M A S S
M A S S
SPECIAL EDITIONSPECIAL EDITION
ERIC HELMS | GREG NUCKOLS | MICHAEL ZOURDOS ERIC HELMS | GREG NUCKOLS | MICHAEL ZOURDOS
2018 2018
MONTHL
MONTHLY AY A PPLICATIONS INPPLICATIONS IN STRENGTH SPORT
The Reviewers
The Reviewers
Eric Helms
Eric Helms
Eric Helms is a coach, athlete, author, and educator. He is a coach for drug-free strength and 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 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
peer-reviewed articles in exercise science and nutrition journals on physique and strength sport, instrength sport, in addition to writing for commercial tness publications. He’s taught under and addition to writing for commercial tness publications. He’s taught under and graduate-level nutrition and exercise science and speaks internationally at academic and commercial level nutrition and exercise science and speaks internationally at academic and commercial conferences. He has a B.S
conferences. He has a B.S. in tness and wellness, an M.S. . in tness and wellness, an M.S. in exercise science, a second Master’sin exercise science, a second Master’s in sports nutrition, a Ph.D. in strength and conditioning, and is a research fellow for the Sports 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 Performance Research Institute New Zealand at Auckland University of Technology. Eric earned pro status as a natural bodybuilder with the PNBA
bodybuilder with the PNBA in 2011 and competes in the in 2011 and competes in the IPF at international-level events IPF at international-level events as an unequipped powerlifter.as an unequipped powerlifter.
Greg Nuckols
Greg Nuckols
Greg Nuckols has over a decade of experience under the bar and a B.S. in exercise and sports 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 e
science. Greg is currently enrolled in the e xercise science M.A. program at xercise science M.A. program at the University of Norththe University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He’s held three all-time world records in powerlifting in the 220lb and 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. 242lb classes. He’s trained hundreds of athletes and regular folks, both online and in-person. He’
He’s written for s written for many of the many of the major magazines and major magazines and websites in the websites in the tness industrytness industry, including Men’s, including Men’s Health, Men’s Fitness, Muscle &
Health, Men’s Fitness, Muscle & Fitness, Bodybuilding.com, T-Nation, and Schwarzenegger.com.Fitness, Bodybuilding.com, T-Nation, and Schwarzenegger.com. Furthermore, he’s had the opportunity to work with and learn from numerous record holders, 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 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.
Content Director for Juggernaut Training Systems and current full-time work on StrongerByScience.com.
Michael C. Zourdos
Michael C. Zourdos
Michael (Mike) C. Zourdos, Ph.D, CSCS, is an associate professor in exercise science at Florida Michael (Mike) C. Zourdos, Ph.D, CSCS, is an associate professor in exercise science at Florida Atlantic Uni
Atlantic University (Fversity (FAU) in AU) in Boca Raton, Boca Raton, FL., USA, FL., USA, with a with a specialization in specialization in strength strength and conditioniand conditioningng and skeletal muscle physiology
and skeletal muscle physiology. . He earned his Ph.D. in exercise physiology from The Florida StateHe 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 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 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 from Salisbury University. Mike served as the head powerlifting coach of FSU’s 2011 and 2012 state championship teams. As an associate professor at FAU, Mike is the director of the FAU state championship teams. As an associate professor at FAU, Mike is the director of the FAU Muscle Physiology Research Laboratory. He also competes as a powerlifter in the USAPL, and Muscle Physiology Research Laboratory. He also competes as a powerlifter in the USAPL, and among his best competition lifts is a 230kg (507lbs) raw squat at a body weight of 76kg. Mike 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 owns the company Training Revolution, LLC., where he has coached more than 100 lifters, including a USAPL open division national champion.
division national champion.
2
2
Note from Ben Pollack
Note from Ben Pollack
hen Greg reached out to me about MASS, I was pretty excited, because as
hen Greg reached out to me about MASS, I was pretty excited, because as
you guys probably know
you guys probably know, , I put a lot of faith in the scientific process myself.I put a lot of faith in the scientific process myself.
Tat said,
Tat said, I also I also understand that understand that it takes a it takes a lot of tlot of time to pime to pour over our over academicacademic
publications; that interpreting that research requires a specific skill set; and that the
publications; that interpreting that research requires a specific skill set; and that the
research itse
research itself is far from infallible. lf is far from infallible. With MASS, With MASS, Greg, Greg, Eric, and Mike Eric, and Mike have donehave done
most of the work for you.
most of the work for you.
Te MASS library
Te MASS library is pretty extensive, is pretty extensive, so to help you get started, I’vso to help you get started, I’ve hand-pickede hand-picked
a few ar
a few articles that I believe are the most directly relevant to the ticles that I believe are the most directly relevant to the programs at phdead-programs at
phdead-lift.
lift.com and packaged them together in a special issue. com and packaged them together in a special issue. ((WWell – I ell – I picked them. picked them. GregGreg
packaged them.)
packaged them.) Te first half of the issue covers periodization, Te first half of the issue covers periodization, and the three vari-and the three
vari-ables we focus on the most in the Unf*ck Your Program course: volume, intensity,
ables we focus on the most in the Unf*ck Your Program course: volume, intensity,
and frequency
and frequency. . Having a bit of a better grasp on the research supHaving a bit of a better grasp on the research supporting the meth-porting the
meth-ods will, I hope, give you all that much more confidence in them, especially if you’re
ods will, I hope, give you all that much more confidence in them, especially if you’re
just starting out.
just starting out.
Te second half deals with so
Te second half deals with some of the extras from the me of the extras from the “Bonuses” “Bonuses” section of UYP:section of UYP:
finding the right mindset, improving the quality of your recovery, and incorporating
finding the right mindset, improving the quality of your recovery, and incorporating
cardio.
cardio. I think I think you might you might be surprised by these! be surprised by these! YYou probably already know ou probably already know the im-the
im-portance of getting the
portance of getting the little stuff, little stuff, right, but the evidence of that right, but the evidence of that can really help can really help drivedrive
the point home and give you that extra bit of motivation you need to give 100%,
the point home and give you that extra bit of motivation you need to give 100%,
inside and outside of the gym.
inside and outside of the gym.
I hope you enjoy this special issue, and that you find MASS helpful in improving
I hope you enjoy this special issue, and that you find MASS helpful in improving
your own training and understan
your own training and understanding of your bodyding of your body. . I’m pI’m pretty sure you will.retty sure you will.
–
– Ben PollackBen Pollack
W
W
3
3
Table of Contents
Recovery from Training: High Intensity vs. High Volume
18
B Y E R I C H E L M SDoes Periodization Lead to Faster Strength Gains?
6
B Y G R E G N U C K O L SMore Frequency is Not Always Better
28
B Y M I C H A E L C . Z O U R D O SA recent meta-analysis showed that periodized training leads to bigger strength gains than non-periodized training. However, the abstract doesn’t tell the whole story.
