Most of the literature on sleep is regarding restriction and its impact on health and performance. However, there is a growing body of research on sleep extension and the potential implications on athletic performance. It’s relatively understood that sleep is a primary contributor to recovery and performance.

Despite this, it’s estimated over one-third of the American population is underslept.¹ The American Academy Of Sleep Medicine recommends individuals aged 18-60 sleep a minimum of seven hours a day.¹

Why Sleep Is Important

Failing to meet this requirement has been associated with various chronic conditions such as heart disease, stroke, diabetes, high blood pressure, and various other deleterious health and performance outcomes.

One paper looking at the effects of sleep deprivation on resistance training performance found significant reductions in strength in the bench press, deadlift, and leg press. Additionally, the researchers observed² increased subjective feelings of difficulty and increased sleepiness scores. Reductions in strength were preserved until the fourth consecutive night of sleep restriction. Still, mood, fatigue, and other subjective sleep deprivation levels increased after just one night of nocturnal sleep restriction.²

Sleep Restrictions Have Detrimental Effects

A study³ looking at the cardiovascular, respiratory, and metabolic responses to sleep restriction in endurance-trained athletes found:

“After partial sleep deprivation, there were statistically significant increases in heart rate (P less than 0.05) and ventilation (P less than 0.05) at submaximal exercise compared with results obtained after the baseline night. Both variables were also significantly enhanced at maximal exercise, while the peak oxygen consumption (VO2) dropped (P less than 0.05) even though the maximal sustained exercise intensity was not different.”³

Sleep restriction reduces alertness, coordination, and other psychomotor characteristics, as was found in a 2009 paper⁴ by Edwards et al. whereby participants in the sleep-restricted group saw an associative decrease in performance of throwing darts.⁴

Sleep is known to play an important role in cognitive restitution, and research has consistently found impeded attentional mechanisms such as reaction time and coordination when sleep is restricted.⁵

Sleep restriction of varying degrees has also been shown to augment the time course to return to baseline performance.⁶

Chronic sleep restriction having a longer refractory period than acute restriction before returning to baseline.

One paper⁷ looking at the effects of sleep restriction on sprint performance and muscle glycogen content found:

“Sleep loss and associated reductions in muscle glycogen and perceptual stress reduced sprint performance and slowed pacing strategies during intermittent-sprint exercise for male team-sport athletes.”⁷

Various other studies have demonstrated a strong association between sleep deprivation and reduced muscular performance.^8,9

There are also considerable inter-individual differences in resilience about sleep deprivation, with some individuals experiencing greater performance dropoff than others under similar conditions.¹⁰

Body Composition and Performance

Also relevant but maybe less obvious is the role of body composition in performance.

This is likely more relevant to sports where weight classes exist and where the power-to-weight ratios are critical determinants of performance.

Sleep deprivation has been shown to have significant deleterious results on body composition, with one study¹¹ finding:

“Sleep curtailment decreased the proportion of weight lost as fat by 55% (1.4 vs. 0.6 kg with 8.5 vs. 5.5 hours of sleep opportunity, respectively; P = 0.043) and increased the loss of fat-free body mass by 60% (1.5 vs. 2.4 kg; P = 0.002). This was accompanied by markers of enhanced neuroendocrine adaptation to caloric restriction, increased hunger, and a shift in relative substrate utilization toward oxidation of less fat.”¹¹

Thus poor sleep can have an unfavorable impact on your body composition.

Sleep Extension’s Implications on Athletic Performance

Now that we’ve covered several of the potential consequences of sleep restriction, let’s shift gears and discuss the antithesis.

A 2011 paper¹² aimed to investigate the effects of sleep extension on various metrics of athletic performance and other cognitive measurements. The researchers found:

“Total objective nightly sleep time increased during sleep extension compared to baseline by 110.9 ± 79.7 min (P < 0.001). Subjects demonstrated a faster timed sprint following sleep extension (16.2 ± 0.61 sec at baseline vs. 15.5 ± 0.54 sec at end of sleep extension, P < 0.001). Shooting accuracy improved, with free throw percentage increasing by 9% and 3-point field goal percentage increasing by 9.2% (P < 0.001). Mean PVT reaction time and Epworth Sleepiness Scale scores decreased following sleep extension (P < 0.01). POMS scores improved with increased vigor and decreased fatigue subscales (P < 0.001). Subjects also reported improved overall ratings of physical and mental well-being during practices and games.”¹²

As you can see, there were significant increases in performance from baseline.

Subjects initially were sleeping between 6-9 hours per night, but during the intervention were instructed to record a minimum of 10 hours in bed each night.

It’s important to note that 10 hours in bed is not the same as 10 hours of sleep.

Due to obvious limitations, the study’s objective was to measure time in bed, a decent proxy for total sleep. However, it may not always be practical to adopt a10 hr nocturnal sleeping schedule.

A fragmented sleep pattern characterizes a bi-phasic (2 phases) or polyphasic (3+ phases) approach to sleep. This approach has demonstrated beneficial effects in subjects with sleep disorders.¹³

Napping has also been shown to improve cognitive performance^14,15 meaningfully.

Since total cumulative sleep throughout the day is a reasonable metric for recovery and athletic performance, utilizing naps can be an effective strategy to bolster total sleep, enhance recovery and athletic performance if extending nocturnal sleep is not a practical option.

One study found that just a 10-minute nap was enough to improve alertness and cognitive performance¹⁶ significantly. Longer naps of +30 minutes also have been shown to have significant benefits.

However, longer naps may lead to a phenomenon called sleep inertia. Essentially this is a period of cognitive impairment following arising from a longer duration nap (+30 minutes.)¹⁶

Sleep inertia does not persist throughout the day, but it may be beneficial to structure longer naps away from cognitively demanding tasks like work or training.

Practical Guidelines

The national institute of health outlines an additional resource to enhance the quality of your sleep.

1. Set a schedule: go to bed and wake up at the same time each day.
2. Exercise 20 to 30 minutes a day but no later than a few hours before going to bed.
3. Avoid caffeine and nicotine late in the day and alcoholic drinks before bed.
4. Relax before bed: try a warm bath, reading, or another relaxing routine.
5. Create a room for sleep: avoid bright lights and loud sounds, keep the room at a comfortable temperature, and don’t watch TV or have a computer in your bedroom.
6. Don’t lie in bed awake. If you can’t get to sleep, do something else, like reading or listening to music, until you feel tired.
7. See a doctor if you have a problem sleeping or if you feel exhausted during the day.

There appears to be good evidence of sleep extension performance-enhancing effects up to 10 hours per night.

However, the benefit it confers may vary since recovery requirements are individual in nature.

Good luck!

Reference:

1. “1 in 3 adults don’t get enough sleep.” CDC Newsroom, Media Relations Press Release, Feb 18, 2016. Accessed March 24, 2021.

2. Thomas Reilly & Mark Piercy (1994). “The effect of partial sleep deprivation on weight-lifting performance.” Ergonomics, 37:1, 107-115.

3. Mougin F, Simon-Rigaud ML, Davenne D, Renaud A, Garnier A, Kantelip JP, Magnin P. “Effects of sleep disturbances on subsequent physical performance.” Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1991;63(2):77-82.

4. Edwards BJ, Waterhouse J. “Effects of one night of partial sleep deprivation upon diurnal rhythms of accuracy and consistency in throwing darts.” Chronobiol Int. 2009 May;26(4):756-68.

5. Morteza Taheri, and Elaheh Arabameri. “The Effect of Sleep Deprivation on Choice Reaction Time and Anaerobic Power of College Student-Athletes.” Asian J Sports Med. 2012, Mar; 3(1):15-20.

6. Belenky G, Wesensten NJ, Thorne DR, Thomas ML, Sing HC, Redmond DP, Russo MB, Balkin TJ. “Patterns of performance degradation and restoration during sleep restriction and subsequent recovery: a sleep dose-response study.” J Sleep Res. 2003 Mar;12(1):1-12.

7. Skein M, Duffield R, Edge J, Short MJ, Mündel T. “Intermittent-sprint performance and muscle glycogen after 30 h of sleep deprivation.” Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011 Jul;43(7):1301-11.

8. Bulbulian R, Heaney JH, Leake CN, Sucec AA, Sjoholm NT. “The effect of sleep deprivation and exercise load on isokinetic leg strength and endurance.” Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1996;73(3-4):273-7.

9. Takeuchi L, Davis GM, Plyley M, Goode R, Shephard RJ. ‘Sleep deprivation, chronic exercise, and muscular performance.” Ergonomics. 1985 Mar;28(3):591-601.

10. Money I, Waterhouse J, Atkinson G, Reilly T, Davenne D. “The effect of one night’s sleep deprivation on temperature, mood, and physical performance in subjects with different amounts of habitual physical activity.” Chronobiol Int. 1998 Jul;15(4):349-63.

11. Nedeltcheva AV, Kilkus JM, Imperial J, Schoeller DA, Penev PD. “Insufficient sleep undermines dietary efforts to reduce adiposity.” Ann Intern Med. 2010 Oct 5;153(7):435-41.

12. Cheri D. Mah, MS, Kenneth E. Mah, MD, MS, Eric J. Kezirian, MD, MPH, and William C. Dement, MD, Ph.D. “The Effects of Sleep Extension on the Athletic Performance of Collegiate Basketball Players.” Sleep. 2011 Jul 1; 34(7):943–950. Published online 2011 Jul 1. Accessed March 24, 2021.

13. MasayaTakahashif. “The role of prescribed napping in sleep medicine,” Science Direct. Sleep Medicine Reviews, Volume 7, Issue 3, June 2003, Pages 227-235. Accessed March 24, 2021.

14. Smith, S.S., Kilby, S., Jorgensen, G. et al. “Napping and nightshift work: Effects of a short nap on psychomotor vigilance and subjective sleepiness in health workers.” Sleep Biol. Rhythms 5, 117–125 (2007).

15. Mats Gillberg. “The effects of two alternative timings of a one-hour nap on early morning performance.” Biological Psychology. Volume 19, Issue 1, August 1984, Pages 45-54

16. Tietzel AJ, Lack LC. “The recuperative value of brief and ultra-brief naps on alertness and cognitive performance.” J Sleep Res. 2002 Sep;11(3):213-8.

The post Enhance Muscle And Strength With These Sleep Extension Techniques appeared first on Breaking Muscle.

Fish oil supplementation has gained a lot of attention for its health benefits. Specifically, supplementation of omega 3 fatty acids has demonstrated positive effects on blood pressure, triglycerides, and heart rate.¹

Additionally, they’ve been shown to improve arterial dilation, possess antiarrhythmic and anti-inflammatory properties. All of these have been shown to have protective effects against cardiovascular disease development.¹

But less is known about the role of fish oil supplementation in recovery from resistance training.

A 2020 paper² by VanDusseldorp et al. set out to examine the effects of fish oil supplementation on various markers of recovery following a strenuous bout of eccentric exercise.²

A 2020 paper³ by Heileson et al. found that the minimum effective dose for fish oil supplementation to elicit a positive response on recovery was 2 g supplemented for at least four weeks.³ However, research has been conflicting regarding what the appropriate dosing should be.

Therefore, the previously mentioned paper by VanDusseldorp and colleagues where they set dosages to 2 g, 4 g, and 6 g between groups and examined the effects of a seven-week fish oil supplementation protocol. This paper was on a well-controlled study:²

“Utilizing a randomized placebo-controlled double-blind experimental design; participants were randomly assigned to consume 2- (2 G), 4- (4 G), or 6- (6 G) g/da of either FO or placebo (PL) supplementation for ~7.5 weeks (8 participants per group (4 males and 4 females per group); a 6-week run-in the supplementation period, 1-week involving familiarization testing at the beginning of the week and experimental testing at the end of the week, and three days of recovery testing). Muscle soreness, venous blood (for the assessment of creatine kinase (CK) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and indices of muscle function were collected before eccentric exercise, as well as immediately post 1-, 2-, 4-, 24-, 48-, and 72-h (H) post-exercise. Participants continued to supplement until they completed the 72H time-point.”²

1. Participants completed eccentric squats on a Smith machine at a tempo of 4-0-1 for ten sets of eight reps using 70% of their 1 RM and taking three minutes to rest between sets.
2. Additionally, participants were made to complete five sets of twenty bodyweight split jump squats.
3. The primary metrics used to evaluate muscle damage and recovery were blood biomarkers, perceived soreness, vertical jump, agility test, forty-yard sprint, and maximum voluntary isometric contraction.

Researchers observed 6 g of fish oil supplementation had a beneficial effect on perceived muscle soreness.

