work. This is something we figured out I see it all the time: A trainer presents
in our own lives. Train frequently, train a logical, step-by-step, solution-orient-

62
ed path to success – based largely on don’t stick with things they don’t like.
what worked for them. When the cli- If it feels like drudgery, no matter how
ent doesn’t stick to the plan, the trainer strong your willpower is, you’ll even-
can’t wrap their head around why. This tually fall off the wagon. Simply put, if
type of guidance works when you coach someone likes exercise, that predicts they
someone who is like you. For example, will exercise in the future (4). I know, as-
at 3DMJ, our clients are lifters – com- tounding stuff I present here in MASS
petitive or otherwise – and come to us each month.
for practical, tried-and-true solutions. On a more serious note, I can’t tell you
They want to get closer to that mythi- how often I used to hear talk around
cal goal we never truly reach: “optimal” the watercooler from trainers (myself
(as an interesting side note, I’d estimate included) about how clients are lazy,
half our clients work in the fitness field non-compliant, and get in their own way.
themselves). While we provide plenty You know the saying “if all you have is
of advice and coaching outside of train- a hammer, everything looks like a nail?”
ing and nutrition “x’s and o’s,” compared It’s applicable here, because many of the
to personal trainers in a gym or studio trainers I knew (again, myself included)
setting, we manipulate training and nu- put their clients through powerlifting
trition to much greater degrees. This workouts if they were powerlifters, tried
makes sense, because again, our clients to teach them Olympic lifts if they were
are like us. They share similar goals, are weightlifters, gave them bodybuilding
willing to put in a lot of work for mar- workouts if they were bodybuilders,
ginal progress, like striving to maximize or CrossFit style training if they were
their performance, and most important- CrossFitters. But, did the trainer ask the
ly, they enjoy lifting. client what they liked? Sometimes. But
What this simple study teaches us is a lot of clients didn’t have a fitness back-
that we need to step outside of our own ground, so they didn’t know what they
perspective as trainers. Yes, high inten- liked (that’s why they hired a trainer).
sity exercise (which resistance training So, of course, it’s fine to expose a client
is) is more effective than low intensi- to your preferred style of training. But
ty exercise. But, just because it’s better, if they don’t like it even after a friendly
that doesn’t mean it’s the only option. If introduction (don’t smash them on day
someone has given lifting a real shot but one), it’s time to find something they
doesn’t like it, or doesn’t enjoy it as much do like. Have your client sign up for a
as low intensity exercise (as in the pres- softball league, take Pilates, or yoga, or
ent study), should we keep encouraging go mountain biking, or get them to take
them to do it? I don’t think so. People Zumba or spin classes, or take boxing

63
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
Some people enjoy exercise and do it regularly, but they don’t like high intensity
exercise as much. If you are a trainer, and all you ever do is take clients through
grueling workouts or have them lift weights, do circuits, HIIT, or other forms of high
intensity training, you might lead them to the false belief that “exercise isn’t for me.”
In reality, they may be someone who will adopt low or moderate intensity training for
a lifetime, which is way better than doing nothing.

lessons. when I played video games 20 hours a

Yes, I know resistance training is great week. It’s easy to go train when you want
for bone health, fall prevention, ensur- to go train. You and I will probably be
ing weight loss results in fat and not lifting as long as our body’s allow us to.
lean mass losses, getting the body of We’ve lucked out in that way. For what-
their dreams, and that it shares many of ever reason, this is something we enjoy,
the same benefits as the other forms of but remember that we’re the weird ones.
exercise I just mentioned. None of that Most people don’t like things that hurt,
matters if your clients won’t do it … and so lose the elitism.
I mean if they won’t do it for a lifetime, Beyond all that, this study has a real-
long after they’ve finished training with ly important finding that isn’t so obvi-
you. If you have to call and remind them ous. The vast majority of the people in
to show up for each session, be their the study were regularly exercising, and
cheerleader on each set to get them to among them, there were plenty who
go anywhere near failure, and constant- didn’t have a high preference or toler-
ly harass, encourage, threaten, motivate, ance for high intensity exercise. In fact,
punish, cajole, and otherwise force and contrary to one of the authors’ hypoth-
manipulate them to train hard with any eses, those who preferred high intensi-
consistency, you better believe they will ty exercise didn’t dislike walking. There
stop once you aren’t there anymore. were no differences in enjoyment for
Also, let me be blunt: We aren’t re- low intensity exercise between groups
ally that disciplined you and I. We lift (it’s also worth noting the low intensi-
weights because we like it. Hell, my fa- ty preference group didn’t hate high in-
vorite part of the day is hitting the gym, tensity training; they just didn’t like it as
so don’t look at me like I’m a paragon much as walking). Meaning, you have a
of willpower. You might as well have greater chance of finding something that
praised my work ethic as a teenager a client might like by going with moder-

