"Just One More Set" (2/2): Three Sets of Three Exercises Three Times Per Week - High Volume Can Work. With Appropriate Rest Also to Build Strength & Power

High , not insane (!) volume training can be productive.

I hope that you have already being waiting for this post, so I'll try to cut myself short and get right to the facts. In yesterday's first part of "Just One More Rep" it turned out that a higher training volume sucks, when it comes to what is often thought would be its prerogative, i.e. using strength training to induce excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC) and lean out.

In view of these results you could argue that it would be totally logical that a higher training volume cannot be ideal for muscle gains either. After all those require energy and if the RMR does not go up, this would suggest that there was little to repair and supercompensate. A recent study (Naclerio. 2013) does yet refute this already intrinsically non-stringent considerations.

High volume can work! As long as it's high, and not simply insane.

The study was conducted by researchers from the University of Greenwich, the College of New Jersey, the European University of Madrid and the Appalachian State University and it has one caveat I don't want to hold back to the discussion of the results at the end of this post (although it will reappear and be addressed there): Though we are dealing with college athletes (20 male soccer and 12 female volleyball college players)  none of them had previous strength training experience. This may not be exactly representative of a dumb- & barbell god like you are *rofl*, but is at least better than taking totally untrained participants, where you never know if the the higher volume was too demanding for their musculature or their overall conditioning.

Moreover, the separate analysis of upper and lower body strength gains could shed some more light on whether or not legs do in fact need some more hammering to adapt than the smaller musculature of the upper body (cf. "Three is more than one").

Who and at which intensity for how many sets and reps?

The 32 athletes (age = 23.1± 1.57 yrs, injury free) with at least 3 years of experience as regular team sports practitioner were randomly assigned to one of four groups (all performed 8 reps at 75% of their 1-RM max per set!):

• low volume(LV), 1 set per exercise and 3 sets per muscle group per session;
• moderate volume (MV), 2 sets per exercise and 6 sets per muscle group per session;   
• high volume (HV), 3 sets per exercise and 9 sets per muscle group; 

and of course, the obligatory non-exercise control group (this leaves us with only 8 subjects per group, so don't expect all too meaningful p-values). Before and after the 6 week each subject underwent a progressive resistance test aimed to determine the 1RM and the maximal average power produced from light to heavy weights on two upper body exercises (bench press (BP) and upright row (UR)) and one lower body exercise (parallel squat (SQ)). The individual tests, were structured as follows:

"After a standardized warm up, each subject started the PRT  which consisted of 8 sets of 2 repetitions performed with maximal acceleration, alternating with rest periods between 2 min for the light load, 3 to 4 min for the moderate load and 5 minutes for the higher load. The 1st and 2nd sets were performed with a light weight (~25 to 45% of estimated 1RM), the 3rd and 4th sets with a medium weight (~50% to 65% of estimated 1RM), the 5th and 6th sets with a medium to heavy weight (~ 70% to 80% of estimated 1RM), and the 7th and 8th sets with a maximum or near maximum weight (~85% to 100% of estimated 1RM)." (Naclerio. 2013)

For the subsequent analysis the scientists picked those sets and reps, on which the subjects had lifted with the greatest average power (no sure whether this was the best idea, but alas).

The workouts - chest, shoulders, biceps + legs, back, triceps

It stands to reason that the exercises that were part of the testing procedure, i.e. bench presses (BP) and upright rows (UR), which were performed using Olympic bars and plates, as well as the classic back squat (till thighs were parallel to the floor, SQ), which was performed on a Smith machine, "in order to standardize exercise", were also the core exercises of the  actual workouts, the participants performed during the 6-week training phase.

Day 1 (chest, shoulders, biceps)	Day 2 (legs, back, triceps)
Bench press Incline Bench press Dumbbell Fly Upright Row Lateral Raise Posterior Lateral Raise Barbell Biceps Curl Dumbbell Biceps Curl Machine Biceps Curl	Smith Machine Parallel Squat Leg Press Knee Extension Lat Pull down Seated Row 1 Arm Dumbbell Row Machine Triceps Extension Standing Triceps Pushdown 1 Arm Triceps Extension
Table 1: Workout schedule, for set and rep scheme see text above .

Overall each subject took part in 18 training session, i.e. 3 per week. The training sessions were scheduled on non-consecutive days in a day 1 v.s day 2 fashion, with day 1 being 'chest + shoulder + biceps day ' and day 2 being 'legs + back  + triceps day'. Given the aforementioned volume prescriptions you see that the actual routines were actually more or less representative of what you will see the relatively sane part of the trainees actually do at the gym.