Whereby participants reported lower soreness scores across all time points of measurement. The 6 g group also decreased the recovery time of vertical jump performance. In some cases, it also resulted in better blood values when monitoring indirect markers of muscle damage compared to the other controls.

So, what does this mean practically? Although the researchers found a beneficial effect on recovery when supplementing 6 g/day of fish oils, the effect’s magnitude was still relatively small. Therefore, a costs benefit analysis should be the basis for deciding whether to utilize this strategy.

I typically don’t recommend many supplements to individuals.

However, from a health perspective, I think fish oil supplementation is generally beneficial. So if you decide to take it for that reason, you may also experience some minor benefits of enhanced recovery.

Finally, if you want a comprehensive analysis of primary recovery strategies and how to utilize them for better results effectively, I have covered it on Kabuki Strength.⁴

References:

1. “Effects of B vitamins and omega 3 fatty acids on cardiovascular diseases: a randomized placebo controlled trial.” BMJ. 2010;341:c6273. Accessed March 17, 2021.

2. Trisha A. VanDusseldorp, Kurt A. Escobar, Kelly E. Johnson, Matthew T. Stratton, Terence Moriarty, Chad M. Kerksick, Gerald T. Mangine, Alyssa J. Holmes, Matthew Lee, Marvin R. Endito, and Christine M. Mermier, “Impact of Varying Dosages of Fish Oil on Recovery and Soreness Following Eccentric Exercise.” Nutrients, U.S. National Library of Medicine, NIH. Published online 2020 Jul 27. Accessed Mar 16, 2021.

3. Heileson JL, Funderburk LK. “The effect of fish oil supplementation on the promotion and preservation of lean body mass, strength, and recovery from physiological stress in young, healthy adults: a systematic review.” Nutr Rev. 2020 Dec 1;78(12):1001-1014.

4. Daniel Debrocke, “Optimize Your Recovery For Maximum Strength.” Online Kabuki Strength, Accessed March 16, 2021.

The post Does Fish Oil Supplementation Impact Recovery? appeared first on Breaking Muscle.

This article will give a brief distillation of the currently available evidence and offer clear and concise recommendations to optimize protein distribution throughout the day and maximize your results.

When it comes to the accretion of new muscle mass, protein intake is one of the primary variables to consider. Common discussions range from how much protein, protein source and bioavailability, refractory periods, and protein distribution.

This article will give a brief distillation of the currently available evidence and offer clear and concise recommendations to optimize protein distribution throughout the day and maximize your results.

Protein’s Role in the Body’s Functions

Protein serves various functions in the body, including but not limited to growth and maintenance of tissue,¹ catalyze biochemical reactions,² recovery from injury,³ and normal immune function.⁴

But of particular interest is its role in the synthesis of skeletal muscle. Muscle protein synthesis (MPS)⁵ is the process by which our bodies synthesize new muscle tissue. It’s a primary variable that galvanizes tissue remodeling.

Muscle protein breakdown (MPB)⁶ is an oppositional effect whereby muscle proteins degrade. This effect occurs through autophagy, and calpain, and the ubiquitin-proteasome systems.⁶

The balance between these two processes determined whether an individual will gain, maintain, or lose muscle mass.

• When the rate of MPS outpaces, MPB new muscle is accrued.
• When MPB outpaces MPS, muscle loss is observed.

Optimize Muscle Mass Gains

A 2019 paper⁷ by Iraki et al. established recommendations for natural bodybuilders in the offseason.

The authors reiterate what the larger body of evidence suggests: total protein intake is a more significant determining factor in developing new muscle mass than protein distribution.

Currently, the research suggests a protein intake of 1.6-2.2 g/kg per day is sufficient to optimize muscular gains.⁷

However, when protein, calories, and any resistance exercise protocol are standardized, we still see a slight benefit when protein distribution is optimized throughout the day.

One of the more obvious reasons for this is the refractory period of MPS. The leucine threshold describes the amount of leucine required within a protein feeding to stimulate MPS⁸ maximally.

A : changes in muscle protein synthesis (MPS) and muscle protein breakdown (MPB) in response to feeding (i.e., amino acids). B : changes in MPS and MPB in response to resistance exercise and feeding. Chronic application of these anabolic stimuli, as in B , results in muscle hypertrophy⁸.

Protein quality and bioavailability aren’t the subjects of this article, but generally, what’s observed is animal-based protein seems to be superior to plant-based proteins in most cases.

However, several non-animal-based protein sources are high quality. If you’re interested in diving into this topic, you can get started by reading this paper, and this one, and this one. But I digress.

Assuming a sufficient quantity of protein is consumed, we maximize the MPS response (roughly 20-40 g). This response comes with what’s known as the “muscle full effect,” as described by Schoenfeld et al. in his 2018 paper.⁹

Essentially, once MPS is maximally stimulated, there is a refractory period by which MPS can’t be maximally stimulated again.

A 2017 paper¹⁰ by Kirksick, et al. found “Ingesting a 20-40 g protein dose (0.25-0.40 g/kg body mass/dose) of a high-quality source every three to 4 h appears to most favorably affect MPS rates when compared to other dietary patterns and is associated with improved body composition and performance outcomes.”¹⁰

So does protein distribution affect the accretion of muscle mass? Yes, it does, but the effect is small. However, I would caution against assuming that small is synonymous with not meaningful. Its value is relative to the individual and their goals.

Hypothetically speaking, a 1% increase in hypertrophy for an elite bodybuilder may be the difference between 1st and 5th place.

For the average individual, the extra effort may not be worth the relatively small effect on results. It’s up to each individual to determine whether the investment is worth it. Good luck!

References:

1. Bosse JD, Dixon BM. “Dietary protein to maximize resistance training: a review and examination of protein spread and change theories.” J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2012 Sep 8;9(1):42.

2. Cooper GM. “The Central Role of Enzymes as Biological Catalysts.” The Cell: A Molecular Approach. 2nd edition. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer Associates; 2000.

3. Yeung SE, Hilkewich L, Gillis C, Heine JA, Fenton TR. “Protein intakes are associated with reduced length of stay: a comparison between Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) and conventional care after elective colorectal surgery.” Am J Clin Nutr. 2017 Jul; 106(1): 44-51.

4. Li P, Yin YL, Li D, Kim SW, Wu G. “Amino acids and immune function.” Br J Nutr. 2007 Aug; 98(2): 237-52.

5. P. J. Atherton and K. Smith, “Muscle protein synthesis in response to nutrition and exercise.” The Journal of Physiology, Vol 59-.5 1049-57.

6. Kevin D. Tipton, D. Lee Hamilton, Iain J. Gallagher, “Assessing the Role of Muscle Protein Breakdown in Response to Nutrition and Exercise in Humans.” Sports Medicine (Aukland, N. Z.). Vol 48, 2018. Suppl 1, 53-64.

7. Juma Iraki, Peter Fitschen, Sergio Espinar, and Eric Helms, “Nutrition Recommendations for Bodybuilders in the Off-Season: A Narrative Review.” Sports (Basel, Switzerland.), Vol. 7.7 154, 26 Jun 2019.

8. Burd NA, Tang JE, Moore DR, Phillips SM. “Exercise training and protein metabolism: influences of contraction, protein intake, and sex-based differences.” J Appl Physiol (1985). 2009 May;106(5):1692-701.

9. Schoenfeld, B.J., Aragon, A.A. “How much protein can the body use in a single meal for muscle-building? Implications for daily protein distribution.” J Int Soc Sports Nutr 15, 10 (2018).

10. Kerksick CM, Arent S, Schoenfeld BJ, Stout JR, Campbell B, Wilborn CD, Taylor L, Kalman D, Smith-Ryan AE, Kreider RB, Willoughby D, Arciero PJ, VanDusseldorp TA, Ormsbee MJ, Wildman R, Greenwood M, Ziegenfuss TN, Aragon AA, Antonio J. “International society of sports nutrition position stand: nutrient timing.” J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2017 Aug 29;14:33.

The post Does Protein Distribution Effect Muscle Mass? appeared first on Breaking Muscle.

The term metabolic damage has gained lots of traction over the years. Researchers¹ initially observed a reduced metabolic rate in subjects who had lost a substantial amount of weight. This reduction is far from shocking since lowering an individual’s body weight will simultaneously reduce their energy demands.

However, what was unique in this case was that some individuals’ metabolic rates were far lower than what the researchers projected.

These findings became popular within various fitness circles and were quickly given the label of metabolic damage. However, at the moment, there isn’t any convincing evidence to support the existence of metabolic damage within this context. What researchers were observing is more accurately defined as metabolic adaptation and adaptive thermogenesis.¹

During a period of caloric restriction accompanied by a reduction in body weight, your body undergoes several physiological changes to adapt to the changing environment—both internal and external.

Changes in Hormones Accompany Fat Loss

Leptin is a hormone whose primary function is regulating energy balance and maintaining bodyweight.

• Often called the satiety hormone, it helps regulate an individual’s drive to consume food. Because leptin synthesizes in adipocytes, leptin is sensitive to body fat stores.²
• When we lose body fat during a period of caloric restriction, serum leptin concentrations decrease. This reduction in leptin concentration accompanies a cascade of neurochemical alterations that can significantly increase hunger and reward-seeking behavior.³
• Various other hormones, including the thyroid, are also impacted. The thyroid hormone has been demonstrated to be an essential variable in determining energy expenditure and Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR).⁴

Observations show that fat loss during a sustained caloric deficit can reduce thyroid values, thereby decreasing basal BMR.⁵

Fat Loss Affects Physiological Energy Processes

Additionally, Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP) synthesis becomes more efficient. Typically ATP synthesis is roughly 40% efficient, which means approximately 60% of energy is lost via thermogenesis.⁶ However, in low energy availability and reduced body fat, mitochondrial efficiency increases.

Proton leak, a process regulated by uncoupling proteins, causes energy to be lost as heat. But increased mitochondrial efficiency reduces proton leak and increases ATP synthesis as an adaptive response.⁷

We also see other aspects of our physiology, such as muscular work efficiency, increase as calories are restricted, and reduced weight.⁸

As these adaptations occur, we also see a reduction in Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis (NEAT). This reduction is associated with spontaneous, nonexercise-related physical activity and accounts for most energy expenditure.⁹

Researchers have observed that caloric restriction and loss of body weight can reduce an individual’s NEAT significantly. Unfortunately, this is mainly unconscious, so there’s not much that you can do.

Adopting a daily step count is a common practice to keep an account of and regulate energy expenditure.

However, because this is for the explicit purpose of expending calories, it’s not technically NEAT. It’s exercise activity thermogenesis. But I digress.

Researchers have found that our bodies like consistency. Enter the settling point theory. As one paper described it,

“The set point model is rooted in physiology, genetics, and molecular biology, and suggests that there is an active feedback mechanism linking adipose tissue (stored energy) to intake and expenditure via a set point, presumably encoded in the brain.”¹⁰

Although this does not account for all relevant variables, it does explain to some degree the body’s desire to preserve homeostasis from the body weight and energy availability standpoint.

Essentially as energy availability from external, like food, and internal, as in body fat stores, sources decrease, our body tries to resist this change via several physiological and neurochemical changes.

As mentioned previously, changes in thyroid, leptin, and even increased hedonic dive for food are just some of the numerous adaptive responses.

As you reduce your body weight, the energy requirement for locomotion decreases accordingly.¹¹ NEAT may vary between individuals of the same size by 2,000 kcal per day.¹²

In a previous article, I wrote for Kabuki Strength,

I mentioned “A paper by Rosenbaum and colleagues cited a reduction in Total Energy Expenditure (TEE) of 10-15% which was unexplained by body composition changes. Of this 10-15% reduction, roughly 85% could be explained by reductions in nonresting energy expenditure of which NEAT is the largest contributor.”^13,14

Once we account for these changes, the vast majority of discrepancies are accounted for between estimated BMR and actual BMR.

So, is metabolic adaptation an issue? Absolutely. But does it suggest some form of damage? Well, at the moment, there doesn’t seem to be strong supporting evidence of this.

What can you do to manage some of these adaptive responses to maintain your new body weight composition successfully? One potential approach is utilizing a high energy flux approach.¹⁵

Increase Physical Activity

Researchers have consistently found that regular physical activity is strongly associated with successful weight management.