Depending on who you talk to, they might tell you that their recovery is hindered by heavy training or by performing a lot of volume. Which type of training causes more muscle damage, inammation, and force production suppression? Read here to nd out.
We know that more volume is not always better. This study shows us that, similarly, more frequency is not always better. But is it really that simple? Sometimes a critical analysis of a study’s methods is necessary to establish true takeaways from a single study.
Mind Over Matter: Mental Training Increases Strength Gains
39
B Y G R E G N U C K O L SEveryone focuses on physical training, but mental training is a powerful, oft-overlooked tool that can boost your strength gains.
Is It Better to Combine Lifting With High Intensity or Traditional Cardio?
60
B Y G R E G N U C K O L SIf you need to add cardio to your lifting, is it better to stick with high intensity intervals (which some have called “anabolic cardio”), or to opt for traditional moderate intensity cardio? This was the rst study designed to actually answer that question.
Which Sleep Interventions Help the Most with Recovery and Performance?
50
B Y G R E G N U C K O L SEveryone pays lip service to the importance of sleep, but what sorts of interventions actually improve sleep and performance the most?
Does Periodization Lead to
Faster Strength Gains?
Study Reviewed: Comparison of Periodized and Non-Periodized Resistance Training on Maximal Strength: A Meta-Analysis. Williams et al. (2017)
B Y G R E G N U C K O L S
A recent meta-analysis showed that periodized training leads to bigger strength gains than non-periodized training. However, the
abstract doesn’t tell the whole story.
KEY POINTS
1. A quantitative analysis of the entirety of the literature showed that periodized training leads to larger strength gains than non-periodized training.
2. However, there were marked dierences in study results, with some evidence of publication bias in favor of periodized training. When accounting for those issues, the relative benets of periodization was nearly halved, though they remained signicant.
3. While periodization isn’t a more important factor than simply training hard (training volume and intensity), periodizing your training will likely increase your rate of strength gains.
P
eriodization is defined as “a logi-cal method of organizing training into sequential phases and cyclical time periods in order to increase the po-tential for achieving specific performance goals while minimizing the potential for overtraining” (1). In layman’s terms, pe-riodized training involves manipulating training variables over time instead of holding all variables constant. For exam-ple, if you simply do 5 sets of 5 reps on the bench press twice per week, just add-ing weight as you’re able, your program would be non-periodized, as volume, rel-ative intensity, and frequency would be unchanged every week. However, if you did 5 sets of 8 reps on week 1 with 70% of your 1RM, 5 sets of 5 reps on week 2 with 75% of your 1RM, 5 sets of 3 reps on week 3 with 80% of your 1RM, and then start over with 5 sets of 8 reps on week 4 with a slightly heavier load than you used on week 1, that would be a very simple periodized program as volume (volume load) and relative intensity didchange over time.
Tis meta-analysis (a quantitative com-parison of all the studies on the topic) set out to determine whether periodized training was truly superior for strength gains compared to non-periodized train-ing, as is often claimed. Based on the 18 studies that met the inclusion criteria, pe-riodized training is superior to non-peri-odized training, though the relative bene-fit is likely minor, at least over the average study duration in this meta (15 weeks). However, this relatively minor effect may undersell the benefits of periodization, as most studies don’t systematically prog-ress training volume over time, which is one of the strongest tools periodization equips you with.
Purpose and Research
Questions
he purpose of this meta-analysis was to see whether periodized
ing is truly superior to non-periodized training for increasing strength by an-alyzing the entirety of the literature on the subject.
Subjects and Methods
Subjects
Tis meta-analysis drew from all stud-ies comparing periodized and non-pe-riodized training, regardless of subjects. As such, it included studies on both men and women, people of all age ranges, and people of all training statuses.
Methods
Te inclusion criteria for this me-ta-analysis (the rules to determine which studies to include) were as follows:
1. Te study needed to be peer-re- viewed.
2. Te full text of the study needed to be available in English.
3. Te study needed to include at least one group doing non-periodized resistance training, and at least one group doing periodized resistance training.
4. Maximal strength needed to be measured via the squat, bench press, or leg press.
5. Te studies needed to provide means and standard deviations for their strength measures.
Once the eligible studies were identi-fied and coded (the key features of the subjects and training plans were iden-tified), the authors calculated the effect sizes for each study and the mean effect size for all effects, adjusted for nested ef-fects, assessed heterogeneity and poten-tial bias, and identified potenpoten-tial mod-erators. Don’t worry if this sentence sounds a bit overwhelming; it’ll all make sense in the next section.
Findings
Te big, bottom line finding of this me-ta-analysis was that periodized training was superior to non-periodized train-ing for increastrain-ing maximal strength; the mean effect was small (0.43±0.08) and significant (p<0.001).
When adjusting for nested effects, the mean effect decreased slightly and the variability of the effect increased (0.38±0.14), but the effect was still sig-nificant (p=0.012). Nested effects are multiple effects found in a single study. Without adjusting for nested effects, you can wind up giving a single study
too much weight, if it compared, say, two periodized groups to one non-pe-riodized group at four different time points (you could extract six effects from that) versus a similar study comparing one periodized group to one non-pe-riodized group at only two time points (you could only extract one effect from that).
Te results were found to be sufficient-ly heterogeneous that the difference in the results between the studies couldn’t simply be explained by sampling error. As such, the authors looked for moder-ating factors that could explain the ob-served heterogeneity.
Periodization model, training status, study length, and training frequency were all found to be significant
moder-ators associated with changes in 1RM strength. In other words, undulating pe-riodization models led to larger strength gains (in these studies) than linear mod-els, less experienced lifters gained more strength than more experienced lifters, people gained more strength in longer studies versus shorter studies, and peo-ple gained more strength with higher training frequencies versus lower train-ing frequencies. 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 F a v o r s p e r i o d i z e d t r a i n i n g H e d g e s ’ d E S n o n - p e r i o d i z e d t r a i n i n g Mean ES = 0.43 (95% CI 0.27-0.58)
Figure 1 Effect sizes from Williams et al.
Eects larger than zero favor periodized training and eect smaller t han zero favor non-periodized training.
Finally, the authors undertook a bias assessment. Tis was an important step, because statistically significant findings are much more likely to get published than non-significant findings; with 18 published studies meeting the inclusion criteria of this meta-analysis, it’s impos-sible to know how many other studies comparing periodized and non-peri-odized training were conducted but never published. Te authors calculat-ed that an additional 1,038 null effects from studies with an average sample size would need to be published to decrease the mean effect size below the threshold of significance. Furthermore, a single null finding from a study with at least 252 participants would decrease the mean effect size below the threshold of significance. In short, it’s very unlikely that publication bias fully explains the observed superiority of periodized train-ing over non-periodized traintrain-ing.