Figure 1: Relative change (in % of baseline) in 1RM and maximal average power during the 6-week intervention period (Naclerio. 2013)

If you take into account that these were the first real lifting sessions for most of the study participants, the same can be said of the strength gains I plotted relative to the respective baseline levels in figure 1. In fact, the multivariate analysis the scientists conducted showed that all training protocols yielded statistically significant increases in strength.

When gains are the goal: Volume (or stimulus?) does count!

In contrast to the EPOC values, of which we have learned yesterday that they do by no means benefit from increases in total workout volume, Naclerio et al. did actually observe a clear trend toward greater improvement in strength and power with the high vs. the low and even the medium volume protocol (at a similar overall volume, though with different exercises in a classic split routine). Thte most evident downsides to the lower volume programs, were

• no significant increases in the 1-RM squat in both the low and medium volume group, and
• no significant increases in the average power during the bench press,

where both, the medium (MV) and high volume (HV) protocols achieved significant before vs. after differences of 10% and 16%, respectively.

If you look at the overall pattern in figure 1 once more, there is still no clearcut picture emerging. While it does in fact appear as if the high volume routine appears to be in front in the majority of 1-to-1 comparisons, this is mainly based on an analysis of the improvements in maximum strength. With respect to the average power measurements, on the other hand, the authors are (partly) right to point out that you could argue in favor of both the low and medium volume protocols as being "better strategies for enhancing lower body or upper body average power performance." (Naclerio. 2013)

So is high volume the way to go - or no?

For the subjects who participated in this study (and maybe some of you), the last mentioned equivalence, if not superiority of the low(er) volume routines (1-2 sets per exercise) the low and medium volume training do in fact appear to be superior to support their regular sports specific training program. After all, mere strength is not so much of an issue in either soccer or volleyball; and given the fact that at least for soccer the lower limb power is what really counts, a low volume strength training approach would, aside from obviously being highly economic, also yield the most pronounced sport specific performance increases.

It stands to reason: If neither brute strength nor tons of muscle are your goal and strength training is just an adjunct to your sports-specific training, high volume sucks!

Whether the surprising superiority of the low volume routine as a 'average strength builder'  for soccer and volleyball players does mean that legs need less, rather than more work than the chest, which appears to like the constant hammering, is however highly questionable. In fact, this is where the bias of previous training comes into play. For both volleyball and soccer players, the latter does obviously include a hell lot of 'leg work' and while you do push-ups in soccer (and I guess volleyball as well), there is no training component that would correspond to the sprinting and HIIT exercises that involve the legs only. Now, of the latter you know that they can in fact have 'anabolic' effects on skeletal muscle. These may not be so immediate as they would be for someone doing a BB-like hypertrophy training, but they accumulate over time; and with three years of more or less 'professional' training in their respective sports, we may savely assume that all participants had their share of muscular hypertrophy in the quads, glutes and hams.

Moroever, skeletal muscle hypertrophy and strength gains require a certain degree of overload. Allegedly, when the training induced or the overall stress becomes too much, your training won't yield the desired results either. For someone whose main goals are skeletal muscle hypertrophy and strength gains, and who does not compete in any other sports that requires separate training,  the data from the study at hand would yet still support Arnold's way of doing "just one more set " - as long, as this is done in conjunction with adequate rest not just in-between sets, but in-between workouts, as well!

I can however guarantee you that doing 27 sets today and another 27 tomorrow, just to follow that up by some HIIT on day 3, in order to have a "day off" without a guilty conscience and to be "recovered" to do chest shoulders and biceps, your day 1 on day 4 again (thus starting another "cycle"), will yield neither muscle, nor strength gains. It will simply burn you out and pave your way right into the Athletes' Triad.

References:

• Naclerio F, Faigenbaum AD, Larumbe-Zabala E, Perez-Bibao T, Kang J, Ratamess NA, Triplett NT. Effects of different resistance training volumes on strength and power in team sport athletes: a pilot study. J Strength Cond Res. 2013 Oct 5.

"Just One More Set" (1/2): Metabolic Response to 10,000kg vs. 20,000kg Regimen. EPOC: Do Reps and Loads Both Figure? And What About Elite Athletes Do They Need More?

"Ah come on, just another set!" ... "I don't know man, we've already pumped away 100,000kg today... do you really believe that's going to be productive, I mean, yeah, we are cuttin', but still... I mean I don't dig this epic!", "EPOC man, it's called EPOC!" *shakes his head* "Call it whatever you want, bro, I am out!"