• By increasing energy intake in proportion to energy expenditure, we can offset some of the adaptive responses of dieting and increase energy intake while staying within a predetermined bodyweight range.
• Increasing calories can reduce hunger, improve the thermic effect of food, and help decay psychological fatigue accumulated throughout your diet.
• Adopting a more gradual approach to weight loss such as 1% of your body weight loss per week may delay some of these adaptive responses since the acute change in energy availability is not dramatic.
• Additionally, it’s important to establish clear timelines and end dates for your diet periods.
• Dieting for more than three months is typically not recommended since you often see diminishing returns beyond that point.
• Utilizing maintenance phases to slowly increase your energy intake while remaining weight stable will set you at a higher caloric starting point at the onset of the next diet phase.

Metabolic damage doesn’t appear to have strong supporting evidence at this time. What we typically observe instead is metabolic adaptation.

These adaptations are entirely reversible in the vast majority of cases.

When done correctly, dieting can be an important aspect of healthy eating and optimizing body composition.

References:

1. Michael Rosenbaum and Rudolph L. Leibel, “Adaptive thermogenesis in humans.” International Journal of Obesity, London. 2010 Oct; 34(0 1): S47–S55.

2. R V Considine 1, M K Sinha, M L Heiman, A Kriauciunas, T W Stephens, M R Nyce, J P Ohannesian, C C Marco, L J McKee, T L Bauer, et al., “Serum immunoreactive-leptin concentrations in normal-weight and obese humans.” New England Journal of Medicine. 1996 Feb 1;334(5):292-5.

3. Miguel Alonso-Alonso, Stephen C. Woods, Marcia Pelchat, Patricia Sue Grigson, Eric Stice, Sadaf Farooqi, Chor San Khoo, Richard D. Mattes, and Gary K. Beauchamp. “Food reward system: current perspectives and future research needs.” Nutrition Review, 2015 May; 73(5): 296–307. Published online Apr 9, 2015.

4. Brian Kim, “Thyroid hormone as a determinant of energy expenditure and the basal metabolic rate.” Thyroid, 2008 Feb;18(2):141-4.

5. Edward P. Weiss, Dennis T. Villareal, Susan B. Racette, Karen Steger-May, Bhartur N. Premachandra, Samuel Klein, and Luigi Fontana. “Caloric Restriction But Not Exercise-Induced Reductions in Fat Mass Decrease Plasma Triiodothyronine Concentrations: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” Rejuvenation Res. 2008 Jun; 11(3): 605–609.

6. Sunil Nath, “The thermodynamic efficiency of ATP synthesis in oxidative phosphorylation.” Biophys Chemistry. 2016 Dec; 219: 69-74. Epub 2016, Oct 15.

7. Martin Jastroch, Ajit S. Divakaruni, Shona Mookerjee, Jason R. Treberg, and Martin D. Brand, “Mitochondrial proton and electron leaks.” Essays Biochem, 2010; 47: 53–67.

8. Michael Rosenbaum 1, Krista Vandenborne, Rochelle Goldsmith, Jean-Aime Simoneau, Steven Heymsfield, Denis R Joanisse, Jules Hirsch, Ellen Murphy, Dwight Matthews, Karen R Segal, Rudolph L Leibel, “Effects of experimental weight perturbation on skeletal muscle work efficiency in human subjects.” Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2003 Jul; 285(1): R183-92. Epub 2003, Feb 27.

9. Christian von Loeffelholz, M.D. and Andreas Birkenfeld. “The Role of Non-exercise Activity Thermogenesis in Human Obesity.” Endotext, {Internet}. Last updated Apr 9, 2018.

10. John R. Speakman, David A. Levitsky, David B. Allison, Molly S. Bray, John M. de Castro, Deborah J. Clegg, John C. Clapham, Abdul G. Dulloo, et al., “Set points, settling points, and some alternative models: theoretical options to understand how genes and environments combine to regulate body adiposity.” Disease Model Mech, 2011 Nov; 4(6): 733–745.

11. Michael Rosenbaum 1, Krista Vandenborne, Rochelle Goldsmith, Jean-Aime Simoneau, Steven Heymsfield, Denis R Joanisse, Jules Hirsch, Ellen Murphy. Dwight Matthews, Karen R Segal, Rudolph L Leibel, “Effects of experimental weight perturbation on skeletal muscle work efficiency in human subjects.” Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2003 Jul; 285(1): R183-92. Epub 2003 Feb 27.

12. Christian von Loeffelholz, M.D. and Andreas Birkenfeld. “The Role of Non-exercise Activity Thermogenesis in Human Obesity.” NCBI, Endotext {Internet}. Last updated Apr 9, 2018.

13. Debrocke, Daniel, “Preventing Weight Regain After A Diet.” Kabuki Strength, Apr 24, 2020. Accessed Feb 25, 2021.

14. Michael Rosenbaum and Rudolph L. Leibel, “Adaptive thermogenesis in humans.” Int J Obes (Lond). 2010 Oct; 34(0 1): S47–S55.

15. Gregory A Hand and Steven N Blair, “Energy Flux and its Role in Obesity and Metabolic Disease.” Eur Endocrinol. 2014 Aug; 10(2): 131–135. Published online 2014, Aug 28.

The post Understanding Metabolic Damage And Adaptation appeared first on Breaking Muscle.

“I almost had it, I just mis-grooved the lift.”

“I always get pinned at the bottom of my bench.”

“I can touch and go this weight, but when I pause my bench, I’m so much weaker.”

“My overhead press and other bench accessories all got stronger but my bench stayed the same.”

Have you ever said any of the following about your bench press?

“I almost had it, I just mis-grooved the lift.”

“I always get pinned at the bottom of my bench.”

“I can touch and go this weight, but when I pause my bench, I’m so much weaker.”

“My overhead press and other bench accessories all got stronger but my bench stayed the same.”

Related: The Best Chest Workouts for Muscle Mass, Strength, and More

These are comments I frequently hear from people who are struggling to increase their bench press.

The good news is they’re easily fixed by identifying the underlying problem and implementing effective solutions to address them.

Typically when people fail, their bench presses a few inches off their chest because of one or more of these reasons.

1. Weak pecs relatively to their shoulders and triceps.
2. Inability to rapidly absorb and reverse the direction of the load.
3. Poor technique.

When the bar is touching your chest, your pecs are stretched and in an advantageous position to generate force and reverse the load.

However, at that same bottom position, your shoulders and triceps are at a disadvantaged point of leverage.

Their primary contribution occurs closer to the mid-range and upward.

That’s generally the point where we see the elbows flair to transfer loading demand from the pecs to the shoulders and triceps in an attempt to complete the lift.

I am going to provide an overview explanation here but if you need to work on your own specific goals or have other issues just contact me at Stacked Strength.

Weak Pectorals

When a lifter mis-grooves a lift right off the chest, it’s often indicative of weak pecs.

Since the pecs aren’t capable of generating enough force to press the weight up, the elbows flare excessively to shift loading demands onto the triceps and shoulders.

However, as mentioned earlier, at the bottom of the rep, the triceps and shoulders are at a disadvantaged mechanical position to press the weight.

So weak pecs are typically the culprit when an athlete fails a rep a few inches off the chest.

However, this often goes hand in hand with an inability to effectively absorb the load and maximize the stretch-shortening cycle. As the athlete lowers the bar, if eccentric and isometric strength is insufficient, they will not absorb the load leading to a decrease in elastic energy.

This energy, if not lost, would be used to reverse the weight from the chest rapidly.

Poor Technique

Another major contributing factor to failing is poor technique.

But there are several articles and instructional videos on how to optimize bench press technique based on your leverages and experience.

So, the technique won’t be the primary focus of this article since the assumption is that the technique is not the limiting factor.

Here I’m going to teach you a simple strategy that tackles both of these major issues so you can start hitting some new PR’s.

Who Benefits?

But first, let’s talk about who this is for. As mentioned previously, if you fail at the chest, or if you often mis-groove lifts or struggle with paused reps, and assuming your technique is decent, you likely have weak pecs.

Also, you likely lack the specific eccentric and isometric strength to both absorb and reverse the weight.

If this sounds like you, then this strategy can help. The individuals who primarily have these issues are beginners and intermediate lifters.

Advanced athletes are a bit more complex, which can make the solutions equally complex. But I digress.

The Solution

Below is a video demonstration of an effective exercise to correct the aforementioned issues.

The strategy I discuss can be implemented with various pressing exercises with great success and isn’t limited to the demonstration below.

An additional benefit to using tempo while simultaneously removing your mechanical advantages is that it places greater demand on the targeted muscles and connective tissue without generating the same fatigue.

This is because, although the exercise feels challenging, the absolute load is lighter than if you were to do a full powerlifting setup and select a load of the same relative intensity.

For example, with a proper powerlifting setup, you might do a set of 8 at 100 lbs, but if you do a set of 8 at 70 lbs utilizing tempo, it may not feel easier.

Same relative intensity, but less absolute load.

This reduction in absolute load reduces the amount of stress being placed on your body. This allows you to have more productive training sessions within a microcycle without exceeding your ability to recover.

The post Do This To Increase Your Bench Press appeared first on Breaking Muscle.

Realistically, we need to have a more nuanced conversation about the merits and drawbacks to both high and low-load approaches to hypertrophy. From there we can come up with some straightforward and practical recommendations that can be implemented into our training.

Mechanisms Of Muscle Hypertrophy

Hypertrophy is a term used to describe muscle growth. Essentially there are three primary drivers of muscle hypertrophy. Mechanical tension, volume, and metabolic stress.¹

It was previously thought that muscle damage was a significant contributor to muscle hypertrophy. Although in limited circumstances it may act as a proxy to muscle growth; recent research shows the relationship does not appear to be causal or even reliably correlated.²

Hypertrophy is observed in individuals in an overtrained state who have accrued copious amounts muscle damage and yet, they may even lose LBM (lean body mass). Conversely, there are several instances where an individual experiences minimal delayed onset muscle soreness while continuing to build muscle mass.

I do not believe muscle damage should be written off as entirely unimportant but because it is not a direct mechanism the topic of muscle damage it will not be covered extensively in this article. My personal stance on this is that if you’re never sore and simultaneously not making any progress it might mean you need to train harder. But beyond that, I don’t believe it’s a metric to reliably base your training decisions on.

Mechanical Tension

Mechanical tension is where a stretch is applied to a muscle under load.¹ As a 2011 paper found, “It is believed that mechanical tension disturbs the integrity of skeletal muscle, causing mechanochemically transduced molecular and cellular responses in myofibers and satellite cells.”³

The degree of mechanical tension is dependant on the load and the time under tension or the amount of stretch being applied to the muscle. Utilizing a combination of these factors that preferences a range in which all are optimized is likely to produce superior hypertrophic adaptations.³

This brings up the important topic of exercise selection. From a practical standpoint, the exercise selected largely dictates load prescriptions. For example, dumbbell chest flys versus barbell bench press will require dramatically different load selection based on the mechanical differences inherent in each movement.⁴

Since volume is one of the primary contributors of muscle hypertrophy, there is a clear benefit to preferencing compound exercises which allow for greater volume load and mechanical tension.^{1, 5}

In addition to increasing the mechanical tension applied to the musculature, lifting heavy loads recruits high threshold motor units that would not be accessible at lower intensities.⁶ These findings have in some instances lead to an over-application of this approach—lifting too heavy too often.

However, since hypertrophy is a complex adaptive response, it is not mediated by one single mechanism. Rather, mechanical tension is simply one aspect of a concomitant matrix that produces muscle growth.¹

The fatigue cost associated with repeated bouts of high-intensity resistance training is robust and if left unchecked can lead to overtraining.^{7, 8, 9}

Research demonstrates a significant benefit to the mindful inclusion of heavy loads as part of a resistance training protocol to maximize the hypertrophic response. In an attempt to prevent overtraining, effective program design must manage the frequency of high-intensity bouts and the associated fatigue.

Volume

Volume refers to the number of reps multiplied by number of sets completed (volume = reps x sets). As a stand-alone metric, volume does not provide much insight into the intricacies of a program. The simple reason being equal volumes may have a variety of different adaptive responses.

For example, the higher intensities prescribed to person A more closely resemble that of a strength program. The more voluminous prescription for person B more closely resembles a hypertrophy program.

I understand this is a bit of an oversimplification, but it’s sufficient to demonstrate my point. Both volumes are identical, and in both cases, 24 total reps were completed. However, as I mentioned previously the adaptive response in each case is quite different.

For this reason, it’s common to see coaches use volume load which is calculated by multiplying the total number of reps by the load.¹⁰ In the table below you can see although volume and relative intensity is identical; volume load is 20% greater for Person A than for Person B.