However, it was revealed that there was still a high risk of publication bias,
so the authors performed a sensitivity analysis and constructed a funnel plot to identify outliers (Figure 2). You should expect all effect sizes to fall within the funnel (which represents the 95% con-fidence interval). With lower standard errors (near the top of the graph), the measured effects should cluster right around the mean effect (the line down the middle of the funnel), while you ex-pect more spread due to sampling er-ror as standard erer-rors increase (near the
bottom of the graph, where the funnel widens). As you can see in Figure 2, the effects skew right, and quite a few effects fall outside the 95% confidence interval of the funnel – 11 effects on the right side, indicating larger-than-expected effects in favor or periodized training, and 3 effects on the left side, indicating smaller-than-expected effects in favor of periodized training, or effects in favor of non-periodized training that exceed the variation you could attribute to sampling error. When removing these outliers, the previously observed heterogeneity was effectively eliminated (p=0.91), and the mean effect size in favor of periodized training was nearly halved (0.23±0.05), though it remained highly significant (p<0.001).
Interpretation
It’s good to have this new meta-anal- ysis, as the previous meta comparing periodized and non-periodized training was published all the way back in 2004 and actually had to make use of unpub-lished data since there weren’t enough published studies at the time to analyze (2). Tere were 10 studies included in this meta-analysis that had been pub-lished since the previous meta-analysis came out, so we were due for an update. Tough I’m a strong proponent of periodized training for strength devel-opment, I think the most epistemically honest interpretation of this
ysis is that the true effect in favor of pe-riodized training is relatively small, and closer to the effect size of 0.23 reported after eliminating outliers, instead of the larger effect size of 0.43 reported in the abstract.
Several of the effects eliminated weren’t “fair” comparisons of periodized and non-periodized training. A few studies compared periodized resistance
train-ing versus non-periodized resistance training roughly equated for average intensity and volume versus single-set non-periodized resistance training. In those studies, you’d extract one effect for challenging periodized versus challeng-ing non-periodized trainchalleng-ing, and one effect for challenging periodized versus incredibly easy non-periodized train-ing. Te first effect may have shown a 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 S t a n d a r d e r r o r -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Hedges’ d ES Effects
Figure 2 Funnel plot of effects.
An eect larger than zero indicates greater strength gains for periodized, and an eect smaller than zero indicates greater strength gains for non-periodized. You should expect most eects to fall within the funnel.
slight benefit for periodized training, while the second effect may have shown a massive benefit for periodized train-ing, though the second effect would be comparing apples and oranges. A cou-ple other studies compared challenging periodized training to only single set non-periodized training (3, 4, 5, 6).
It may be easy to fault the authors for using inclusion criteria that allowed studies like that to slip into the analysis, but I think that would be an unfair crit-icism. Inclusion criteria have to be hard, objective cutoffs, and a stipulation such as requiring volume and intensity to be matched may have done more harm than good if, for example, some studies didn’t specifically report that volume and in-tensity were matched, or if volume and intensity in some studies were very sim-ilar but not perfectly matched. As prac-titioners, we can read a study and say, “these training programs may not have been perfectly equated, but they were definitely similar enough to make a valid comparison.” Tat degree of reasonable subjectivity isn’t allowed in a meta-anal- ysis, so I like the authors’ decision to use slightly laxer inclusion criteria and then axe the less applicable comparisons later via the funnel plot and sensitivity analy-sis. However, since this is the route they chose, we need to be careful when inter-preting this meta; it’s probably best to pay more attention to the smaller effect size (0.23) after the outlier effects were discarded instead of the mean effect size
(0.43) with all comparisons included. However, it should be noted that the true effect of periodization may be larg-er than the effect obslarg-erved in this me-ta-analysis. It’s theorized that the true benefits of periodization manifest them-selves in long-term (i.e. a year or longer) training organization. Te longest stud-ies included in this meta-analysis were 32 weeks, and the average study dura-tion was 15 weeks. As such, there’s a distinct gap between theory and data. It’s also possible that the benefits of pe-riodization manifest themselves quickly, perhaps due to varied practice increas-ing the rate of motor skill acquisition (7), and that non-periodized training would close the gap over the long term,
or that the gap would persist and not meaningfully change in magnitude. I personally think the first possibility (the superiority of periodized training becoming more clear over time) is the most likely one, but we won’t know until a bold, patient (well-funded) soul car-ries out a multi-year study to test this idea. Incidentally – and counter to my self-admitted biases – the most appli-cable 32-week study in this meta-anal- ysis actually showed that the gap be-tween periodized and non-periodized may shrink over time rather than widen (8). Over three and six months, the pe-riodized training group gained signifi-cantly more strength on the bench press and shoulder press, but there weren’t significant between-group differences in
strength gains after nine months, show-ing that, in this study at least, the rela-tive advantage of periodization was rel-atively short-lived. On the other hand, a four-month study by Willoughby (not included in this review because it only reported increases in strength as multi-ples of body weight, rather than abso-lute increases in strength) showed that periodized and non-periodized training caused similar increases in squat and bench press strength over 4-12 weeks, but that periodized training proved su-perior for the bench from week 8 on- ward, and for the squat by week 16 (12).
It’s also worth pointing out that most of the studies included in this meta-anal- ysis kept training volume (number of sets performed per exercise per week) constant over the duration of the study.
One of the benefits of periodized train-ing is that it allows you to logically and systematically increase training volume over time. Terefore, it is still reasonable to assume that the relative advantage of periodized training over non-periodized training would tend to increase over time, as the training volumes required to sustain progress also tend to increase over time.
I’d also caution against getting too caught up in the moderator analysis. Re-member, when looking for moderators that could explain some of the observed heterogeneity, the authors reported that undulating periodization models led to larger strength gains than linear models, higher frequencies were associated with larger strength gains, less experienced lifters gained more strength, and people gained more strength when training for a longer period of time. I hope we can accept the last two moderators as almost self-evidently true (training length and training status). However, I think it’s im-portant to keep the scope of a moderator analysis in mind when interpreting this study’s findings regarding periodization style and training frequency.
A moderator analysis tells you about the effects of a training variable in the studies that met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. As such, its scope is pretty narrow. Tough there is some evidence that higher training frequen-cies may be beneficial for strength de- velopment (9), this wasn’t a
meta-anal-PERIODIZATION DOES SEEM
TO MEANINGFULLY IMPROVE
STRENGTH GAINS, BUT
THE EFFECT IS RELATIVELY
SMALL, AT LEAST BASED ON
THIS ANALYSIS – CERTAINLY
SMALLER THAN THE EFFECTS
OF VOLUME AND INTENSITY.
ysis to determine the effects of training frequency on strength development, and the comparisons resulting from a mod-erator analysis would be apples-to-or-anges comparisons (i.e. higher versus lower frequencies from different studies with different volumes, intensities, study populations, etc.), so this meta-anal- ysis shouldn’t be used to argue for the superiority of higher training frequen-cies. Similarly, this wasn’t a meta-anal- ysis constructed to compare undulating versus linear periodization models. A 2015 meta-analysis by Harries et. al (10) specifically set out to compare linear and undulating periodization models, find-ing no significant difference between the two styles for strength gains in the squat, bench press, or leg press (though there was a non-significant difference in favor of undulating periodization mod-els for leg press strength; p=0.07). Te authors note that of the 17 studies in-cluded by Harries et al in their analy-sis, only three included non-periodized groups and were thus included in the present meta-analysis. As such, this me-ta-analysis shouldn’t be used to argue for the superiority of undulating periodiza-tion models over linear models, as that was not the question it was set up to in- vestigate.