64
ate exercise intensity to start. Trust me, more research looking to tease out these
the people who absolutely love training differences. Maybe we can learn how
with a high intensity are likely already to help people change their preferenc-
training. Or, if they were never exposed es, or get a better idea of what modality
to sport or exercise until hiring a trainer, of high intensity exercise they are most
they will push themselves hard, and that likely to enjoy.
moderate intensity exercise will become
high intensity.

Next Steps
I’d really like to know how modifiable
the preference for high intensity exercise
is and whether it is differentiated by mo-
dality. Speaking from personal experi-
ence, I hated running the 400-meter race
in high school, but loved the 100 (too
bad I was slow). I also wonder about the
timing and circumstances of exposure.
I didn’t enjoy lifting weights enough to
stick with it the few times I was exposed
as a teenager or in my early twenties. It
wasn’t until I had a strong personal mo-
tivator and I tried lifting again in my
early adulthood that I was really bitten
by the iron bug. If it was just as simple
as some people being natural lovers of
high intensity exercise, and some not
being wired that way, we could just fo-
cus on identifying preferences. However,
I suspect not only is this trait modifiable
based on the environment, experiences,
and timing of exposure for the individ-
ual, but that there are also differences in
the type of high intensity exercise (i.e.
strength/power versus anaerobic thresh-
old work). For this reason, I’d love to see

65
References
1. Box AG, Petruzzello SJ. Why do they do it? Differences in high-intensity exercise-affect between
those with higher and lower intensity preference and tolerance. Psychology of Sport and Exercise.
2019 Apr 16.
2. Kapteyn A, Banks J, Hamer M, Smith JP, Steptoe A, van Soest A, Koster A, Wah SH. What they
say and what they do: comparing physical activity across the USA, England and the Netherlands.
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2018 Jun;72(6):471.
3. Martindale C. The pleasures of thought: A theory of cognitive hedonics. The Journal of Mind and
Behavior. 1984 Jan 1:49-80.
4. Rhodes RE, Kates A. Can the affective response to exercise predict future motives and physical
activity behavior? A systematic review of published evidence. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2015
Apr 29;49(5):715-31.

66
 Study Reviewed: Effect of Interset Strategies on Acute Resistance Training
Performance and Physiological Responses: A Systematic Review. Latella et al. (2019)

How to Make the Most of

Your Time Between Sets
BY G RE G NUC KO LS

Unless you spend your entire workout doing circuits or supersets, you probably
spend more time in the gym resting between sets than actually slinging iron. So,
how can you get the most out of those interset periods? This systematic review
details the strategies that’ll give you the most bang for your buck.

67
 KEY POINTS
1. While stretching has a bad rap, antagonist stretching between sets likely helps you
preserve your performance.
2. Very light aerobic exercise can also help with performance maintenance. However,
if you’re doing very strenuous exercises, you’re probably better off just sitting or
lying down between sets.
3. Foam rolling between sets actually leads to faster decreases in performance.

Y
ou spend most of your time in ent interset strategies on performance
the gym not doing much of any- and physiological responses. The authors
thing. A set may last 30 seconds, also sought to provide evidence-based
but you may take 2-3 minutes to recover recommendations for coaches and lift-
(or even longer for strenuous exercises ers to be able to optimize their interset
like squats and deadlifts). So, how can periods.
you best use that time to improve the
rest of your session? A recent systematic
review set out to answer that question Subjects and Methods
(1). Since this was a systematic review, its
It found that antagonist stretching, “subjects” were the studies that met its
very light aerobic exercise, and cooling inclusion criteria. To be included in this
strategies are your best bets, and that systematic review, a study needed to:
foam rolling is among the worst things 1. Compare an interset strategy (ba-
you could do if you want to better sus- sically anything other than passive
tain your performance across an entire rest) against a traditional passive
training session. rest interval during resistance exer-
cise.