Research has consistently shown that higher volumes produce greater hypertrophic gains compared to lower volume interventions.¹¹ This is likely due to a combination of increased muscle tension, metabolic damage, and hormonal responses to resistance training.¹

A 2019 paper found “muscle hypertrophy follows a dose-response relationship, with increasingly greater gains achieved with higher training volumes.”¹² Essentially, more volume equates to greater gains so long as the athlete can sufficiently recover.

This leads into the next item up for discussion which is MRV also known as maximum recoverable volume. This is a term coined by Dr. Mike Israetel to define the maximum amount of volume an individual can sustain before overtraining.

This is an important concept because as with most things that work well, more is often thought to be better. However, this dose-response relationship to hypertrophy is mediated by your ability to recover and continue subsequent training sessions of a productive nature.⁸

A 2018 paper titled “Effects Of Different Intensities Of Resistance Training With Equated Volume Load On Muscle Strength And Hypertrophy” found that “leg extension exercise performed at 30% 1RM until failure similarly increased quadriceps muscle volume compared to high-intensity exercise (80% 1RM) and was superior to a 30% 1RM non-failure condition.”¹³

Essentially what this means is that the intensity range at which we can build muscle is much larger than was previously assumed, approximately 40-80% 1RM.¹³ These findings also “indicate that the lowest [resistance training] intensity (20% 1RM) was suboptimal for maximizing muscular adaptations.”¹³

Although there is a wide spectrum of volumes and intensities that can induce productive adaptations, it’s important to be cognizant of where those rough boundaries exist and not venture unnecessarily too far in either direction.

Volume also has an inverse relationship with intensity.¹⁴ What this means is that as intensity increases, volume necessarily decreases. This is also why you can squat 65% for 10 reps but 100% for only 1 rep and is depicted in the graph below.

A question I sometimes get is: “If increased volume decreases intensity, how can you maximize mechanical tension and volume simultaneously?” This is an excellent question, and although you may not truly be able to maximize both simultaneously you can certainly come close to optimizing them.

Mechanical tension is not just the load being lifted, it’s also accumulative tension. This means even though you’re not lifting your 1RM, as the reps and sets progress, the voluminous training session induces significant mechanotransduction.¹

Metabolic Stress

Metabolic stress seems to have a large impact on muscular hypertrophy either directly or indirectly. A paper by Dr. Brad Schoenfeld found “Metabolic stress manifests as a result of exercise that relies on anaerobic glycolysis for ATP production, which results in the subsequent buildup of metabolites such as lactate, hydrogen ion, inorganic phosphate, creatine, and others.”¹

Although lower loads lifted for high repetitions (15+) may not be sufficient to maximally recruit high threshold motor units, it can induce significant metabolic stress.¹ Thus, there appears to be a clear benefit to incorporating higher repetition ranges at lower loads to take advantage of the metabolic stress pathway to hypertrophy.

Practical implementation of both low and high-intensity protocols vary dramatically. In a 2018 paper by De Souza et al, in order to produce similar hypertrophic responses with low loads the subjects were forced to take each set to muscular failure.¹³ This presents some very real limitations to this type of training due to the associated fatigue cost.

For instance, taking an isolation exercise like the leg extension to failure will create a significant hypertrophic response, however, the fatigue generated will likely be manageable. Compare that with a barbell squat taken to failure and the axial loading will result in more systemic fatigue which may also increase risk of injury.¹⁵

The fatigue generated from such a stressful training session may also bleed into subsequent training sessions, potentially having a negative impact on downstream performance. Beyond that, the psychological cost of training at this level of effort is extraordinarily taxing, and likely not sustainable for long periods. Thus exercise selection, sequence, undulation, and frequency of implementation should be considered when designing a program.

De Souza and colleagues also found that higher intensities not taken to failure are at least equally effective at eliciting a hypertrophic response during training.¹³ This is reflected by the recommendations made by Helms et al for natural bodybuilders where training intensities between 70-80% 1RM make up the majority of the intensity spectrum utilized.¹⁶

This again boils down to context. When looking at a single set, any intensity taken to failure will elicit a greater hypertrophic response than not taking the set to failure. This occurs because failure maximizes the combination of mechanical tension, volume, and metabolic stress accrued during the set.¹

However, there is a strong correlation between the incidence of overtraining when an athlete exceeds their load/volume thresholds.¹⁷ Thus, training to failure as a primary strategy of program design is ill-advised and likely to result in injury and overtraining.

Endocrine Response To Resistance Training

Resistance training results in a cascade of endocrine responses that help facilitate the synthesis of muscle mass. Several questions still exist regarding the long term significance of acute alterations in hormones post-exercise. One paper found “Higher volumes of total work produce significantly greater increases in circulating anabolic hormones during the recovery phase following exercise.” ¹⁸

Ahtiainen et al attempted to determine the hormonal response to heavy resistance training with equated volume. The only difference in protocol between control groups was group A was instructed to do 4 sets at 12RM, where group B followed the same protocol but with a weight they could only complete 8 reps, and the remaining reps would be forced reps.

After measuring serum testosterone, free testosterone, cortisol, growth hormone, and blood lactate; both groups showed significant increases in concentration post-training.¹⁹ However, the forced rep group had a higher concentration upon measurement than the 12RM group. There is also evidence suggesting that training age of the athlete influences hormonal response to training.

One paper found that trained subjects demonstrated lower responsiveness in hormone values (total testosterone, free testosterone, dehydroepiandrosterone, cortisol, and sex hormone-binding globulin) post resistance exercise.²⁰ Therefore, we can speculate that the endocrine response to resistance training is likely attenuated over time.²⁰

This may at least in part explain the requirement of higher volumes in trained athletes to stimulate myogenesis.

Insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) is a hormone that, along with growth hormone (GH), helps promote normal bone and tissue growth and development. Although the mechanism by which mechanical load modulates IGF-1 expression is unclear, there is emerging evidence in support of this observation.²¹

The image below is a visual represents of a dose-response relationship between volume, load, and endocrine response to resistance training (ie. greater loads and volumes resulting in a larger acute elevation). As mentioned previously, it’s still unclear how acute elevations in anabolic hormone concentrations impact long term outcomes.

However, if the acute elevations in anabolic environment resulting from resistance training are frequent enough and at a large enough magnitude, it would be reasonable to assume they would be reflected in downstream gains.

Since there is a lot of conjecture with regard to the relationship between long term outcomes and acute elevations in anabolic hormones, I would not spend much time attempting to alter your biochemistry. Simply focus on the variables that have been well established to cause muscle growth and let your body sort the rest out on its own.

Training Frequency and Fatigue Management

All progress in training is predicated on adequate recovery, allowing for subsequent bouts of training that over time yield a positive adaptive response. The repeated bout effect is a sports science concept that describes the bodies adaptive response to stressors resulting in increased resiliency.²²

There is a limit to the rate of our adaptive ability and exceeding this limit can predispose you to injury and reduced performance.⁹ Fatigue management, therefore, is a fundamental tenant of every effective training protocol. The SRA (stimulus recovery adaptation) curve charts the adaptive process to resistance training and is depicted in the image below.

There are three main points to highlight here. The first is that exercise generates fatigue, the magnitude of which is determined by several factors but primarily volume and load. The second point is that if you wait too long before introducing another training stimulus adaptive dissolution occurs.

This means you regress because subsequent training exposures were either insufficiently overloading, insufficiently frequent, non-specific or a combination of these. The third point is as you accumulate fatigue through overloading training sessions your ability to express athletic performance declines temporarily.

Knowing this, frequency of training plays a significant role in the proper application of various loading strategies. For instance, if you were to do 10×10 squats to failure, you may not be able to train legs for a whole week. So, when looking at the magnitude of the stimulus produced in a vacuum it’s huge which is positive.

But the fact that you can’t train legs for an entire week likely makes the opportunity cost of this strategy a poor trade-off. In most cases frequencies higher than 1x per week are required to really optimize muscle growth. Thus, a phasic structure and effective program design can help prevent the exacerbation of a single pathway, manage fatigue, and also potentiate future gains.

Practical Takeaways And Recommendations

With regard to the compound lifts, the majority of your hypertrophy gains will likely come from the following recommendations:

• Reps: 6-15
• Sets: 4-8
• Intensity: 60-80%
• Rest: 2-3 minutes

However, this does not exclude the implementation of low load training taken near or to absolute muscle failure. It simply means that it needs to be applied intelligently. Since the physiological and psychological fatigue generated from taking sets to absolute muscular failure is significant as well and an all-around terrible experience I would use it in moderation.

Its implementation would likely be most effective for smaller muscle groups or exercises that are limited in the amount of load that can be lifted (ie. bicep curls, tricep press downs, calf press, DB shoulder press, etc).

Implementing a phasic structure that emphasizes specific adaptive pathways can be very effective. The ideal structure would be based on each phase potentiating subsequent phases. Thus one potential approach could be a linear periodization model where volume starts high and declines over time as intensity rises. An example of which is below:

• Phase 1: Metabolic (high volume, low load)
• Phase 2: Volume (moderate volume, moderate load)
• Phase 3: Mechanical Tension (moderate volume, moderate to high loads)

Below is an example of a similar workout adapted to each phase to give you an idea of what your training might look like:

As you can see from the sample workouts, each phase may look relatively similar. This brings me to an important point—complex training isn’t synonymous with effective training. The basics are what produce the bulk of your results anyway, and no matter how amazing it would be to find “hacks” that yield better progress it generally doesn’t work that way in practice. Your best bet is to use the complete spectrum of reps, sets, and intensity ranges while still maintaining the bulk of your work within the guidelines mentioned above.

The use of tactics such as giant sets, rest-pause sets, supersets, negative sets, etc can be useful in eliciting metabolic stress. These can be implemented at your desecration, but I would recommend either using them on multi-joint machine-based exercises or isolation exercises with free weight or machines. This will help limit the amount of fatigue you can generate from this type of training while still producing a significant stimulus.

Hopefully, this clears up some of the confusion and offers some practical application for implementing various loading strategies into your hypertrophy program. Lift big.

References:

1. “The Mechanisms of Muscle Hypertrophy and Their Application“, The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research”, LWW.

2. Flann, Kyle L, et al. “Muscle Damage and Muscle Remodeling: No Pain, No Gain?” The Journal of Experimental Biology, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 15 Feb. 2011.

3. “The Use of Specialized Training Techniques to Maximize“, Strength & Conditioning Journal.” LWW.

4. “A Biomechanical Comparison of the Traditional Squat“, The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. LWW.

5. Krieger, James. “Single vs. Multiple Sets of Resistance Exercise for Muscle Hypertrophy: A Meta-Analysis”, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 1 Apr. 2010.

6. “Training-Induced Changes in Neural Function : Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews”, LWW.

7. Kajaia, T, et al. “THE EFFECTS OF NON-FUNCTIONAL OVERREACHING AND OVERTRAINING ON AUTONOMIC NERVOUS SYSTEM FUNCTION IN HIGHLY TRAINED ATHLETES”, Georgian Medical News, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Mar. 2017.

8. “The Fitness-Fatigue Model Revisited: Implications for… ” Strength & Conditioning Journal, LWW.

9. BANISTER, Eric, et al. “Dose/Response Effects of Exercise Modeled from Training : Physical and Biochemical Measures”, The Annals of Physiological Anthropology, Japan Society of Physiological Anthropology, 8 Feb. 2008.

10. Schoenfeld, Brad J., et al. “A Comparison of Increases in Volume Load Over 8 Weeks of Low-Versus High-Load Resistance Training”, Asian Journal of Sports Medicine, Kowsar, 1 June 2016.

11. Krieger, James. “Single vs. Multiple Sets of Resistance Exercise for Muscle Hypertrophy: A Meta-Analysis”, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 1 Apr. 2010.

12. Schoenfeld, Brad J, et al. “Resistance Training Volume Enhances Muscle Hypertrophy but Not Strength in Trained Men”, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Jan. 2019.

13. Lasevicius, Thiago, et al. “Effects of Different Intensities of Resistance Training with Equated Volume Load on Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy”, European Journal of Sport Science, vol. 18, no. 6, 2018, pp. 772–780.

14. “The Science and Practice of Periodization: A Brief Review : Strength & Conditioning Journal”, LWW.

15. “The Effect of Fatigue on Multijoint Kinematics and Load… : Spine”. LWW.

16. Helms, E R, et al. “Recommendations for Natural Bodybuilding Contest Preparation: Resistance and Cardiovascular Training”, The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Mar. 2015.

17. Foster, Carl. “Monitoring Training in Athletes with Reference to Overtraining Syndrome”, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 1 July 1998.