Finally, I think it’s important that we think about periodization conceptual-ly, instead of simply seeing periodized training as inherently good and non-pe-riodized training as inherently bad.
Periodization does seem to meaning-fully improve strength gains, but the ef-fect is relatively small, at least based on this analysis – certainly smaller than the effects of volume and intensity. o con-textualize the mean effect of 0.23±0.05 (once outlier effects were discarded), that means that if a group of people have a 500±50kg powerlifting total initially, people on a periodized training program could expect to add an additional 9-14kg on their total compared to people on a non-periodized training program over 15 weeks (the average study duration in this meta-analysis). An extra 3-5kg per lift is great, but it’s probably not going to make or break a training program. You don’t have to periodize your training to see results, but periodization is helpful to making faster progress.
Furthermore, it’s important to recog-nize that periodization concepts aren’t binary. You don’t have to choose between
IT’S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE
THAT PERIODIZATION
CONCEPTS AREN’T BINARY.
YOU DON’T HAVE TO CHOOSE
BETWEEN LINEAR OR
UNDULATING PERIODIZATION.
linear or undulating periodization. You may increase intensity and decrease vol-ume linearly across a training program, while undulating volume and intensity between the training days within each week of training, for example. In fact,
that’s exactly what Dr. Zourdos did in the study he performed for his disserta-tion (11).
Periodization is simply a set of tools that helps you solve problems you’ll face when designing a program. For an incredibly basic example, if you have a powerlifting meet 12 weeks from now, you’re probably going to want to get some practice with loads in excess of 90% of 1RM before you hit the platform so you’re confident lift-ing near-max loads. However, you may not want to lift 90%+ loads every week, and you almost certainly won’t want to lift 90%+ loads every session leading up to your meet as this could limit training volume, limit the total amount of reps you
could complete for practicing and hon-ing technique, and lead to wear and tear injuries. If using non-periodized train-ing, you’ll have to make a sacrifice: Either train with somewhat lighter loads for the
entire 12 weeks to accumulate adequate volume while sacrificing the highly spe-cific practice you need to prepare for the platform, or train with very heavy loads the whole time while sacrificing train-ing volume and perhaps increastrain-ing injury risk. Periodization gives you tools to solve this very simple problem. You could start with lower loads and higher volume and then increase load and decrease volume as the meet approaches, giving you plenty of practice along the way and still allow-ing for experience with 90%+ loads near the meet. You could split your training into 3-week blocks, working up to 90%+ loads on the last week of each block to spread out your practice with very heavy loads. You could even have one flexible day per week where you work up to 90%+ loads if you’re feeling good, or stick with lighter loads for higher volumes if you don’t think you could perform optimally on that day. Tis is obviously a very sim-ple examsim-ple of a problem you can solve better with periodized training versus non-periodized training, but the range of problems you may need to address are endless: how to structure an offseason of training to allow for hypertrophy without
APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
1. Periodized training leads to strength gains that are modestly but consistently larger than non-periodized training.
2. Don’t waste your time looking for the single best periodization model. Instead, focus on how you can manipulate volume, intensity, and frequency to solve specic problems and reach specic goals for yourself and your clients.
sacrificing strength, how to accommodate a week-long vacation without gym access and ease back into training when you re-turn, or even how to structure a block of training focused on a specific lift without letting your other lifts suffer. All of those examples will benefit from manipulat-ing volume, intensity, frequency, or exer-cise selection to address the problem and reach your goal; hence, they’d all benefit from periodization.
Next Steps
While a multi-year periodization study would be amazing and fill a huge gap in the literature, I don’t expect to see one anytime soon. wo other facets of periodization for resistance training that aren’t adequately studied are the effects of block periodization and the effects of combined periodization models versus a single model in isolation (i.e. DUP with the same average volume and intensity each week versus DUP with increasing intensity and decreasing volume week to week).
References
1. Williams D, olusso DV, Fedewa MV, Esco MR. Comparison of Periodized and Non-Peri-odized Resistance raining on Maximal Strength: A Meta-Analysis. Sports Med. 2017 May 12. doi: 10.1007/s40279-017-0734-y.
2. Rhea MR, Alderman BL. A meta-analysis of periodized versus nonperiodized strength and power training programs. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2004 Dec;75(4):413-22.
3. Marx JO, Ratamess NA, Nindl BC, Gotshalk LA, Volek JS, Dohi K, Bush JA, Gómez AL, Mazzetti SA, Fleck SJ, Häkkinen K, Newton RU, Kraemer WJ. Low-volume circuit versus high-volume peri-odized resistance training in women. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001 Apr;33(4):635-43.
4. Kraemer WJ, Ratamess N, Fry AC, riplett-McBride , Koziris LP, Bauer JA, Lynch JM, Fleck SJ. Influence of resistance training volume and periodization on physiological and performance adapta-tions in collegiate women tennis players. Am J Sports Med. 2000 Sep-Oct;28(5):626-33.
5. Kramer J, Stone M, Bryant H, Conley M, Johnson R, Nieman D, Honeycutt D, Hoke .Effects of Single vs. Multiple Sets of Weight raining: Impact of Volume, Intensity, and Variation. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research: August 1997.
6. McGee D, Jessee C, Stone M, Blessing D. Leg and Hip Endurance Adaptations to Tree Weight-training Programs. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research: May 1992.
7. Soderstrom NC, Bjork RA. Learning versus performance: an integrative review . Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015 Mar;10(2):176-99. doi: 10.1177/1745691615569000.
8. Kraemer WJ, Hakkinen K, riplett-Mcbride N, Fry AC, Koziris LP, Ratamess NA, Bauer JE, Volek JS, McConnell , Newton RU, Gordon SE, Cummings D, Hauth J, Pullo F, Lynch JM, Fleck SJ, Mazzetti SA, Knuttgen HG. Physiological changes with periodized resistance training in women tennis players. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003 Jan;35(1):157-68. Erratum in: Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003 May;35(5):889.
9. McLester J, Bishop E, Guilliams E. Comparison of 1 Day and 3 Days Per Week of Equal-Volume Resistance raining in Experienced Subjects. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research: August 2000
10. Harries SK, Lubans DR, Callister R. Systematic review and meta-analysis of linear and undu-lating periodized resistance training programs on muscular strength. J Strength Cond Res. 2015 Apr;29(4):1113-25. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000712.