If you want, you can think of today's SuppVersity post as an extension to yesterday's "Bigger, Stronger, Faster" special of the On Short Notice series; to be more precise: As a practically more relevant version of the rodent study on hypertrophy vs. strength training that was part of the aforementioned post. Yep, we are "talking volume" today. How much is too much?  And though this is never-ending debate, it appears that at least as far as research goes, a little more debating certainly would not hurt. Therefore I am happy to have not one, but two studies for you which don't just address this issue, but have also been conducted with human subjects!

In view of the fact that these are no "short notices", I will discuss one today and the other tomorrow - yep, that means that you can already make a mental note to come back tomorrow ;-)

"Just one more set, ..." - how productive can that be?

Today's study comes from the Human Performance Laboratory at the Florida State University and deals with the energetic side of things - specifically the often-cited EPOC (excess post-exercise oxygen consumption), which is often touted as one of the most important aspects why strength training in general and higher volume / intensity strength training, in particularly, would have the edge over cardio training. The reasoning is easy: You don't burn so much energy while you work out, but in the time after, your body will (a) still expend more energy per minute / hour and (b) has the advantage of emptied glycogen stores, which will force it to tap into its body fat stores the source for the required energy.

All of you who have read the complete Athletes' Triad series, will by now already know that at least argument (b) is pretty idiotic, because it wouldn't allow you to replenish your muscle and liver glycogen after workouts and thus pave the way into the dreaded vicious circle of the athlete's triad. The former argument, on the other hand has - on a way more general level - only been confirmed a couple of days ago (see "Scientists resolve the paradox of stable muscle metabolism but greater mitochondrial respiration in muscle of inactive vs. active subjects", read more), the question still remains: How much weight do you have to lift to set the 'afterburner' into full gear? 

10 metric tonne or 20 metric tonnes? What do you say?

I see, you are laughing, but basically the above question is what the George J. Abboud and his colleagues tried to find out, when they recruited 8 healthy men aged19-29 yrs who had 

"at least 12 months of RT experience with no more than 2 wks rest at a time, less than a total of 4 wks off within the last 6 months, or 9 wks off within the last 12 months [and] reported no prior or current use of illegal performance enhancing substances." (Abboud. 2013)

Suggested read "Three is More Than One: Higher Volume Increases Strength Gains in Legs, and Satellite Cell Recruitment and Fiber Size in Legs & Traps."

As usual the subjects had to fill food logs for the three days before the testing and were instructed to replicate the same eating pattern on the second occasion in which they were randomly assigned to perform a standardized resistance training (RT) regimen consisting of 4 exercises performed on a non-counterbalanced smith machine so that the range of motion during

• bench press, 
• squat, 
• bent-over row and 
• Romanian deadlift 

could be controlled for easily. Other than the equipment and the exercises, which were identical on both occasions, the volume of the training sessions varied and if you express this volme in kg or metric tons, it was a competition of 10,000 kg (10 metric tonnes) vs. 20,000 kg (20 metric tonnes) of weight. 

"The loads were divided between the 4 exercises as follows: 35% to squats, 30% to bench press, 20% to bent-over rows and 15% to Romanian deadlift. For each set, subjects lifted approximately 85% of their 1RM for 6-8 repetitions. If 6 repetitions could not be completed at any point, the load was reduced by 10% for the subsequent set." (Abboud. 2013)

Both sessions were supervised by three testers : One monitored the metabolic cart, one made sure the proper range of motion was used and one monitored the proper lifting form. The subjects had to perform the concentric portion of each lift with maximal speed and ensure a controlled eccentric descent. A specific time interval was not dictated. Sets were stopped if "subjects broke form" (Abboud. 2013) and 2 minutes of rest were given between sets. In this fashion the subjects simply kept lifting set after set until the volume prescription for the respective trial was reached.

Figure 1: Resting metabolic rate (RMR) per kg body weight, 30min energy expenditure and respiratory exchange ratio (RER; lower values = higher fat, lower glucose  oxidation)  after low and high volume trial (based on Abboud. 2013)

As you can see in figure 1 there were differences as far as the effects of the high (20,000) vs. low (10,000kg) regimen on the resting metabolic rate, 30 min energy expenditure, and the respiratory quotient (lower values = higher fat, lower glucose oxidation), but in view of the fact that the high volume group moved 2x more weight and should thus (at least theoretically) have expended twice the energy (assuming they performed all reps with perfect form and identical speed), those differences are more than disappointing. 