18. Gotshalk, L A, et al. “Hormonal Responses of Multiset versus Single-Set Heavy-Resistance Exercise Protocols”, Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology = Revue Canadienne De Physiologie Appliquee, U.S. National Library of Medicine, June 1997.

19. Ahtiainen, Juha P, et al. “Acute Hormonal Responses to Heavy Resistance Exercise in Strength Athletes versus Nonathletes”, Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology = Revue Canadienne De Physiologie Appliquee, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Oct. 2004.

20. “Hormonal Responses to Resistance Exercise in Long-Term…“, The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, LWW.

21. Bamman, M M, et al. “Mechanical Load Increases Muscle IGF-I and Androgen Receptor MRNA Concentrations in Humans”, American Journal of Physiology. Endocrinology and Metabolism, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Mar. 2001.

22. McHugh, Malachy P. “Recent Advances in the Understanding of the Repeated Bout Effect: the Protective Effect against Muscle Damage from a Single Bout of Eccentric Exercise”, Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Apr. 2003.

The post Is Lifting Heavy Weight Important For Building Muscle Size? appeared first on Breaking Muscle.

These can be a great place to start, but all beginners and many intermediates run into the same fundamental problem. They don’t have a pre-existing understanding of nutrition and exercise and therefore have no way to evaluate the quality of the information being shared.

A common trend is to look to the professionals who have accomplished a great deal in an attempt to learn from their experience. But this poses an additional problem since even accurate information applied incorrectly will be ineffectual.z

This article will explore critical aspects of the development of an athlete and mechanisms of hypertrophy to elucidate the unseen pitfalls of following the advice of professionals. We will then summarize the findings to come up with practical, actionable steps to improve your own training and hypertrophic gains.

Understanding the Novice Body Building Athlete

It’s common among novice athletes to see increases in work-set load during every session. This can go on for weeks and even months as the athlete is developing.¹ There are several reasons for this.

The first is an inability to exceed the athlete’s recovery capacity which is commonly observed in novice athletes. Due to the relative inexperience of the athlete, motor skills are undeveloped which prevents the use of heavy loads.² Thus positive adaptations in strength primarily result from improved motor performance.³

The increased difficulty in exceeding the trainee’s recovery capacity means that common features in more advanced program designs such as deloads are inappropriate. Additionally, percentage-based programs that take a non-linear approach to load progression become ineffective since the rate of adaptation is rapid and unpredictable.

For this and several other reasons, research on youth and novice athletes often recommend higher repetition ranges to increase exercise exposure, improve skill acquisition, and indirectly manage load.^4,5

During the initial training process auto-regulation is an effective method to adapt each training session to the athletes level of preparedness.⁴ However, since novice athletes cannot accurately assess difficulty, the efficacy of this method relies exclusively on the guidance of an experienced coach.⁶

As trainees progress from novice to advanced, training variables shift significantly. A 2004 study by Kraemer et al. found: “The resistance training program design should be simple at first for untrained individuals but should become more specific with greater variation in the acute program variables during progression.”⁷

These findings are in line with the larger body of research showing the high adaptive potential of novice athletes compared to their advanced counterparts who require greater specificity and structure.

Due to undeveloped motor ability, the novice lifter should avoid loads or repetitions in reserve approximating failure to minimize risk of injury.⁷ Even loads as light as 45-50% 1RM have been shown to significantly increase muscular strength in novice lifters⁷ due to improved motor learning and coordination. Beyond that, the volume requirements are much lower for novice lifters than advanced.⁷

For this reason, it’s often recommended that 2-6 exercises are implemented per workout.⁸ A meta-analysis determining the dose-response relationship for strength development found: “Untrained participants experience maximal gains by training each muscle group 3 days per week. Four sets per muscle group elicited maximal gains in both trained and untrained individuals.”⁹

Distributing volume across more exercises can allow you to maintain higher volumes without accumulating excessive specialized fatigue and produce greater hypertrophic responses. ^10,11 This can be a valuable approach since the work capacity of a novice lifter is significantly lower than advanced athletes.^7,12,13

Training frequency is also an important factor, with novice lifters typically requiring less recovery time between training bouts when appropriate loads are selected.^14,15 Research on training frequency seems to support the recommendation of three sessions per week.⁷

Since the intensity often prescribed to a novice lifter is between 45-50% 1RM the athlete can maintain a high frequency of exercises to increase exposure and improve technical proficiency.³

The use of androgenic-anabolic steroids and other pharmacological interventions is a stark reality in sports.¹⁶ As several studies have found, the impact of these substances can be dramatic.¹⁷

Unsurprisingly, the use of sports supplements can dramatically impact hypertrophy, strength, recovery, speed/power, and several other athletic qualities.¹⁷ The use of sports supplements for athletic development is a highly complex subject and one that I am not qualified to speak on.

Suffice it to say that training and nutrition protocols differ between natural and enhanced lifters. Therefore, training tactics and strategies used by enhanced athletes have diminished application to natural athletes and especially novices.

Understanding the Principles of Hypertrophy

Although there are several factors mediating the hypertrophic responses, by and large, the two most significant are mechanical tension and volume.¹⁸ Mechanical tension can be thought of as stretch under load (intensity of 1RM), and volume, in this case, can be calculated as:

Volume = Reps x Sets x Load¹⁸

General Guidelines For An Intermediate Lifter:¹⁸

• Intensity: 60-80% 1RM
• Repetitions: 6-15
• Rest Between Sets: 2-3 minutes for compound exercises
• Sets Per Exercise: 6+
• Proximity To Failure: 2-3 RIR (repetitions in reserve)

General Guidelines For A Novice Lifter:⁷

• Intensity: 45-50% 1RM
• Repetitions: 10-12
• Rest Between Sets: 2 minutes
• Sets Per Exercise: 2

Close Proximity to Failure Should Be Avoided

As you can see there is a substantial difference in what can generally be deemed an effective protocol for novice and intermediate lifters. This gap only increases as the lifters become more advanced.

Studies consistently show that higher volumes produce greater hypertrophic responses than low volume interventions.¹⁸ An important consideration is that advanced athletes have developed a greater tolerance to both volume and intensity that a novice lifter simply does not have.⁷

There is also a significant observable difference between a novice lifter and a professional bodybuilder. An elite professional bodybuilder is likely close to their absolute genetic potential.¹⁸

Because of this, extra emphasis needs to be placed on selecting the appropriate exercises to perfect their physique. Novice lifters, on the other hand, are quite literally the farthest possible distance away from their genetic limit.

This distinction is critical to make because while a professional bodybuilder may emphasize specific exercises or body parts, the primary concern of a novice lifter should simply be to build as much muscle mass globally as possible. This means emphasizing compound movements where load and volume intersect for optimal hypertrophic adaptations.^7,18

To the advanced lifter, rear deltoids may be a weakness, but to a novice lifter, everything is a weakness. By understanding this we can apply the principle of overload effectively to produce superior adaptive responses.

Understanding the Overload Principle

The overload principle states that training must become progressively harder in order to elicit positive adaptations.¹⁹ Commonly used practices to induce overload and progressive adaptations are to increase volume and/or intensity. ^18,19

When we look at the potential overload stimulus presented by various exercises it presents a definitive case for preferencing compound movements like bench press, squats, deadlift, pull-ups, etc. over supplementary exercises.¹⁸

For example, let’s compare the dumbbell chest fly to the barbell bench press. Since we know that mechanical tension and volume are the primary drivers of hypertrophy we can determine with ease which will transmit better outcomes.

Volume = Reps x Sets x Load

Bench Press Exercise:

• Reps: 8
• Sets: 6
• Load: 345lb

Total Exercise Volume: 8 x 6 x 345 = 16560lb

DB Chest Fly Exercise:

• Reps: 8
• Sets: 6
• Load: 50lb (per DB)

Total Exercise Volume: 8 x 6 x 100 = 4800lb

The figures above represent my individual training values, however, the relative scale to a novice athlete would be similar. In the example above, the barbell bench press accrued 3.45 times as much volume as the DB chest fly exercise at similar relative intensities. The absolute mechanical tension was also significantly higher in the barbell bench press since the load was also 3.45 times higher than the DB chest fly.

This does not mean the DB chest fly is a useless exercise. I’m simply using an anecdote to convey that a hierarchy does, in fact, exist within exercise selection based on their ability to present an overload stimulus.¹⁸ Thus exercises that present greater potential for overload should form the foundation of the training program in both novice and advanced athletes.²⁰

The difficulty for novice lifters to exceed their recovery capacity is multifactorial. Some primary influences are muscle size, strength, and motor control. More muscle means more contractile tissue to repair following an intense bout of resistance training.¹⁸

Training with heavier loads requires greater motor control and generates more localized damage to contractile tissue while increasing stress on the peripheral nervous system which increases recovery requirements.¹⁸ In practice, this is reflected by the common body part split approach to bodybuilding adopted by many pros.

A squat workout of an advanced athlete generates substantially more homeostatic disruption compared to a squat session of a novice.²¹ So although it may be more practical for an elite bodybuilder to have just one leg session per week, it’s entirely inappropriate for a novice.

The stimulus to fatigue relationship shows a clear preference for the higher frequency of training exposures in novice lifters.⁷ The same extrapolations can be made for many other training strategies observed in advanced athletes that have little practical application to novices.

Considerations and Practical Recommendations For a Novice Athlete

It has been demonstrated that intensities as low as 45-50% of 1RM show robust improvements in strength. Since most of the strength development of a novice is a result of improved motor learning, emphasis should be placed on developing technical mastery of the main compound lifts during this period.

Individual training sessions should focus on 4-6 compound exercises done for 2-3 sets each for roughly 8-12 repetitions per set to increase skill practice and optimize the adaptive response.

Since the novice will find it difficult to exceed their recovery capacity a higher frequency of training should be adopted to improve skill acquisition and training exposures. Developing a single full-body routine and repeating it 3-4 times per week is a viable option in this circumstance. Conversely, adopting a traditional bodybuilding split where each muscle group is only trained once weekly is unlikely to yield optimal results.

The rate of adaptation for a novice is rapid and unpredictable. As such, programs that apply a non-linear approach to load/volume alteration and the inclusion of deloads are inappropriate. In this case, a simple linear progression of load, volume, or both over time is better suited.

Because novice lifters are generally lacking in everything, their programs should be more general in nature. As the athlete develops over several months and years training should progress congruently and become more specific. This means for a novice the vast majority of training should be based on compound exercises.

Mechanical tension and volume are the two primary drivers of hypertrophy. As such, to maximize progress a program should emphasize the use of compound exercises that allow for maximum accruement of volume and intensity. Supplementary exercises should (at least in the initial stages of training) be limited or excluded unless specific circumstances dictate otherwise.

The efficacy of autoregulating novice lifters is dependent on the presence and guidance of an experienced coach, and should otherwise be avoided.

In closing, I want to clarify that I think it’s important to learn from the experts. But it’s equally important to understand the context in which the advice was given.

Lift Big!

References:

1. Hoffman, Jay R., et al. “Comparison Between Linear and Nonlinear In-Season Training Programs in Freshman Football Players”. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, vol. 17, no. 3, 2003, pp. 561–565., doi:10.1519/00124278-200308000-00023.

2. Wulf, Gabriele, et al. “Motor Skill Learning and Performance: a Review of Influential Factors”. Medical Education, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Jan. 2010.

3. Rutherford, O M, and D A Jones. “The Role of Learning and Coordination in Strength Training”. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 1986.

4. “Flexible Nonlinear Periodization in a Beginner College Weight Training Class: The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research”. LWW.

5. Dahab, Katherine Stabenow, and Teri Metcalf McCambridge. “Strength Training in Children and Adolescents: Raising the Bar for Young Athletes?” Sports Health, SAGE Publications, May 2009.

6. Steele, James, et al. “Ability to Predict Repetitions to Momentary Failure Is Not Perfectly Accurate, Though Improves with Resistance Training Experience” PeerJ, PeerJ Inc., 30 Nov. 2017.

7. Kraemer, William J, and Nicholas A Ratamess. “Fundamentals of Resistance Training: Progression and Exercise Prescription”. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Apr. 2004.

8. “Comparison of the Effect of Various Weight Training Loads on Strength”. Taylor & Francis.

9. Rhea, Matthew R, et al. “A Meta-Analysis to Determine the Dose Response for Strength Development”. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Mar. 2003.

10. Borst, S E, et al. “Effects of Resistance Training on Insulin-like Growth Factor-I and IGF Binding Proteins”. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Apr. 2001.

11. Paulsen, Gøran, et al. “The Influence of Volume of Exercise on Early Adaptations to Strength Training”. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Feb. 2003.