Purpose and Research 2. Assess acute performance outcomes

or physiological responses.
Questions 3. Use traditional, dynamic resistance
exercise.
Purpose
4. Be published in an English-lan-
This was a systematic review, so the
guage peer-reviewed journal.
purpose was simply to summarize the
current research on the effects of differ-

68
 Figure 1 PRISMA flow chart of literature search strategy

Identification Screening Eligibility Included

Records identified through Records after duplicates Full-text articles Studies included in
database searching removed assessed for eligibility qualitative synthesis:
n = 396 n = 307 n = 38 Systematic review
n = 26
Records screened;
Title/Abstract
n = 307 Included following Full-text articles
manual search excluded
n = 10 n = 12

Records removed
n = 279

Findings (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). Two found that an-

tagonist stretching (i.e. stretching your
During the initial literature search, hamstrings between sets if you’re train-
317 unique studies were initially iden- ing quads) increased repetitions in the
tified that may have met the inclusion subsequent set and increased agonist
criteria. After screening all of those EMG (3, 8). On the other hand, static
studies, it was found that 26 studies stretching of the agonists was found to
met all of the inclusion criteria. Of decrease velocity in one study (7). Dy-
these studies, most were assessed to namic stretching was a mixed bag.
have either “excellent” or “good” meth-
odological quality (using a modified Heating and Cooling
PEDro scale), while one was found Six studies investigated heating or
to be of “moderate” quality. Those 26 cooling during the interset period (9,
studies tested interset rest strategies 10, 11, 12, 13, 14). All six studies in-
that can be grouped as “stretching,” cluded cooling, and three of the studies
“heating and cooling,” “aerobic exer- also included heating (10, 13, 14). In
cise,” “massage and foam rolling,” “vi- the majority of these studies, cooling
bration,” “heart rate-based intervals,” improved rep performance in men, but
“posture-related position,” and “elec- heating didn’t help. In the one study
trostimulation.” with all female subjects, both heating
and cooling of the palms improved rep
Stretching performance in the bench press (14).
Seven studies investigated stretching

69
Aerobic exercise
Five studies examined aerobic exer-
cise (5, 15, 16, 17, 18). Three found some I THINK THE STRONGEST
improvements in reps performed, low-
er blood lactate levels, or lower RPE RECOMMENDATIONS ONE
scores with aerobic exercise (15, 16, 17),
and no studies found impaired perfor-
CAN DRAW FROM THIS
mance. However, it should be noted that INFORMATION ARE 1) DON’T
all of these studies tested very light to
moderate intensity aerobic exercise. The FOAM ROLL BETWEEN SETS,
improvements were generally seen with
very light aerobic exercise, and the stud-
2) ANTAGONIST STRETCHING
ies finding no benefits generally used
moderate intensity aerobic exercise.
SEEMS TO BOOST ACUTE
PERFORMANCE WITH NO
Massage and foam rolling
One study examined massage (19),
DISCERNABLE DOWNSIDE, AND
and three looked at foam rolling (20, 21, 3) YOU MAY BENEFIT FROM
22). All four studies saw decreases in rep
performance with massage or foam roll- DOING SOME VERY LIGHT
ing between sets.
CARDIO BETWEEN SETS.
Vibration
Three studies investigated the use of
vibration (23, 24, 25). All three found performance in the bench press when
at least some benefits across a variety of compared to always resting one minute
measures, but one found a decrease in between sets.
rep performance when the agonist mus-
cle was targeted (holding a push-up po- Posture-related position
sition on a vibrating platform between One study looked at the effect of pos-
sets of bench press; 25). ture during the interset period (27). It
found that, when using a pretty intense
Heart rate-based intervals protocol (3x10 with 80% of 3RM for
Only one study investigated heart thrusters and deadlift), more work was
rate-based intervals (26). It found that performed and average heart rate was
basing recovery times on individual lower when sitting or lying down be-
heart rate recovery led to improved rep tween sets, rather than walking.