The minuscle effect size is yet not the most "disappointing" (or "surprising" ?) result

In fact, contrary to the low volume workout the 20,000kg workout did not produce any increases in resting metabolic rate and 30min energy expenditure, at all - put simply: There was no EPOC after the high volume training. And this did not change over the whole 48h period (and I know you guys, you won't rest longer anyway ;-).

Now you may say that this was a crazy protocol, but let's do the math, let's assume the guys did squat 100kg, benched and rowed their own body weight of ~80kg and deadlifted 125kg. With 10 reps per set thats 1,000kg + 2x800kg + 1,250kg per set respectively. If they did three sets per exercise they would thus already be up to 9,950kg! If you still think that's crazy, let's hear what the scientists have to say:

"As subjects in the present study were well adapted to RT, the training stimulus needed to elicit increases in EPOC arguably needed to be much higher compared to that used in previous research  Two studies using intensities of 70% 1RM report significant increases in RMR. Melby et al. had subjects perform 6 setsof 10 different exercises for a total of 60 sets. The repetition range for this protocol was 8-12 repetitions per set. This amounts to approximately 600 repetitions performed during the course of the exercise bout. The range of load-volume lifted by these subjects was 15,000-38,000 kg. [...]" (Abboud. 2013)

The list goes on and you just have to go to your gym and I guarantee you, no matter how few people are on the floor you will see a guy who (often without noticing is) will be pounding away much more word within a single workout. Moreover, the the subjects in the present study completed their trials
with a drastically lower number of repetitions -  a mean of 199. Had they performed the crazy rep-volume of the Melby study, they would probably have come close to 50,000 kg. This raises an interesting question is "volume" correctly defined by giving the total amount of weight you lift? Or is the number of reps maybe more important as far as the after-burner EPOC is concerned?

Too much of a good thing? But what if you are a highly trained athlete?

A previous study, by Hackney et al. would support the notion that heavy lifting is an obligatory part of the EPOC equation. In the latter study, EPOC trained individuals who used a lower load-volume than the trainees in the study at hand  had increased resting metabolic rates for up to 72h (Hackney. 2008). Since the Hackney study also put an emphasis on eccentric contractions and will thus probably have lead to even greater muscle damage than the protocol of the study at hand (CK(10,000kg) = 729U/L vs.CK(20,000kg)  = 1,159IU/L), Abboud et al. speculate that ...

"[a]s protein synthesis required for repair is energetically expensive, it is logical that untrained subjects will show greater and longer alterations in EPOC post-RT. Judging by training history, strength levels and CK responses, subjects in the present study had most likely reached a higher level of adaptation than ones in previous studies, and therefore were less sensitive to the metabolic effects of recovery from RT." (Abboud. 2013)

In other words, for you, probably a seasoned strength trainee, the 'more is more' principle is not going to yield better results - even if your goal is to shed body fat. And ...

"Although RT is an important component in any weight loss program to attenuate the loss of fat free mass and therefore better preserve RMR, it is unlikely that the total energetic cost (during and post-exercise) of a typical duration workout will be adequate for significant weight reduction in highly trained recreational lifters without caloric restriction and/or additional aerobic or high intensity interval training." (Abboud. 2013)

And since I rarely encounter a conclusion that's so to the point, I'll leave you with that for today and remind you to come back tomorrow to learn, when and for which body parts doing somewhat more may still be beneficial - read me tomorrow ;-)

References:

• Abboud GJ, Greer BK, Campbell SC, Panton LB. Effects of Load-Volume on EPOC after Acute Bouts of Resistance Training in Resistance Trained Males. J Strength Cond Res. 2013 Oct 18.
• Hackney KJ, Engels HJ, and Gretebeck RJ. Resting energy expenditure and delayed-onset muscle soreness after full-body resistance trainingwith an eccentric concentration. J Strength Cond Res. 2008; 22: 1602-1609.
• Melby C, Scholl C, Edwards G, and Bullough R. Effect of acute resistance exercise on postexercise energy expenditure and resting metabolic rate. J Appl Physiol. 1993; 75: 1847-1853.

Adelfo Cerame: My Fave 5 Intensity Techniques - Explode, Control the Negatives, Unleash the Neanderthal and Grow!

Most of you will be familiar with the structure of these posts, but for the newbies: While I (=Adel aka Dr. Andro) write the introductory paragraph, the actual post is nothing, but a "copy, paste and edit" job I do on the textfiles my friend Adelfo Cerame sends me each week.