11. Zourdos MC. Physiological Responses to wo Different Models of Daily Undulating Periodization in rained Powerlifters. 2012.
12. Willoughby D. Te Effects of Mesocycle-Length Weight raining Programs Involving Periodiza-tion and Partially Equated Volumes on Upper and Lower Body Strength. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research: February 1993.
█
B Y E R I C H E L M S
Depending on who you talk to, they might tell you that their recovery is hindered by heavy training or by performing a lot of volume. Which type of training causes more muscle damage, inammation, and force
production suppression? Read here to nd out.
Study Reviewed: Comparison of the Recovery Response From High-Intensity and High-Volume Resistance Exercise in Trained Men.
Bartolomei et al. (2017)
Recovery from Training: High
Intensity vs. High Volume
KEY POINTS
1. An acute bout of high volume, moderate load training with short rest intervals (8 sets of 10 reps at 70% 1RM with 75 seconds rest between sets) suppresses force production to a greater degree and for a longer period than a bout of moderate volume, high load training with longer rest intervals (8 sets of 3 reps at 90% 1RM with 3 minutes rest between sets).
2. In the 72-hour period after high volume training, increases in cross-sectional area (CSA) occurred as a result of inammation, evidenced by relationships (r=0.60-0.66, p<0.05) between increases in CSA and interleukin-6 (a myokine which increases in response to contraction induced inammation) and creatine kinase (a biomarker for muscle damage).
3. Additionally, changes in CSA were inversely related (r=-0.58- -0.80, p<0.05) with various measures of muscular strength and power. Thus, performance is impeded proportionally to the degree of inammation and muscle damage from high volume training for at least 72 hours. Therefore, volume should be distributed over a microcycle so as not to impede performance in subsequent sessions. Additionally, volume should be increased gradually (on an as-needed basis) so the repeated bout eect is elicited, protecting against excessive damage while accomplishing progressive overload.
n appropriate training config-uration within a microcycle of training depends partially on managing fatigue from previous train-ing sessions. o better understand how to distribute training sessions, you have to know which days produce more fa-tigue than others. In this study, 12 males (18-35 years old) with at least two years of training experience and a minimum squat one-repetition maximum (1RM) of 1.5 times bodyweight completed two protocols – a high volume (HV, 8x10x70% 1RM), and a high intensi-ty (HI, 8x3x90% 1RM) protocol – in a counterbalanced crossover design. Vari-ous tests were then conducted after this
protocol at 30 minutes, 24 hours, 48 hours, and 72 hours post-training. Spe-cifically, performance was assessed via counter-movement jump (CMJ) peak power, isokinetic (fixed speed) leg exten-sion strength, isometric (a fixed joint po-sition) leg extension maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) strength, isometric mid-thigh pull strength, and isometric half squat strength. Additionally, vas-tus lateralis (a muscle of the quadriceps group) cross-sectional area (CSA) was assessed at each time point to determine the degree of swelling and inflammation in response to training. Finally, blood draws were taken from the participants to assess changes in endocrine
(testos- A
terone and cortisol), inflammatory (in-terleukin-6 and C-reactive protein), and muscle damage (creatine kinase, lactate dehydrogenase, and myoglobin) markers, in addition to subjective rat-ings of pain and soreness. In response to training, the HI group had lower levels of soreness and blood lactate, and had higher CMJ, isometric leg extension, and MVC strength compared to HV at various time points. Additionally, cor-tisol, interleukin-6, and vastus lateralis CSA were elevated from baseline only in HV at specific time points, but not HI. Tus, it seems that the HV protocol produced more damage, soreness, and suppressed force production to a greater degree than the HI protocol over a 72-hour period.
Purpose and Research
Questions
Purpose
Te purpose of this investigation was to compare the acute effects of a HV and HI training protocol on perfor-mance and recovery post-exercise in ex-perienced, resistance-trained men.
Hypotheses
While not directly stated, the authors cited previous work showing HV train-ing to suppress force production. Much of the prior work cited, however, was in untrained individuals, and the authors
stated that the acute response to training is dependent on training experience and the protocol utilized. Tus, while the authors likely expected HV training to suppress force production more and re-quire a longer recovery period, they left the door open for the possibility that the trained males in this study might have responses that diverged from those seen in prior research.
Subjects and Methods
Subjects
welve experienced, resistance-trained men (body mass, 82.3 ± 8.4 kg; height, 175.2 ± 5.5 cm; body fat, 13.5 ± 3.4%) volunteered to participate in this study. Participants had to be between 18 and 35 years old with at least two years of re-sistance training experience (actual, 6.3 ± 3.4 years). Additionally, participants had to be able to squat at least 1.5 times their body mass (actual, 173.4 ± 31.7 kg). Participants could not use dietary supplements or performance enhancing drugs during the trial and were screened for prior use.
Overall Design
In this crossover design, the partici-pants were assessed a total of 11 times. Te first assessment was to test their squat 1RM and to have their descrip-tive characteristics measured (height, weight, body composition, etc.). After at
least 72 hours, the participants returned to perform either the HI or HV proto-col (half started with one, half the other) after baseline assessment of muscle CSA and baseline blood collection. Ten, at 30 minutes, 24 hours, 48 hours, and 72 hours post-training, blood, CSA, and performance analyses were conducted. Te participants then performed the op-posite training protocol, and this process was repeated. Tis is shown
schemati-cally in Figure 1.
Resistance raining
After a standardized warm-up, par-ticipants performed either the HI or HV protocol. Both HI and HV were comprised of only the squat. During HI, participants performed 8 sets of 3 repetitions at 90% of their previous-ly measured 1RM with three-minute rest intervals between sets. During HV, participants performed 8 sets of 10
rep-etitions at 70% 1RM with 75 seconds between sets. During both protocols, if the required number of repetitions per set was not completed, the load was reduced in the subsequent set to allow participants to complete the required number of repetitions. No forced repe-titions were performed and all training was supervised.
Performance, Biochemical, Ultrasound, and Subjective esting
At each testing time interval, CMJ peak power, isokinetic leg extension strength at a speed of 60 and 180 de-grees per second, isometric leg extension MVC, isometric mid-thigh pull, and isometric half squat were assessed. Prior to performance testing, serum concen-trations of testosterone, cortisol, myo-globin, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) activity, and creatine kinase (CK), as well as plasma interleukin-6 (IL-6) and
BL Day 1 p-30min p-24hr p-48hr p-72hr � Anthropometric measurements � Performance assessments � Squat 1RM � Muscle ultrasound � Blood draw � Training protocol (HV or HI) � Muscle ultrasound � Blood draw � Performance assessments � Muscle ultrasound � Blood draw � Performance assessments � Muscle ultrasound � Blood draw � Performance assessments � Muscle ultrasound � Blood draw � Performance assessments Figure 1
Reproduced from Bartolomei et al. 2017 ( 1 )
C-reactive protein (CRP) were assayed. Additionally, muscle CSA of the vastus lateralis was measured via ultrasound. Finally, participants were asked to assess their perception of pain and soreness on a 0-100 visual scale.