12. Kraemer, William. “A Series of Studies-The Physiological Basis for Strength Training in American Football: Fact Over Philosophy”. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 1 Aug. 1997.

13. Kraemer, W J, et al. “Influence of Resistance Training Volume and Periodization on Physiological and Performance Adaptations in Collegiate Women Tennis Players”. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2000.

14. Häkkinen, K. “Neuromuscular Fatigue and Recovery in Women at Different Ages during Heavy Resistance Loading”. Electromyography and Clinical Neurophysiology, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Nov. 1995.

15. “Designing Resistance Training Programs, 4E”. Google Books, Google.

16. panel Heiko Striegela Rolf Ulrichb Perikles Simonc, Author links open overlay, et al. “Randomized Response Estimates for Doping and Illicit Drug Use in Elite Athletes”. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, Elsevier, 8 Sept. 2009.

17. Sinha-Hikim, Indrani, et al. “Testosterone-Induced Muscle Hypertrophy Is Associated with an Increase in Satellite Cell Number in Healthy, Young Men”. American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism, 1 July 2003.

18. “The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their application to resistance training: The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research”. LWW.

19. Kraemer, W J, et al. “Physiological Adaptations to Resistance Exercise. Implications for Athletic Conditioning.” Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), U.S. National Library of Medicine, Oct. 1988.

20. Campos, Gerson E R, et al. “Muscular Adaptations in Response to Three Different Resistance-Training Regimens: Specificity of Repetition Maximum Training Zones”. European Journal of Applied Physiology, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Nov. 2002.

21. Kajaia, T, et al. “THE EFFECTS OF NON-FUNCTIONAL OVERREACHING AND OVERTRAINING ON AUTONOMIC NERVOUS SYSTEM FUNCTION IN HIGHLY TRAINED ATHLETES”. Georgian Medical News, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Mar. 2017.

The post You Shouldn’t Train Like the Pros to Build Muscle appeared first on Breaking Muscle.

As someone who has sustained two major back injuries early in my lifting career, I’ve become highly engaged in the current research on back pain and treatment/prevention protocols. Through this process of research and review, my position on back pain and its implications for training have changed rather significantly.

I have seen an abundance of information on back pain that makes definitive claims when in reality it’s not that clear cut. The spine is a highly complex structure, and injury mechanisms are by no means straightforward. This article is not meant to be prescriptive. The purpose is to shed light on this complex subject to impart a better understanding of the mechanisms involved in back pain and treatment. My position on injury is that you should always consult a qualified professional like a physical therapist. They will be able to assess your individual circumstances and prescribe the appropriate treatment protocol.

That being said, let’s dive into back pain and all its unique aspects.

Mechanisms for Disc Herniation and Back Pain

Injury can be defined as a tissue being taken beyond its functional loading capacity.¹ Whether it’s bone or soft tissue it’s essentially the same basic premise. For instance, when you go into an elevator there is a sign that tells you the maximal loading capacity of the elevator. Going beyond that puts the steel cables at risk of breaking because the weight has exceeded their functional loading capacity. The body works in the same way.

In the diagram below you can see the basic structure of the discs and the vertebral joints. A disc herniation occurs when a fragment of the disc nucleus is pushed out of the annulus and into the spinal canal through a tear or rupture in the annulus. Anterior herniations are very rare, with most herniations being posterior or posterolateral, as shown by the red arrows in the diagram below.

Tears in the annulus are the most common posterolateral because of the anterior longitudinal ligament which rests at the front of the vertebral column as shown in the diagram below.

A 2009 systematic review found “In people aged 25-55 years, about 95% of herniated discs occur at the lower lumbar spine (L⅘ and L5/S1 level); disc herniation above this level is more common in people aged over 55 years” and “19-27% of people without symptoms have disc herniation on imaging”.²

This is in line with what we currently know about the common injury/pain sites for powerlifters and bodybuilders.³

When we look at the mechanisms for disc herniation and back pain we can see evidence that points to acute increases in compressive force (ie. jumping and landing, falling, a heavy barbell on your back, etc.),⁴ high repetitions low load flexion/extension motions,⁵ high load flexion/extension motions,⁵ and flexion-rotation.⁶

However, disc herniations linked to back pain are rather uncommon and are estimated to be between 2-5%.⁷ When you flex your spine, especially under load, it compresses the anterior side which forces the nucleus of the vertebral disc posteriorly where the annulus has only a thin wall protecting it.⁶

This is not a direct mechanism for injury but under heavy loads and/or high repetition it may increase your risk.^4,7 High load compressive forces under flexion also increase anterior shear which is often associated with an injury.⁷

A vertebral endplate is a cartilaginous structure important in maintaining the integrity and functions of the intervertebral disc.⁸

Endplate fractures can occur under similar circumstances as herniations but the rate of pressurization/loading seems to have a significant impact on fracture rate.⁹

Wade et al (2015) found virtually no difference in the total amount of compressive force required to cause endplate fractures when comparing neutral to flexed positions.⁷

Keeping a Healthy Spine

Based on what we’ve reviewed so far it’s easy to see how flexion and rotation, especially done repeatedly and under load, play a role in back injury and pain. Unfortunately, it’s not quite so cut and dry. Studies have shown the positive characteristics of spinal movements including flexion for maintaining a healthy spine.^10,11 Beyond that, disc degeneration is complex.

Inconsistencies defining disc degeneration and creating clear distinctions between normal disc degeneration related to age, genetics, sex, and disc degeneration due to excessive loading or sports practice is difficult.¹²

Several studies have also found a strong genetic association to back pain that disrupts the commonly held belief that loading exposures is the primary catalyst for back pain.^13,14

One paper found that changes in compression forces were not predictive of damage type to discs and that its failure mechanism may be linked to fatigue.¹⁵

This suggests an adaptive potential that through mindful exposures can increase fatigue resistance increasing resiliency. Other studies have pointed out the limitations to in vitro models which are often used in the classical pain/injury model associated with flexion, rotation, and compressive forces.

Researchers have discovered that “an in-vitro model for studying fluid flow-related intervertebral disc mechanics. During loading, the outflow of fluid occurred, but inflow appears to be virtually absent during unloading. Pro-elastic behavior cannot be reproduced in an in vitro model.”¹⁶

Basically this means that the studies are limited because in-vitro models don’t account for certain adaptive properties of tissues. Spontaneous reabsorption of lumbar disc herniation is an observed phenomenon that according to the data occurs roughly 66.66% of the time.¹⁷

This is yet another aspect of the body’s natural ability to adapt which is often underplayed in the anti-flexion debate.

One study found “Total bending cycles have ranged from 4,400 to 86,400” before causing partial or complete herniations to the posterior annulus.¹⁸ From a practical standpoint, this shows that there is a significant range of unpredictability. I don’t doubt that flexion and compression may feed into the injury mechanism. What I question, however, is the degree of association that can confidently be reported.

Even research establishing that tissue remodeling is a response to compressive loading presents a potential case for intentionally going into flexion under specific circumstances such as sports practice.¹⁹

Physical activity strengthens the vertebrae and the discs potentially reducing your risk of injury.²⁰ The predominance of back injuries occurring in the lumbar spine brings a new layer of complexity to this discussion since spinal flexion in powerlifting typically occurs in the thoracic spine.

In fact, the number of elite dead-lifters that pull with a rounded upper back is by no means small. Beyond that, when an athlete is loaded maximally there will likely be an increase in spinal flexion anyway.²¹

Even with this occurrence powerlifting still maintains a relatively low injury rate estimated between 1-5.8 per 1000 hours of training.²² It’s likely that both sides of the debate are right, but to varying degrees and in varying circumstances.

I tend to agree that lumbar flexion is probably not the best idea when combined with axial loading. However, I do not believe flexion, in general, is a direct mechanism for injury. You only have to look at sports practice that has dynamic flexion/extension like golf, cycling, rowing, skiing, and snowboarding to know that it’s more complex than simply flexion. Beyond that, sports that involve a higher level of flexion do not report a higher rate of back pain.²³

The Body’s Adaptability to Repeated Flexion/Extension

Recommendations to avoid flexion based movements are made due to the research that demonstrated herniations and endplate fractures which occurred at the end of the neutral range of motion segment flexion.

The problem with this is that numerous other examples take the motion segments to the same end range and we don’t see any mechanism for injury. Squats reveal approximately 40 degrees of flexion, golf 48% of max flexion, kettlebell swings 26 degrees of lumbar flexion, and the list goes on.²⁴

So, why do we see a strong injury mechanism in one instance and a weak correlation in the next? I think it just reinforces how complex this subject is and how highly specific circumstances and variables can influence the risk and injury outcomes.

The adaptability of the body is a major factor in this, although it’s important to note that your body’s adaptability to repeated flexion/extension is not infinite. As observed with several other adaptive processes such as strength, endurance, and hypertrophy we will eventually run into our upper limit.²⁵

The problem is that in the case of flexion based activities we don’t know where that upper limit is which poses an inherent risk.

Below is a summarization of the literature on back injury and pain along with some practical recommendations.

Low Load Flexion

Low load flexion activities like tying your shoes, picking up your baby, playing sports and the like are not things to be avoided. Full steam ahead.

Low Load Repetitive Flexion

I don’t see low load repetitive spinal flexion as a bad thing especially when you consider the number of athletes who go into flexion and extension dynamically in their sport.

There is not an increase in the percentage of back pain or incidence of injury, so I find it hard to believe flexion in this circumstance increases risk. The caveat to this is if an exercise causes pain. In this case, adjust the exercise so it does not cause pain. If this is not possible then avoid it at least for the time being.

High Load Flexion

In this respect, I support the neutral spine position. First and foremost, when it comes to exercises like squats and deadlifts I don’t see an inherent benefit to flexion. So from an efficiency standpoint, neutral spinal position is in most cases better for athletic performance.

Flexion based movements aren’t necessarily dangerous, but that doesn’t mean they’re inherently safe and it certainly doesn’t make them better. All things being equal I would go the safe route and adopt a neutral spinal position when under heavy loads.

I hope the above recommendations are helpful in guiding you through your training. Good luck and lift big!

References:

1. Jones, Christopher M., et al. “Training Load and Fatigue Marker Associations with Injury and Illness: A Systematic Review of Longitudinal Studies.” Sports Medicine, vol. 47, no. 5, 2016, pp. 943–974., doi:10.1007/s40279-016-0619-5.

2. Jordan, Jo, et al. “Herniated Lumbar Disc.” BMJ Clinical Evidence, BMJ Publishing Group, 26 Mar. 2009.

3. Strömbäck, Edit, et al. “Prevalence and Consequences of Injuries in Powerlifting: A Cross-Sectional Study.” Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 6, no. 5, 2018, p. 232596711877101., doi:10.1177/2325967118771016.

4. Dulebohn, Scott C. “Disc Herniation.” StatPearls [Internet]., U.S. National Library of Medicine, 1 Aug. 2019.

5. Callaghan, Jack P, and Stuart M Mcgill. “Intervertebral Disc Herniation: Studies on a Porcine Model Exposed to Highly Repetitive Flexion/Extension Motion with Compressive Force.” Clinical Biomechanics, vol. 16, no. 1, 2001, pp. 28–37., doi:10.1016/s0268-0033(00)00063-2.

6. Hoogendoorn, Wilhelmina E., et al. “Flexion and Rotation of the Trunk and Lifting at Work Are Risk Factors for Low Back Pain.” Spine, vol. 25, no. 23, 2000, pp. 3087–3092., doi:10.1097/00007632-200012010-00018.

7. Revisiting the Spinal Flexion Debate: Prepare for Doubt.

8. Moore, Robert J. “The Vertebral Endplate: Disc Degeneration, Disc Regeneration.” European Spine Journal, vol. 15, no. S3, Jan. 2006, pp. 333–337., doi:10.1007/s00586-006-0170-4.

9. Veres, Samuel P., et al. “ISSLS Prize Winner: How Loading Rate Influences Disc Failure Mechanics.” Spine, vol. 35, no. 21, 2010, pp. 1897–1908., doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3181d9b69e.

10. Adams, M A, and W C Hutton. “The Effect of Posture on the Fluid Content of Lumbar Intervertebral Discs.” Spine, vol. 8, no. 6, 1983, pp. 665–671., doi:10.1097/00007632-198309000-00013.

11. Holm, Sten, and Alf Nachemson. “Variations in the Nutrition of the Canine Intervertebral Disc Induced by Motion.” Spine, vol. 8, no. 8, 1983, pp. 866–874., doi:10.1097/00007632-198311000-00009.