70
Table 1 Summary of the results in the included studies

Mix of positive and Mix of neutral and Mix of positive,

Positive Neutral Negative
neutral negative neutral, and negative
Stretching i 2 3 4, 5, 6 7 8

Heating and cooling ii 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 13

Aerobic exercise iii

15, 16, 17 5, 18 13

Massage and foam

19, 20, 21, 22
rolling

Vibration iv
23 24 25

Heart rate-based
26
intervals
Posture-related
27
position v

Electrostimulation 5

i Antagonist static stretching generally had positive results, ballistic stretching generally had neutral results, and agonist static stretching had negative results in one study
ii Cooling generally had neutral to positive effects; the only negative effects were found with heating
iii Very low intensity cardio was generally beneficial, while moderate intensity cardio mostly had neutral effects
iv The only negative result came in a study where a push-up position was held on a vibration platform between sets of bench press...of course that’s going to decrease performance,
regardless of whether vibration is involved.
v Seated or supine vs. walking. Oxygen consumption was lower in the seating and supine conditions, which you could interpret as a positive or negative thing, depending on your goals

Electromyostimulation (e-stim) workout, either sit or lie down between

One study investigated e-stim (5). It sets; for easier stuff (isolation work, and
found that low-frequency stimulation of probably more upper body training), you
the quads between sets of knee exten- may benefit from doing some very light
sion neither improved nor harmed peak cardio between sets (just walking around
torque, maximal strength, or muscle ac- the gym or very light cycling).
tivation. As for the other strategies, cooling
(generally cooling the hands, since they
shed so much head) seems to work quite
Interpretation well, but you’d need to bring additional
Given the typical amenities in most stuff to the gym to pull it off (ice water in
gyms, I think the strongest recommen- a cooler, or something like this). Vibra-
dations one can draw from this infor- tion is also promising, as long as you’re
mation are 1) don’t foam roll between not holding an isometric contraction for
sets; do it before you start your work- your agonist muscles while you undergo
out or after you finish your workout, if vibration (which seems like it should be
you foam roll at all, 2) though we now pretty self-explanatory). However, vibra-
have evidence that light agonist stretch- tion machines are really expensive, and
ing can lead to more hypertrophy, an- most gyms don’t have them. With just
tagonist stretching seems like a better one study apiece, I don’t yet feel confi-
bet to boost acute performance with no dent saying anything about e-stim and
discernable downside, and 3) if you’re heart rate-based rest interval strategies.
doing a really anaerobically demanding At this point, you may be wanting to

71
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
Consider adding some antagonist stretching during your rest intervals to better maintain
performance in subsequent sets, and maybe try cooling if you don’t mind lugging a
cooler to the gym. If you’re doing really strenuous lower body compound lifts, just sit
or lie down between sets, but consider doing some very low-intensity cardio between
sets if you’re doing less taxing exercises. Finally, you shouldn’t foam roll between sets;
if you feel like you need to foam roll, knock it out before you get under a bar.

ask, “it’s cool that some of these strate- similar effects (better maintenance of
gies can help improve or preserve acute performance across multiple sets) and
performance, but how much does it ac- a couple of the most well-supported
tually matter for my long-term prog- strategies – antagonist stretching and
ress?” light cardio – are completely free. Un-
That’s a perfectly fair question. And less you exclusively train with supersets
the answer is, “I don’t know.” However, or circuits that allow for minimal rest,
my assumption is that most things that you spend most of your time in the gym
improve your acute performance likely between sets anyways, so why not try to
have neutral to positive long-term ef- make the most of that time?
fects. I’d be shocked to learn that antag-
onist stretching decreases strength gains
or hypertrophy, but if it improves acute Next Steps
performance, I wouldn’t be surprised to I’d be interested in more research on
learn that it improves long-term train- heart rate-based rest intervals. Personal-
ing outcomes. Furthermore, I think it’s ly, I’m fine with just resting until I feel
worth contextualizing the effects of in- like I’m ready to go for my next set, but I
terset strategies, using supplements as a know a lot of people like some objective
foil. People don’t think twice about using feedback. If we find in a few more studies
pre-workouts based on the assumption that simply monitoring your heart rate
that they marginally improve acute per- is sufficient to know when you’re ready
formance, and quite a few people were for your next set, I think that knowledge
excited about my citrulline article last would be useful for a lot of lifters.
month, reporting that a meta-analysis
found that citrulline leads to a small in-
crease in acute strength endurance (28).
Interset strategies seem to have pretty