Dietary Control
Participants were instructed to record everything they consumed during both the HI and HV four-day trial. For the
second experimental trial, participants were required to duplicate the content,
quantity, and timing of their daily diet from the first trial. Participants were in-structed not to eat or drink anything ex-cept water within 10 hours of reporting to the laboratory for testing sessions.
Findings
able 1 lists all variables where
signif-30 minutes post 24 hours post 48 hours post 72 hours post
VARIABLE CMJ MVC Iso60 CSA Soreness Cortisol IL-6 Blood lactate From Baseline Both lower Lower Lower Higher Higher Higher Higher Both higher From HI Lower No difference Lower Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher From Baseline Lower No difference Lower Higher Higher No difference No difference No difference From HI No difference No difference Lower Higher Higher No difference No difference No difference From Baseline Lower No difference No difference Higher Higher No difference No difference No difference From HI Lower Lower No difference Higher Higher No difference No difference No difference From Baseline No difference Lower No difference No difference Higher No difference No difference No difference From HI No difference Lower No difference No difference Higher No difference No difference No difference
Table 1 Significant changes in high volume group relative to baseline and high intensity group
CMJ: counter-movement jump peak power, MVC: maximum voluntary isometric leg extension strength, Iso60: isometric leg extension strength at 60 degrees per second, CSA: vastus lateralis cross sectional
area, IL-6: interleukin-6.
icant differences were reported in the HV group relative to baseline and rel-ative to the HI group. It’s worth point-ing out that mean changes in many of the performance metrics that were not significantly different between groups still followed a similar pattern of greater suppression in HV than HI, and a slow-er return to baseline levels ovslow-er 72 hours. For example, in the HI group, the mid-thigh pull peak force bottomed out at 98% and was slightly higher than base-line levels at some time points during the post-training measurement period, while the HV group dropped to 92% of baseline values at 30 minutes post and gradually recovered back up to 97.5% of baseline at 72 hours. Similarly, the iso-metric half squat peak force dropped to 85% of baseline values at 30 minutes post-training in the HV group then re-turned to 95% baseline values at 48 hours, while the HI group dropped to 93% at 30 minutes post-training and returned to 95% in only 24 hours. Likewise, cor-tisol reached a peak at 24 hours relative to baseline in both groups, increasing by roughly two-thirds in the HI group, but by over two-fold in the HV group. Te p-values were relatively low, yet not quite significant in the above examples. Tey likely would have reached signifi-cance with more precise measurements or a larger sample size.
Correlation between variables
Te change in CSA from baseline to
30 minutes post-training in HV was inversely related to changes in CMJ (r = -0.68; p = 0.01), MVC (r = -0.58; p=0.05), and isokinetic leg extension strength at 180 degrees per second (r = -0.80; p=0.001). Inverse relationships were also reported for changes in CSA from baseline to 24 hours post-training in both isokinetic leg extension strength at 60 (r = -0.787; p = 0.002) and 180 de-grees per second (r = -0.678; p = 0.015) after HV training.
Additionally, correlations were report-ed between IL-6 and the magnitude of reduction in CMJ performance at both 30 minutes (r = 0.76; p = 0.004) and 48
WHILE THE DATA DO CONVINCINGLY
DEMONSTRATE THAT, INDEED,
HIGH VOLUME TRAINING CAUSES
MORE INFLAMMATION, CAUSES
MORE MUSCLE DAMAGE, AND
SUPPRESSES FORCE PRODUCTION
TO A GREATER DEGREE, AND FOR
A LONGER TIME PERIOD THAN
HIGH INTENSITY TRAINING, IT
DOES MORE THAN THAT.
hours post-training (r = 0.66; p = 0.798) in the HV group. In addition, a signifi-cant correlation (r = 0.660; p = 0.019) was reported between IL-6 and the increase in CSA at 24 hours post-training in the HV group. Finally, a correlation was also observed between CK levels 72 hours post-training and the change in CSA from baseline to 72 hours post-training in HV (r = 0.60; p = 0.037).
Interpretation
At first glance, this study seems to simply answer the question, “What is more fatiguing, high volume or high intensity training?” While the data do convincingly demonstrate that, indeed,
high volume training causes more in-flammation, causes more muscle dam-age, and suppresses force production to a greater degree, and for a longer time period than high intensity training, it does more than that. Tis acute study is also illustrative of a number of concepts we’ve discussed previously in MASS, yet also combines them in such a way to show the practical relevance in the im-mediate microcycle-length term.
While there is a clear relationship be-tween training volume and hypertrophy (2, 3) and, to a lesser degree, strength (4, 5), we’ve previously discussed why more volume is not always better and that prematurely increasing training volume beyond what is appropriate for one’s training age can actually be counterpro-ductive (6). Tis study gives more mech-anistic insight into why doing massive volumes in a single session is counter-productive. If one were to simplistically consider the relationship of volume with hypertrophy and strength, they might conclude that doing as much volume as possible at all times would be optimal. However, volume is only useful if one can recover from it and, as demonstrat-ed by this study, doing a massive volume of work you are not accustomed to in a single session can negatively impact your performance for at least 72 hours.
Getting stronger over time is a result of stringing multiple days, weeks, months, and years of effective training together, meaning that your training
configura-VOLUME IS ONLY USEFUL IF
ONE CAN RECOVER FROM IT
AND, AS DEMONSTRATED BY
THIS STUDY, DOING A MASSIVE
VOLUME OF WORK YOU ARE NOT
ACCUSTOMED TO IN A SINGLE
SESSION CAN NEGATIVELY
IMPACT YOUR PERFORMANCE
FOR AT LEAST 72 HOURS.
tion in the short term should pay respect to the long term. In fact, we’ve previous-ly discussed the merits of setting up a microcycle of training in an intelligent way to manage fatigue, and how doing so in a logical way can improve perfor-mance over an entire mesocycle (7).
Also, another thing you’ve probably heard about lifting heavy is that it will cause “CNS burnout” if done too often. While this study didn’t address that (and I’m not sure that is something I would even know how to quantify or measure), it did show that on a per set basis, heavy lifting actually did not suppress force production to the same degree as mod-erate load lifting. With that said, if you were to actually match volume (not just the number of sets), you would more than likely run into issues lifting heavy exclusively in the long term. It would
re-sult in greater joint stress, higher injury risk, and more generalized “burn out,” as sessions would take much longer be-cause you’d have to perform many more sets to equal the workload of the high-er-repetition group (8).
Finally, it’s also worth addressing the potential conclusion some people might draw when reading this study: that the damage and inflammation from HV training is an inherently good thing for hypertrophy. While it is true that mus-cle damage likely plays a role in musmus-cle growth (9), in this previous review I dis-cussed why muscle damage should not be viewed as having a direct causative and proportional relationship with hy-pertrophy, and why it likely doesn’t need to be deliberately sought out in training. Indeed, a systematic review from 2007 found that rates of hypertrophy peaked
APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
1. In the short term, 8 sets of 10 reps at 70% of 1RM will produce a large level of fatigue that will suppress strength for at least 72 hours to a larger degree than performing 8 sets of 3 reps at 90% 1RM.