12. Battié, Michele C. “Lumbar Disc Degeneration: Epidemiology and Genetics.” The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American), vol. 88, no. suppl_2, Jan. 2006, p. 3., doi:10.2106/jbjs.e.01313.

13. Varlotta, G P, et al. “Familial Predisposition for Herniation of a Lumbar Disc in Patients Who Are Less than Twenty-One Years Old.” The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, vol. 73, no. 1, 1991, pp. 124–128., doi:10.2106/00004623-199173010-00016.

14. Battié, Michele C., et al. “The Twin Spine Study: Contributions to a Changing View of Disc Degeneration.” The Spine Journal, vol. 9, no. 1, 2009, pp. 47–59., doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2008.11.011.

15. Noguchi, Mamiko, et al. “Is Intervertebral Disc Pressure Linked to Herniation?: An in-Vitro Study Using a Porcine Model.” Journal of Biomechanics, vol. 49, no. 9, 2016, pp. 1824–1830., doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.04.018.

16. Veen, Albert J. Van Der, et al. “Flow-Related Mechanics of the Intervertebral Disc: The Validity of an In Vitro Model.” Spine, vol. 30, no. 18, 2005, doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000179306.40309.3a.

17. Zhong, Ming, et al. “Incidence of Spontaneous Resorption of Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Meta-Analysis.” Pain Physician, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2017.

18. Contreras, Bret, and Brad Schoenfeld. “To Crunch or Not to Crunch: An Evidence-Based Examination of Spinal Flexion Exercises, Their Potential Risks, and Their Applicability to Program Design.” Strength and Conditioning Journal, vol. 33, no. 4, 2011, pp. 8–18., doi:10.1519/ssc.0b013e3182259d05.

19. Brickley-Parsons, D, and M J Glimcher. “Is the Chemistry of Collagen in Intervertebral Discs an Expression of Wolff’s Law? A Study of the Human Lumbar Spine.” Spine, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Mar. 1984.

20. “Physical Activity and the Strength of the Lumbar Spine.” LWW.

21. Potvin, J R, et al. “Trunk Muscle and Lumbar Ligament Contributions to Dynamic Lifts with Varying Degrees of Trunk Flexion.” Spine, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Sept. 1991.

22. Montalvo, Alicia M, et al. “Retrospective Injury Epidemiology and Risk Factors for Injury in CrossFit.” Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, Uludag University, 1 Mar. 2017.

23. Foss, Ida Stange, et al. “The Prevalence of Low Back Pain Among Former Elite Cross-Country Skiers, Rowers, Orienteerers, and Nonathletes.” The American Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 40, no. 11, Dec. 2012, pp. 2610–2616., doi:10.1177/0363546512458413.

24. Mcgill, Stuart M, and Leigh W Marshall. “Kettlebell Swing, Snatch, and Bottoms-Up Carry: Back and Hip Muscle Activation, Motion, and Low Back Loads.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, vol. 26, no. 1, 2012, pp. 16–27., doi:10.1519/jsc.0b013e31823a4063.

25. Ahmetov, Ildus I, and Olga N Fedotovskaya. “Current Progress in Sports Genomics.” Advances in Clinical Chemistry, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2015.

The post The Relationship Between Injury and Back Pain: Neutral Spine Versus Flexion appeared first on Breaking Muscle.

Many who begin a diet do so with the desire to improve their body composition. Unfortunately, the available data on dietary success is rather daunting, and with failure rates estimated from roughly 85-95% it’s apparent that common dietary interventions are incomplete.¹

This article will explore the relevant topics that need to be considered when beginning a dietary intervention and the pros and cons of intuitive eating.

The Goals of Dieting

The primary reason for dieting is to decrease body fat levels. This is highly beneficial since being overweight or obese is strongly associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality.² Weight loss occurs as a direct result of sustaining a hypocaloric diet—consuming fewer calories than your body burns throughout the day.³

This is the first law of thermodynamics which states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another but can be neither created nor destroyed.⁴

By knowing this it’s easier to understand why all diets produce virtually identical results with regard to weight loss regardless of their composition. All diets work because their structure creates a hypocaloric state. So we can remove a level of stress often involved with rigid dieting and select the diet that will be most enjoyable and increase adherence.³

One point that needs to be addressed is that weight loss does not always equate to fat loss. Depending on your diet and the severity of the caloric deficit you may be more at risk of losing lean tissue than fat mass. A simple method to mitigate muscle loss when dieting is to utilize a moderate to high protein intake in conjunction with resistance training.⁵

With regard to body composition improvements, maintaining lean mass should be prioritized and consuming 2.3-3.1 g/kg of lean body mass per day of protein and resistance training at least three times per week should be sufficient.^5,6

Structure Your Approach

We’ve established that when calories and protein are equated virtually all diets produce identical results, so now let’s shift our attention on how to structure our approach.

All diets have some form of measurement tool, ketogenic diets have you consuming less than 20g of carbs daily, paleo restricts several foods groups, low-fat diets restrict your fat intake, etc. But all approaches either directly or indirectly reduce your overall caloric load.

One of my favorite quotes commonly attributed to Peter Drucker is “you can’t manage what you don’t measure.” This is especially relevant within the context of dieting. If we have no effective method to evaluate progress, how will we, in fact, know that we are making any progress at all?

By tracking our journey, we can establish some measurement to chart our progress and provide feedback to course correct. This could be in the form of tracking calories through an app, monitoring your body weight, taking photos, measurements, etc. But along with this comes in a new level of complexity.

There is emerging evidence that associates eating disorders with rigid dietary control.⁷ Anyone who’s dieted for an extended period of time can attest to the affect dietary restriction and constant tracking can have on exacerbating your own neuroticism. In some cases, this can potentiate disordered eating behavior.

In contrast, flexible dietary control is a strong predictor of dietary success.⁸ But even in this more flexible approach, there is difficulty in defining what constitutes flexible control and rigid control on an individual basis. From one individual to the next the perception of difficulty and impact may be markedly different.

The Role of Intuitive Eating

One approach to dieting that has gained a lot of traction has been intuitive eating. The idea is that it promotes a healthy attitude toward eating and body image. The basic premise is that you learn to understand your body and hunger signaling so you can begin to eat when you’re hungry (and not simply craving foods) and stop when you’re full.

This is a great process in theory but in application there are significant limitations. The most obvious of which is that an overweight or obese individual does not have this level of awareness, and since this approach places no restrictions on food intake it leaves the dieter with little or no guidance.

For overweight individuals following their own hunger signaling, weight loss is unpredictable because hunger signaling defaults to well beyond their daily energy requirement. In fact, a 2017 systematic review found that “having a body mass index ?30 is associated with significant under-reporting of food intake”.⁹

This is one aspect of the intuitive eating approach that is unfortunately not discussed enough. In many cases, I am a proponent of intuitive eating, but its efficacy is largely due to the guidance of a qualified professional¹⁰ and/or the experience of the dieter in question.

So, under what circumstances is intuitive eating actually beneficial? Experienced dieters that have demonstrated a successful track record of weight management are good candidates for this approach. An example would be a bodybuilder or physique athlete during the off-season. In fact, this approach may have significant benefits because as one study found “Low levels of dichotomous thinking mediated the relationship between intuitive eating and disordered eating”.⁷

This reduction in monitoring can be a crucial reprieve for athletes looking to distance themselves from the meticulous nature of contest prep diets. Intuitive eating has also been shown to be beneficial for individuals diagnosed with eating disorders and body image distortions.⁷

This is because intuitive eating takes the focus from achieving a specific body image and develops a health-centric focus. This occurs in conjunction with proper education on healthy eating habits and developing an understanding of their own hunger signaling.

This approach has several benefits. However, without proper guidance and education, the effectiveness of intuitive eating as a weight loss protocol for overweight and obese individuals is questionable.

But the reality is that individuals with disordered eating are estimated to be roughly 8.7% of the American population.¹¹ So what should you do if you do not have an eating disorder and aspire to improve your body composition but are relatively new to dieting?

Since rapid initial weight loss in conjunction with lifestyle adjustments is strongly associated with successful long term maintenance, one potential strategy is to take an iterative approach to dieting.¹²

To begin, you can implement a dietary intervention that offers structure with a measure of flexibility. One choice might be the flexible dieting approach where you aim to hit predetermined macronutrient targets by consuming 80% clean food 20% fun food. This or any other intervention that offers a reasonable degree of structure and flexibility can be very effective starting points.

As you begin to lose weight due to the initial structure your intrinsic motivation increases as does your level of adherence. As you gain more experience dieting and honing your ability to accurately estimate your caloric intake, you can gradually shift to a more intuitive approach to eating.

Practical Takeaways For Body Composition Improvement

1. Overweight and obese individuals struggle to accurately estimate their energy intake. This presents a significant obstacle to utilizing intuitive eating as an effective body composition protocol since there are few practical guidelines.
2. Intuitive eating can be more beneficial than conventional diets for individuals diagnosed with eating disorders or body image distortions. A significant aspect of its success can be attributed to acquiring professional guidance during the intervention.
3. Intuitive eating can be very effective for experienced dieters and off-season bodybuilders who have a good intuitive sense of their energy intake but don’t want the additional burden of tracking calories and macros.
4. Intuitive eating can be an effective method for weight and body composition management when transitioning from a hypocaloric diet to a planned maintenance block.
5. Intuitive eating is likely not an effective protocol for beginner dieters looking to lose a substantial amount of body fat due to the lack of guidance and accuracy of estimating their energy intake.

I hope this article sheds some light on the benefits and limitations of intuitive eating. Lift big.

References:

1. Ayyad, C., and T. Andersen. “Long-Term Efficacy of Dietary Treatment of Obesity: a Systematic Review of Studies Published between 1931 and 1999.” Obesity Reviews, vol. 1, no. 2, 2000, pp. 113–119., doi:10.1046/j.1467-789x.2000.00019.x.

2. “Association of All-Cause Mortality with Overweight and Obesity Using Standard Body Mass Index Categories. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” British Dental Journal, vol. 214, no. 3, 2013, pp. 113–113., doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2013.131.

3. Gardner, Christopher D., et al. “Effect of Low-Fat vs Low-Carbohydrate Diet on 12-Month Weight Loss in Overweight Adults and the Association With Genotype Pattern or Insulin Secretion.” Jama, vol. 319, no. 7, 2018, p. 667., doi:10.1001/jama.2018.0245.

4. Laws of Thermodynamics

5. Calbet, Jose A. L., et al. “Exercise Preserves Lean Mass and Performance during Severe Energy Deficit: The Role of Exercise Volume and Dietary Protein Content.” Frontiers in Physiology, vol. 8, 2017, doi:10.3389/fphys.2017.00483.

6. Helms, Eric R, et al. “Evidence-Based Recommendations for Natural Bodybuilding Contest Preparation: Nutrition and Supplementation.” Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, vol. 11, no. 1, Dec. 2014, doi:10.1186/1550-2783-11-20.

7. Linardon, Jake, and Sarah Mitchell. “Rigid Dietary Control, Flexible Dietary Control, and Intuitive Eating: Evidence for Their Differential Relationship to Disordered Eating and Body Image Concerns.” Eating Behaviors, vol. 26, 2017, pp. 16–22., doi:10.1016/j.eatbeh.2017.01.008.

8. Meule, Adrian, et al. “Food Cravings Mediate the Relationship between Rigid, but Not Flexible Control of Eating Behavior and Dieting Success.” Appetite, vol. 57, no. 3, 2011, pp. 582–584., doi:10.1016/j.appet.2011.07.013.

9. Wehling, Helena, and Joanne Lusher. “People with a Body Mass Index ?30 under-Report Their Dietary Intake: A Systematic Review.” Journal of Health Psychology, 2017, p. 135910531771431., doi:10.1177/1359105317714318.

10. Cole, Renee E., and Tanya Horacek. “Effectiveness of the My Body Knows When Intuitive-Eating Pilot Program.” American Journal of Health Behavior, vol. 34, no. 3, Jan. 2010, pp. 286–297., doi:10.5993/ajhb.34.3.4.

11. “Erratum to: The Prevalence and Correlates of Eating Disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication.” Biological Psychiatry, vol. 72, no. 2, 2012, p. 164., doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2012.05.016.

12. Nackers, Lisa M., et al. “The Association Between Rate of Initial Weight Loss and Long-Term Success in Obesity Treatment: Does Slow and Steady Win the Race?” International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, vol. 17, no. 3, May 2010, pp. 161–167., doi:10.1007/s12529-010-9092-y.