72
References
1. Latella C, Grgic J, Van der Westhuizen D. Effect of Interset Strategies on Acute Resistance Training
Performance and Physiological Responses: A Systematic Review. J Strength Cond Res. 2019 Apr 1.
2. Arazi H, Nasiri R, Jahanmahin M, and Falahati A. Comparison of the effect of interset dynamic and
static stretching on the upper and lower body performance of male bodybuilders. Phys Ed Sport 13:
329–339, 2015.
3. Miranda H, Maia Mde F, Paz GA, Costa PB. Acute effects of antagonist static stretching in the in-
ter-set rest period on repetition performance and muscle activation. Res Sports Med. 2015;23(1):37-
50.
4. Nasiri R, Damirchi A, and Mirzaei B. The effect of duration and type of rest interval between sets
with low and moderate intensities on the volume of bench press in untrained men. Res Sport Sci
Quart 2: 25–33, 2011.
5. Cometti C, Deley G, Babault N. Effects of between-set interventions on neuromuscular function
during isokinetic maximal concentric contractions of the knee extensors. J Sports Sci Med. 2011 Dec
1;10(4):624-9.
6. Nasiri R, Damirchi A, Mirzaei B, and Jahanmahin M. Comparison the effect of duration and type of
rest intervals on sustainability of leg press repetitions in untrained men. Intl J Sport Std 3: 886–892,
2013.
7. García-López D, Izquierdo M, Rodríguez S, González-Calvo G, Sainz N, Abadía O, Herrero AJ. In-
terset stretching does not influence the kinematic profile of consecutive bench-press sets. J Strength
Cond Res. 2010 May;24(5):1361-8.
8. Paz G, Maia M, Whinchester J, and Miranda H. Strength performance parameters and muscle acti-
vation adopting two antagonist stretching methods before and between set. Sci Sports 31: 173–180,
2016.
9. Bacon NT, Wingo JE, Richardson MT, Ryan GA, Pangallo TC, Bishop PA. Effect of two recovery
methods on repeated closed-handed and open-handed weight-assisted pull-ups. J Strength Cond
Res. 2012 May;26(5):1348-52.
10. Batra K, Garg C, and Munjal J. Comparison of effects of sole cooling and sole heating on fatigue
during squatting. Physiotherapy 5: 199–203, 2013.
11. Caruso JF, Barbosa A, Erickson L, Edwards R, Perry R, Learmonth L, Potter WT. Intermittent Palm
Cooling’s Impact on Resistive Exercise Performance. Int J Sports Med. 2015 Oct;36(10):814-21.
12. Galoza P, Sampaio-Jorge F, Machado M, Fonseca R, Silva PA. Resistance exercise inter-set cooling
strategy: effect on performance and muscle damage. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2011 Dec;6(4):580-
4.
13. Kwon YS, Robergs RA, Kravitz LR, Gurney BA, Mermier CM, Schneider SM. Palm cooling delays
fatigue during high-intensity bench press exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010 Aug;42(8):1557-65.
14. Kwon YS, Robergs RA, Mermier CM, Schneider SM, Gurney AB. Palm Cooling and Heating De-
lays Fatigue During Resistance Exercise in Women. J Strength Cond Res. 2015 Aug;29(8):2261-9.
15. Corder KP, Potteiger JA,Nau KL, Figoni SF, Herberger KO, and Potteiger JA. Effects of active and