2. While this level of volume is not a realistic example for most people, when performing a high-volume session relative to your own work capacity, it would be tactically advantageous to place an easier training day (one that could be accomplished with strength levels below normal) after this session (and maybe in conjunction with a rest day) to allow more time for intra-week recovery before performing any heavy sessions.
3. When you do attempt to increase volume or overreach through an increase in total number of sets, it would behoove you to perform a microcycle (or two) in which you gradually build up to the target volume. This will elicit the repeated bout eect and make the coming sessions less damaging and fatiguing, so that you can complete more of the prescribed workload.
in the bicep and quadriceps when per-forming ~40-70 repetitions 2-3 times per week (for a total of ~80-210 repe-titions), and then slowed when more volume was performed (on average, in a mixed group of studies primarily on un-trained and recreationally un-trained lifters, with only some well-trained lifters) (10). While the subjects in the present study were actually quite well-trained (on av-erage, over two times bodyweight squat with about six years in the gym), achiev-ing the low end of the volume range presented in the aforementioned sys-tematic review (~80 repetitions) in a sin-gle session, from just a sinsin-gle exercise, is probably overkill (even more so if it was performed in addition to other exercis-es for other multiple groups with similar levels of volume). If you still remain un-convinced, I’d also refer you back to our review of the now infamous “German volume training” study in which trained (not well-trained, but trained nonethe-less) lifters gained less muscle perform-ing 10 sets per muscle group three times per week compared to performing five sets.
Next Steps
So much can be done in the area of acute recovery from training. Most ob- viously, different amounts of volume at different intensities could be compared. However, no matter how much of this type of data is collected, the response
will always be impacted by the previous training of the participants and what type and how much training they were previously acclimated to. It would also be interesting to see the effects of dif-ferent lengths and types of introductory microcycles designed to acclimate the participants to the HV training proto-col to come. Tis would allow us to see how much the inflammation and mus-cle damage response could be mitigated, and if this results in a faster recovery of performance.
References
1. Bartolomei, S., et al., Comparison of the recovery response from high-intensity and high-volume resistance exercise in trained men. Eur J Appl Physiol, 2017. 117(7): p. 1287-1298.
2. Krieger, J.W., Single vs. multiple sets of resistance exercise for muscle hypertrophy: a meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res, 2010. 24(4): p. 1150-9.
3. Schoenfeld, B.J., D. Ogborn, and J.W. Krieger, Dose-response relationship between weekly resis-tance training volume and increases in muscle mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sports Sci, 2017. 35(11): p. 1073-1082.
4. Krieger, J.W., Single versus multiple sets of resistance exercise: a meta-regression. J Strength Cond Res, 2009. 23(6): p. 1890-901.
5. Robbins, D.W., P.W. Marshall, and M. McEwen, Te effect of training volume on lower-body strength. J Strength Cond Res, 2012. 26(1): p. 34-9.
6. Gonzalez-Badillo, J.J., et al., Moderate resistance training volume produces more favorable strength gains than high or low volumes during a short-term training cycle. J Strength Cond Res, 2005. 19(3): p. 689-97.
7. Zourdos, M.C., et al., Modified Daily Undulating Periodization Model Produces Greater Perfor-mance Tan a raditional Configuration in Powerlifters. J Strength Cond Res, 2016. 30(3): p. 784-91.
8. Schoenfeld, B.J., et al., Effects of different volume-equated resistance training loading strategies on muscular adaptations in well-trained men. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2014. 29(10): p. 2909-18.
9. Schoenfeld, B., Does exercise-induced muscle damage play a role in skeletal muscle hypertrophy? J Strength Cond Res, 2012. 26(5): p. 1441-53.
10. Wernbom, M., J. Augustsson, and R. Tomee, Te influence of frequency, intensity, volume and mode of strength training on whole muscle cross-sectional area in humans. Sports Med, 2007. 37(3): p. 225-64.
█
B Y M I C H A E L C . Z O U R D O S
We know that more volume is not always better. This study shows us that, similarly, more frequency is not always better. But is it really that simple? Sometimes a critical analysis of a study’s methods is necessary to
establish true takeaways from a single study.
Study Reviewed: Comparison of Two Equated Resistance Training Weekly Volume Routines Using Different Frequencies on Body Composition and
Performance in Trained Males. Yue et al. (2017)
More Frequency is
Not Always Better
KEY POINTS
1. This study compared two equated volume programs but with dierent training frequencies for performance and body composition. The study compared a frequency of two versus four times per week for some muscle groups, and two versus one time per week for other muscle groups.
2. The main results showed no dierences between groups for any performance or body composition measure. When volume is equated and there is a frequency of at least two times per week, additional frequency may not matter too much.
3. Importantly, both groups in this study met the already-established recommendations for weekly volume, which likely explains the lack of dierences between groups.
ait a second. First, “More Volume is Not Always Better” and now “More Frequency is not Always Better”? I know, we are calling everything into question, but that’s a good thing, and that’s how we move forward. Despite the title of this article, meta-analyses have concluded that a frequency of at least two times per muscle group per week is better than once per week for hypertrophy (2) and strength (3). So how did this study show that more frequency wasn’t better? Tis study had two groups which were volume-equated and trained for six weeks: 1) High frequency (n=9), which per-formed four total sessions per week with a frequency of twice per week on a mus-cle group but with a low per-session vol-ume, and 2) Low frequency (n=9), which performed two total sessions per week with a frequency of once per week on a muscle group, but with a high per-session volume. For clarity, volume was equated between groups and across all six weeks.
Per-session volume was just higher in the low frequency group. Te main variables assessed from pre- to post-study and between groups were: squat and bench one-repetition maximum (1RM); quad-riceps, biceps, and deltoid hypertrophy; body composition; and bench press pow-er (powpow-er output at 50% of 1RM). Tpow-ere were no statistically significant differenc-es between groups for any measure, and both groups experienced hypertrophy and improved 1RM strength and power output. However, there were some im-portant meaningful differences. Specif-ically, between-group effect sizes (ES) revealed a large effect (0.89) in favor of low frequency for bench press 1RM and a moderate effect (0.53) also in favor of low frequency for biceps hypertrophy. Also of note was a small effect (0.45) again in fa- vor of low frequency for improvement in fat-free mass. At first glance, these ES re-sults are a little jarring in that they point to a huge win for lower frequency.
How- W
ever, there are some statistical questions and methodology considerations, which I believe explain, and – in some ways – call into question the authors’ conclusions. So, let’s not count it as a point in the col-umn of low frequency yet. Let’s critically analyze everything in play here.