The post The Pros and Cons of Intuitive Eating and Body Composition appeared first on Breaking Muscle.

If you’ve been pursuing an aesthetic physique for any measure of time you’ve likely heard how important it is to dial in your training and diet. Although these are critical aspects, one topic that doesn’t receive the attention it deserves is proper recovery—specifically when it comes to sleep.

Most people can appreciate the importance of sleep on a superficial level but often aren’t aware of just how detrimental sleep deprivation (SD) can be on body composition. A 2010 study entitled “Insufficient Sleep Undermines Dietary Efforts to Reduce Adiposity” came to some pretty startling conclusions that may have significant implications on aspiring bodybuilders and physique athletes. The intervention had two groups, both of which maintained equated caloric restrictions. One group had 8.5 hours of bed rest and the other was restricted to 5.5 hours. The length of the intervention spanned fourteen days.

The researchers found that although the total weight loss was virtually identical between both groups the sleep restricted group lost 60% more lean mass than the other control group. Sleep restriction “decreased the fraction of weight lost as fat by 55%”.¹ This is a massive difference in body composition outcomes.

The design of the study was well constructed, however, there was no resistance training protocol which is worth mentioning. It’s likely that if both groups were engaged in a resistance training program during this intervention the total amount of lean mass lost would be reduced. But in my estimation, the results would still favor the longer bed rest group.

So why was there such a dramatic difference in body composition between groups? What are the actual mechanisms involved and were there any indirect factors associated with each outcome? Let’s explore this in more depth to gain a better understanding of the implications of sleep deprivation on body composition and the measures you can take to prevent its occurrence.

1. Neuroendocrine Response and Hunger Signaling

Your neuroendocrine systems play a major role in regulating your physiological and/or behavioral state.²

Sleep deprivation triggers a response from your neuroendocrine system that results in a cascade of biochemical reactions which increase hunger signaling, specifically for high sugar, high-fat foods.³

During sleep deprivation, your subjective feelings of fatigue increase, as a response appetite can increase to provide more energy for your body to function. If you are dieting and trying to maintain a caloric deficit this response presents a significant obstruction to dietary adherence.

2. Muscle Catabolism

Sleep deprivation also has very powerful catabolic effects (tissue breakdown). One of the adaptive responses to sleep deprivation is reduced resting metabolic rate (RMR) along with increased ghrelin concentrations which promote fat retention. In this physiological state muscle catabolism becomes a significant risk if you are in a caloric deficit.¹

In the above intervention, the sleep deprivation group lost substantially more lean tissue. We know that fat mass has a higher energy density than lean mass, so the fact that the total weight loss across both control groups was virtually identical suggests that the longer bed rest group maintained a higher RMR.

3. Increased Ghrelin and Fat Retention

Increased ghrelin concentrations are one of the neuroendocrine responses to sleep deprivation. As mentioned above, ghrelin can increase hunger signaling, but it can also increase fat retention. If in a caloric deficit there is an increased risk of changes in body composition that preference retention of adiposity over lean mass.⁴

4. Decreased Resting Metabolic Rate

RMR is your body’s daily energy requirement at complete rest. Total daily energy expenditure (TDEE) is your RMR plus any additional energy expenditure that occurs throughout the day (ie. walking, sitting, working, exercising, eating, etc).

Sleep deprivation acutely decreases RMR⁵ and often negatively impacts TDEE because of an increase in subjective ratings of fatigue that may result in decreased desire to be physically active.

5. Decreased Performance and Increased Risk of Injury

Although performance isn’t a metric bodybuilders are judged on in competition, certain performance metrics are directly linked to hypertrophy. Sleep deprivation has been shown to impede several performance metrics along with varying timelines.

The first performance outcomes that seem to be impacted are explosive power, speed, response time, and coordination.⁶

This is significant because if response time and motor control are impeded during strenuous physical training it can increase the risk of injury. Strength qualities seem to be retained for longer but eventually the same drop off in performance is observed.

6. Decrease In Mood and Motivation to Train

Interestingly, sleep deprivation states can result in decreased performance especially at submaximal loads due to its negative impact on mood ^{7, 8} which may decrease intrinsic motivation to train.

This is especially applicable to bodybuilders because the majority of hypertrophy training typically occurs between the 60-80% 1RM range.

Preventative Measures to Minimize Sleep Deprivation

Now that we’ve established just how impactful sleep deprivation can be on body composition, it’s time to look at potential preventative measures you can implement to minimize the above risks.

1. Ensure you’re sleeping eight hours every night. More is often better and there doesn’t appear to be any downsides to sleep extension, however significant benefits to performance and cognitive ability have been reported in the literature.⁹
2. If sleeping for eight hours daily is not feasible due to individual circumstances, planning routine naps into your day does a good job of minimizing the risk of SD.¹⁰
3. Maintain a consistent sleep schedule when possible. Some people are early risers and others function better at night. Regardless of where you fall on the spectrum, continuity is a great teaching tool for your body and can help regulate predictable sleep patterns. Research on irregular sleep times also finds a strong correlation to increased SD when compared to a congruent sleep schedule.¹¹
4. If stress is a potential obstruction to sleep length or congruency developing a plan to reduce stress can have a significant impact. If you are prone to anxiety and stress, reducing intake of stimulants (ie. caffeine, pre-workouts, etc.) may reduce sympathetic activity and diminish subjective feelings of stress and anxiety.¹²

By implementing the above strategies you can be fairly certain that you’ll minimize any potential risk for SD and its negative impact on body composition.

Good luck and lift big!

References:

1. Nedeltcheva, Arlet V., et al. “Insufficient Sleep Undermines Dietary Efforts to Reduce Adiposity.” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 153, no. 7, May 2010, p. 435., doi:10.7326/0003-4819-153-7-201010050-00006.

2. Levine, Jon E. “An Introduction to Neuroendocrine Systems.” Handbook of Neuroendocrinology, 2012, pp. 3–19., doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-375097-6.10001-0.

3. Spiegel, Karine, et al. “Brief Communication: Sleep Curtailment in Healthy Young Men Is Associated with Decreased Leptin Levels, Elevated Ghrelin Levels, and Increased Hunger and Appetite.” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 141, no. 11, July 2004, p. 846., doi:10.7326/0003-4819-141-11-200412070-00008.

4. Scrimshaw, N. S., et al. “Effects of Sleep Deprivation and Reversal of Diurnal Activity on Protein Metabolism of Young Men.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 19, no. 5, Jan. 1966, pp. 313–319., doi:10.1093/ajcn/19.5.313.

5. Spaeth, Andrea M., et al. “Resting Metabolic Rate Varies by Race and by Sleep Duration.” Obesity, vol. 23, no. 12, May 2015, pp. 2349–2356., doi:10.1002/oby.21198.

6. Mah, Cheri D., et al. “Sleep Restriction Impairs Maximal Jump Performance and Joint Coordination in Elite Athletes.” Journal of Sports Sciences, vol. 37, no. 17, 2019, pp. 1981–1988., doi:10.1080/02640414.2019.1612504.

7. Reilly, Thomas, and Mark Piercy. “The Effect of Partial Sleep Deprivation on Weight-Lifting Performance.” Ergonomics, vol. 37, no. 1, 1994, pp. 107–115., doi:10.1080/00140139408963628.

8. Pilcher, June J., and Allen I. Huffcutt. “Effects of Sleep Deprivation on Performance: A Meta-Analysis.” Sleep, vol. 19, no. 4, 1996, pp. 318–326., doi:10.1093/sleep/19.4.318.

9. Mah, Cheri D., et al. “The Effects of Sleep Extension on the Athletic Performance of Collegiate Basketball Players.” Sleep, vol. 34, no. 7, 2011, pp. 943–950., doi:10.5665/sleep.1132.

10. Haslam, Diana R. “Sleep Deprivation and Naps.” Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, vol. 17, no. 1, 1985, pp. 46–54., doi:10.3758/bf03200896.

11. Kang, Jiunn-Horng, and Shih-Ching Chen. “Effects of an Irregular Bedtime Schedule on Sleep Quality, Daytime Sleepiness, and Fatigue among University Students in Taiwan.” BMC Public Health, vol. 9, no. 1, 2009, doi:10.1186/1471-2458-9-248.

12. Sawyer, Deborah A., et al. “Caffeine and Human Behavior: Arousal, Anxiety, and Performance Effects.” Journal of Behavioral Medicine, vol. 5, no. 4, 1982, pp. 415–439., doi:10.1007/bf00845371.

The post Lack of Sleep Is Killing Your Body Composition appeared first on Breaking Muscle.

Specificity is a core principle in sport science. It’s the degree of association between training and performance outcomes.¹ If you’re a powerlifter this means that the training you do should be focused at getting you better at squatting, benching, and deadlifting. But this is where the disconnect occurs with coaches; between the principle and its application.

Specificity exists on a spectrum—100% specificity as a powerlifter means your training would consist exclusively of competing in actual meets. However, no one does this and for obvious reasons.

So, a less specific but more appropriate application of the principle is to do the competition lifts or a close variation more frequently at submaximal loads with a progressive structure that guides the program.

This is the distinction between specificity and transference. Specific training generally has the highest transference. Individual circumstances may influence the application of specificity resulting in a less specific approach yielding better performance metrics.

Specificity Doesn’t Exist In a Vacuum

The main point here is that specificity does not exist in a vacuum, and the interaction between specificity and other variables like fatigue management, injury, variation, and overload need to be considered when designing a program. Let’s go one step further and look at scenarios where less specific training protocols would actually yield a higher transference to sports performance.

One such example is injury. I had tendonitis in both knees which caused a lot of pain while squatting. Unsurprisingly, this impeded my performance and my results suffered. The protocol I chose to fix this was high volume eccentric leg extensions to strengthen the tendons.² This worked exceptionally well and removed the pain as well as any apprehension signals so I could squat unimpeded. My performance improved immediately as did my result at the end of my cycle.

Leg extension did not increase my force output, they simply removed an obstruction that allowed me to accumulate more overloading sessions of higher quality which made me stronger. Less specific, but it allowed for a higher transference to sports performance.

Assuming an athlete needs to gain 20lb to fill out his ideal weight class his training would necessarily be less specific.

It may include longer hypertrophy blocks and even reflect a slight preference to hypertrophy during the strength phases. If you took a snapshot of this athlete’s program, it would appear to be less specific. In fact, had he done less hypertrophy it’s possible he may have had a slightly better strength outcome at the end of a single training cycle.

However, when you extend this timeline out several years, the athlete develops much more strength as a direct result of increased muscle cross-sectional area. His new muscle has also extended his strength potential beyond what he could have reached at his previous weight.³

Exercise variation can decrease staleness of a program and boost the athlete’s desire to train. Variation is also a critical aspect of fatigue management and prevention of overuse injuries.⁴ One form of variation is exercise alteration—changing grip width, squat stance, doing floor press instead of competition bench press, etc.

Yield Your Best Long Term Results

Now, I want to be clear, I’m not diminishing the principle of specificity. Nor am I saying that because there are instances where less specific training yields better results then the principle of specificity is wrong.

In the examples above (which are real case studies) higher specificity would have produced a lesser transference to performance outcomes. This is an application issue, not an issue with the principle itself. Your ability as an athlete to move up and down the spectrum of specificity based on what will yield the best long term results is a critical skill that must be developed over time.

Avoid excessive rigidity in your understanding of these fundamental principles. This will help you apply them more effectively in your own training and ultimately produce better results.

Lift big.

References:

1. William B. McCafferty & Steven M. Horvath (1977) “Specificity of Exercise and Specificity of Training: A Subcellular Review.” Research Quarterly. American Alliance for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 48:2, 358-371, DOI: 10.1080/10671315.1977.10615433.

2. Öhberg L, Lorentzon R, Alfredson H, “Eccentric training in patients with chronic Achilles tendinosis: normalised tendon structure and decreased thickness at follow up.” British Journal of Sports Medicine 2004;38:8-11.

3. Higbie, Elizabeth J., Kirk J. Cureton, Gordon L. Warren, and Barry M. Prior. “Effects of Concentric and Eccentric Training on Muscle Strength, Cross-sectional Area, and Neural Activation.” Journal of Applied Physiology 81, no. 5 (1996): 2173-181. doi:10.1152/jappl.1996.81.5.2173.

4. Renström, Per, and Robert J. Johnson. “Overuse Injuries in Sports A Review.” Sports Medicine 2, no. 5 (1985): 316-33. doi:10.2165/00007256-198502050-00002.?

The post Specificity Versus Transference In Powerlifting appeared first on Breaking Muscle.