73
 passive recovery conditions on blood lactate, rating of perceived exertion, and performance during
resistance exercise. J Strength Cond Res 14: 151–156, 2000.
16. Hannie PQ, Hunter GR, Kekes-Szabo T, Nicholson C, and Harrison PC. The effects of recovery on
force production, blood lactate, and work performed during bench press exercise. J Strength Cond
Res 9: 8–12, 1995.
17. Lopes FA, Panissa VL, Julio UF, Menegon EM, Franchini E. The effect of active recovery on power
performance during the bench press exercise. J Hum Kinet. 2014 Apr 9;40:161-9.
18. Mohamad NI, Cronin JB, Nosaka KK. The effect of aerobic exercise during the interset rest periods
on kinematics, kinetics, and lactate clearance of two resistance loading schemes. J Strength Cond
Res. 2012 Jan;26(1):73-9.
19. Caruso JF, Coday MA. The combined acute effects of massage, rest periods, and body part elevation
on resistance exercise performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2008 Mar;22(2):575-82.
20. Monteiro ER, Vigotsky A, Skarabot J, Brown AF, de Melo Fiuza AGF, Gomes TM, et al. Acute
effects of different foam rolling volumes in the interset rest period on maximum repetition perfor-
mance. HKPJ 36: 57–62, 2017.
21. Monteiro ER, Neto VG. Effect of different foam rolling volumes on knee extension fatigue. Int J
Sports Phys Ther. 2016 Dec;11(7):1076-1081.
22. Monteiro ER, Škarabot J, Vigotsky AD, Brown AF, Gomes TM, Novaes JD. Maximum repetition
performance after different antagonist foam rolling volumes in the inter-set rest period. Int J Sports
Phys Ther. 2017 Feb;12(1):76-84.
23. Rhea MR, Kenn JG. The effect of acute applications of whole-body vibration on the iTonic plat-
form on subsequent lower-body power output during the back squat. J Strength Cond Res. 2009
Jan;23(1):58-61.
24. Timon R, Collado-Mateo D, Olcina G, Gusi N. Effects of interset whole-body vibration on bench
press resistance training in trained and untrained individuals. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2016
Mar;56(3):232-40.
25. Marín PJ, Torres-Luque G, Hernández-García R, García-López D, Garatachea N. Effects of dif-
ferent vibration exercises on bench press. Int J Sports Med. 2011 Oct;32(10):743-8. doi: 10.1055/s-
0031-1273740.
26. Buskard A, Wood R, Mullin E, Bruneau M, Jaghab A, and Thompson B. Heart rate determined rest
intervals in hypertrophy-type resistance training. JEPonline 20: 13–22, 2017.
27. Ouellette KA, Brusseau TA, Davidson LE, Ford CN, Hatfield DL, Shaw JM, Eisenman PA. Com-
parison of the Effects of Seated, Supine, and Walking Interset Rest Strategies on Work Rate. J
Strength Cond Res. 2016 Dec;30(12):3396-3404.
28. Trexler ET, Persky AM, Ryan ED, Schwartz TA, Stoner L, Smith-Ryan AE. Acute Effects of Ci-
trulline Supplementation on High-Intensity Strength and Power Performance: A Systematic Re-
view and Meta-Analysis. Sports Med. 2019 May;49(5):707-718.

74
 VIDEO: Long-Term Velocity
and RPE Loading
BY MIC HAE L C . ZO URD O S

Recent evidence suggests that both velocity- and RPE-based load

prescription yields superior strength compared to percentage-based training
over the long-term. This video examines each of these studies and provides
examples of how these methods can be intertwined in the long run.
Click to watch Michael's presentation.

75
Relevant MASS Videos
1. Load Progression Part 1 (Volume 3 Issue 2)
2. Load Progression Part 2 (Volume 3 Issue 3)

References
1. Helms ER, Byrnes RK, Cooke DM, Haischer MH, Carzoli JP, Johnson TK, Cross MR, Cronin JB,
Storey AG, Zourdos MC. RPE vs. Percentage 1RM loading in periodized programs matched for
sets and repetitions. Frontiers in physiology. 2018 Mar 21;9:247.
2. Dorrell H, Smith MF, Gee T. Comparison of velocity-based and traditional percentage-based load-
ing methods on maximal strength and power adaptations. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research. 2019.
3. Graham T, Cleather DJ. Autoregulation by” Repetitions in Reserve” Leads to Greater Improvements
in Strength Over a 12-Week Training Program Than Fixed Loading. Journal of strength and condi-
tioning research. 2019 Apr.
4. Pareja‐Blanco F, Rodríguez‐Rosell D, Sánchez‐Medina L, Sanchis‐Moysi J, Dorado C, Mora‐Cus-
todio R, Yáñez‐García JM, Morales‐Alamo D, Pérez‐Suárez I, Calbet JA, González‐Badillo JJ. Ef-
fects of velocity loss during resistance training on athletic performance, strength gains and muscle
adaptations. Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports. 2017 Jul;27(7):724-35.
5. 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 Jun 1;32(6):1627-36.
6. Cooke DM, Haischer MH, Carzoli JP, Bazyler CD, Johnson TK, Varieur R, Zoeller RF, Whitehurst
M, Zourdos MC. Body Mass and Femur Length Are Inversely Related to Repetitions Performed
in the Back Squat in Well-Trained Lifters. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2019
Mar 1;33(3):890-5.