Purpose and Research
Questions
Purpose
Te purpose of this study was to ex-amine the effects of equated volume but different weekly training frequencies on
maximal strength, hypertrophy, power, and body composition over six weeks in trained males.
Research Question
Does a frequency of twice per week on a muscle group (four total sessions) produce greater performance and better body composition outcomes than train-ing a muscle group once per week (two total sessions)? Quick Note: Although the actual paper pitches this study as a one ver-sus two time per week frequency for each muscle group, it’s more like a two versus four time per week, as I’ll explicitly point
out in a bit.
Table 1
Subject CharacteristicsHigh Frequency Low Frequency 21 ± 3 180.4 ± 4.8 76.63 ± 14.72 Age (years) Subjects Height (cm) Body Mass (kg) 3.0 ± 0.5 28 ± 8 178.6 ± 6.7 79.38 ± 14.22 2.9 ± 0.4 Training Age (yrs.)
Data are Mean ± SD
Subjects characteristics from Yue et al. 2017 (1)
Hypotheses
Although a hypothesis was not ex-pressly stated, the introduction indicates that the authors expected the high fquency group to experience better re-sults than the low frequency group.
Subjects and Methods
Subjects
Tis study had 18 men who had trained 2-3 times per week using a whole-body routine for 2-5 years prior to the start of the study; however, there were no baseline strength criteria – just a training experience criteria. Te de-scriptive statistics for each group can be seen in able 1.
Study Protocol
Tis study spanned a total of seven weeks. Te first week, subjects came to the lab three times for familiarization sessions to ensure proper exercise tech-nique. Te next six weeks served as the training program. In short, both the high frequency group (n=9) and the low frequency group (n=9) trained for six weeks with pre- and post-study mea-surements for performance and body composition. Strength was measured via 1RM squat and bench, hypertrophy was assessed via muscle thickness and limb circumference, power was assessed by testing power output ( Watts) at 50% of bench 1RM, and body composition was
estimated via a BOD POD. Te high frequency group trained Monday, ues-day, Tursues-day, and Friday. Monday’s and Tursday’s sessions (Routine 1) di-rectly targeted the chest, shoulders, and biceps. uesday’s and Friday’s sessions (Routine 2) directly targeted the legs, back, and triceps. Te low frequency group trained on only Mondays (Rou-tine 1) and Tursdays (Rou(Rou-tine 2). Te high frequency group performed two sets per exercise, and the low frequency group performed four sets per exercise. All sets were performed at approxi-mately 75% of 1RM and were taken ei-ther to failure or to 12 reps, whichever was reached first. If 12 reps were per-formed and subjects thought they could do additional reps, then 2.5kg was add-ed to the load for the next set. able 2 shows the specific exercises completed for both groups.
Importantly, this study is billed as a comparison of training a muscle group two times versus one time per week (so that’s how our purpose and research ques-tions were written); however, after review-ing able 2, you can see that’s not really the case. Most muscle groups were trained more than that, at least indirectly. Tere-fore, I think it’s more accurate to say that this study compared a training frequency of two versus four times per week on a mus-cle group. o illustrate this, I created able 3, which breaks down how many times per week each muscle group was directly trained and indirectly trained to provide
the truest comparison of weekly frequency. It’s important to do this, because a recent meta-analysis (2) – which recommends a frequency of 2-3 times per week for mus-cle growth – includes indirectly training a muscle group (i.e. rows count indirectly for biceps) in that recommendation.
Findings
Tere were no statistically significant differences between groups, in terms of p-values, for any outcome measure. However, there were some instances where an outcome measure statistically
Table 2 Training Protocol, Training Variables, and Outcome Measures
Routine 1 Routine 2 Bench Press DB Fly Chest Press Bar Curl Seated DB Curl
Bench Over Row
DB Lateral Raise
Military Press
Bar Front Raise
Lat Pulldown
DB Rear Delt
Bar Pullover
Bar Triceps Ext.
Close Grip Bench
Triceps Pushdowns
Squat
Deadlift
Leg Curl
This table shows the specific exercises completed for each group. Both “routines” were performed twice per week in the high frequen-cy group and once per week in the low frequenfrequen-cy group.
DB = Dumbbell, 1RM = One-Repetition Maximum
improved from pre- to post-study in the low frequency group but not in the high frequency group. Tose measures were: fat mass, fat-free mass, arm circumfer-ence, and biceps hypertrophy. Further, there were meaningful effect sizes in fa- vor of the low frequency group for the following variables: body mass (loss), fat mass, fat-free mass, biceps hypertrophy, 1RM bench, 1RM squat, and bench press power. In short, all of the mean-ingful differences were in favor of the low frequency group; therefore, these re-sults suggest a possible benefit for low-er frequency training for body compo-sition, strength, and hypertrophy. able 4 displays pre- to post-study means, the mean change, the comparison p-value, and the between-group ES for all vari-ables.
Interpretation
Although able 3 shows some effect sizes in favor of the low frequency group, I think it’s most important to point out that there were no significant differenc-es between groups in terms of p-val-ues. Further, when you look closely at able 3, the effect sizes in favor of low frequency become less convincing upon critical analysis. For example, there is what is considered a large ES (0.89) in favor of low frequency for 1RM bench press. However, there is a mean change of 11kg for bench press in both groups. Te standard deviation is much tighter for the low frequency group, which may account for the ES, but the large standard deviation in the high frequency group at post-test (SD=30) also means the great-est individual change may have occurred
Table 3 Breakdown of Both Direct and Indirect Training Frequencies Per Muscle Group
Chest Biceps Back Shoulders Triceps Legs 2 / 4 1 / 2 2 / 4 2 / 4 1 / 2 1 / 2
Bench Press, Chest Press, DB Fly, Close Grip Bench Press
Bar Curl, Seated DB Curl
Lat Pulldown, Bent Over Row, Bar Pullover, Deadlift
Military Press, Bar Front Raise, DB Rear Delt
Bar Triceps Ext, Close Grip Bench, Triceps Pushdowns
Squat, Deadlift, Leg Curl
Bench Press, Chest Press, DB Fly, Close Grip Bench Press
Bar Curl, Seated DB Curl, Bent Over Row, Bar Pullover
Lat Pulldown, Bent Over Row, Bar Pullover, Deadlift, DB Rear
Delt
Military Press, Bar Front Raise, DB Rear Delt, Close Grip Bench
Bar Triceps Ext, Close Grip Bench, Triceps Pushdowns,
Bench Press Squat, Deadlift, Leg Curl
2 / 4 2 / 4 2 / 4 2 / 4 2 / 4 1 / 2 16 16 20 16 16 12 Weekly Frequency Directly Trained LVHF / HVLF Muscle Group
What’s Included for Directly Trained
Weekly Frequency Indirectly / Directly Trained LVHF / HVLF
What’s Included for Indirectly / Directly
Trained
Total Weekly Sets Including All Indirect
Training