76
VIDEO: Global Contest Prep
Fatigue Management, Part 2
BY E RI C HE LMS

The demands, requirements, barriers to prep success, their causes, and

anecdotal experiences of competitors give us insights for improvement.
In part 2 of this series, Eric discusses cardio modifications to help manage
fatigue and begins the discussion of nutrition modifications.
Click to watch Eric's presentation.

77
Relevant MASS Videos
1. Concurrent Training Attenuates Anaerobic Adaptations Part 1
2. Concurrent Training Attenuates Anaerobic Adaptations Part 2
3. Sustainable Motivation for Sport and Fitness
4. The Structure of Flexible Dieting Part 1
5. The Structure of Flexible Dieting Part 2
6. The Structure of Flexible Dieting Part 3
7. The Nuts and Bolts of Diet Periodization Part 1
8. The Nuts and Bolts of Diet Periodization Part 2

References
1. Keating SE, Johnson NA, Mielke GI, Coombes JS. A systematic review and meta‐analysis of inter-
val training versus moderate‐intensity continuous training on body adiposity. Obesity Reviews. 2017
Aug;18(8):943-64.
2. Andreato LV, Esteves JV, Coimbra DR, Moraes AJ, de Carvalho T. The influence of high-intensity
interval training on anthropometric variables of adults afflicted with overweight or obesity: a sys-
tematic review and network meta-analysis. Obesity reviews: an official journal of the International
Association for the Study of Obesity. 2018 Nov 1.
3. Viana RB, Naves JP, Coswig VS, de Lira CA, Steele J, Fisher JP, Gentil P. Is interval training the magic
bullet for fat loss? A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing moderate-intensity continuous
training with high-intensity interval training (HIIT). Br J Sports Med. 2019 May 1;53(10):655-64.
4. 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. Journal of sports sciences. 2018 Nov 2;36(21):2472-83.
5. von Loeffelholz C, Birkenfeld A. The role of non-exercise activity thermogenesis in human obesity.
InEndotext [Internet] 2018 Apr 9. MDText. com, Inc.

78
 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.

• Lucero et al. Relationships between barbell squat strength and weightlifting

performance
• Clifford et al. The effects of collagen peptides on muscle damage, inflammation and
bone turnover following exercise: a randomized, controlled trial
• Soriano et al. Weightlifting Overhead Pressing Derivatives: A Review of the Literature
• Biazon et al. The Association Between Muscle Deoxygenation and Muscle Hypertrophy
to Blood Flow Restricted Training Performed at High and Low Loads
• Polito et al. Caffeine and resistance exercise: the effects of two caffeine doses and
the influence of individual perception of caffeine
• Jukic and Tufano. Shorter but More Frequent Rest Periods: No Effect on Velocity and
Power Compared to Traditional Sets not Performed to Failure
• Saeterbakken et al. The short- and long-term effects of resistance training with
different stability requirements
• Serrano et al. Extraordinary fast-twitch fiber abundance in elite weightlifters
• Costa et al. Acute Effect of Drop-Set, Traditional, and Pyramidal Systems in Resistance
Training on Neuromuscular Performance in Trained Adults
• Lenzi et al. Dietary Strategies of Modern Bodybuilders During Different Phases of the
Competitive Cycle
• Snarr et al. Effect of Bench Press Load Knowledge on One Repetition Maximum
Strength
• Damas et al. Individual Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength Responses to High vs. Low
Resistance Training Frequencies
• Barringer et al. Relationship of Strength and Conditioning Metrics to Success on the
Army Ranger Physical Assessment Test
• Torrejón et al. Acute effects of different set configurations during a strength-oriented
resistance training session on barbell velocity and the force–velocity relationship in
resistance-trained males and females
• Lum and Barbosa. Brief Review: Effects of Isometric Strength Training on Strength
and Dynamic Performance

79
• Sabido et al. Differential effects of low vs high inertial loads during an eccentric-overload
training intervention in rugby union players: a preliminary study
• Baggen et al. Differences in Maximum Voluntary Excitation Between Isometric and Dynamic
Contractions are Age-Dependent

80
 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.

81