Just a brief reminder to all of you, that ever since last week I am using Thursday, my free day, here at the Suppersity, or as Adelfo would say: The day "yours truly" is in command, here for a casual science chat with my friend Carl Lanore over at Super Human Radio. Now, that would probably not be worth mentioning, if it would be airing live on the Super Human Radio Network at 1PM EST ;-) So, in case you are interested in some details about the latest upheaval about organic vs. conventional foods. Want to learn why creatine is one of the supplements where performance enhancement is could as well be considered "yet another nice side effect", why you'd better tell your kids to lift some weight instead of ordering them to "clean their plate" and how what is and isn't on that plate may determine whether or not you and your kids develop cancer, I suggest you click here and listen live (link to the podcast will follow)... only after you have digested Adelfo Cerame's take on "intensity techniques", of course!

My Fave 5 Intensity Techniques

Intensity techniques are sort of a double-edged sword. Too often people get caught all up in the idea of "go heavy and go home" or "train until you drop" and lose sight of the what Adel, aka Dr. Andro, has once aptly called "out-training your regenerative capacities" (read more about overtraining and regeneration). More often than not trainees forget that the strength and size gains in short episodes of overreaching are bought on tick and the "interests" are high - so high, in fact that they often end up losing more than they have gained in the first place. Keep that in mind when you're incorporating one or another of the following "intensity techniques" (in the broader sense) in your workouts.

1. 

   I have been incorporating this technique within the past 3 weeks of 5/3/1 - see "5, 3, 1 for Wheelchair Bodybuilders"

   Explosive movements: I know what you think now - "I know those!" I must warn you though, what I call explosive movements might well be a bit different from what you are just contemplating. The average trainee associates "explosive" movement with exercises such as sprints, box jumps, clean & jerks, and squats ... I guess, I don't have to tell you that I can't to any of those. For me this meant that I had to find alternative exercises and the once I piced are
   
   • bench presses or heavy rows and
   • weighted dips or weighted chins
   I incorporate those move in my low volume phase (remember what I wrote before about "out-training your regenerative capacities!) - low volume, heavy load (3-5 rep range) + explosive lifts, that's  my success formula.
   With the heavy loads and the low(ish) volume, I can still focus on appropriate form on every set and every (!) rep. Even if you were similar Unbreakable as Bruce Willis in the same-titled movie, it would be nonsensical to sacrifice form and muscle tension for "speed" and turn a weight lifting workout into a weight throwing workout in no time. Try that, i.e. heavy weight +  fast contractions (not just weights flying from A to B) in the 10-12 rep range and you will realize that by the 6th rep or so, your form will go out the window.

2. 

   Negatives work best, when you lift heavy.

   Focusing on negative movements: In my opinion negative movements is where most of the magic happens, when it comes to putting your muscle under that productive strain that's necessary to signal your body that there is need for more: More muscle mass and more structural elements and subsequent resistance against strain.
   Remember: A rep has just begun, when you've managed to pull or push the weight up, down or in whichever direction you have been moving the weight against gravity - at this point, the most important part, the negative is just about to come!
   And this is even more true, when you apply intensity technique (1), i.e. you explode on the concentric part of the exercise and then g-o .... s-l-o-w ... on the negative ;-) 
3. Increase the pace of your workouts: Less rest and more action - that's the simple formula, here. It is however not always easy to increase the pace of your workout, but one way that I've found works for me is to copy some of the Dog Crap principles, i.e. taking twelve deep breaths as a "timer" for your rest times and then get on with your workouts.
   Increasing the pace is yet not only a physiological thing - it is in as much taxing, but also enormously stimulating to your psyche. It gives you that sense of urgency that will not just allow you to go faster, but also to push forward more vigorously. It keeps the heart pumping, the blood flowing, and the mind racing and that's exactly why you better not do it workout after workout, week after week if you don't want to end up overtaxing your sympathetic nervous system. 
   This technique works best during hypertrophy / high volume phases (or days if you are training on a hybrid training system, like my shoulder routine during the RTWC, for example)

4. 

   Supersets are best done on high volume/ hypertrophy- training days or if you’re cut short for time and want to decrease the time you spend in the gym without having to sacrifice the volume.

   Supersets: Doing exercises back to back, aka supersets, is one of the classic intensity techniques that has come to be one of my favorites, as of late. In my opinion supersets help stimulate those hard to target muscles. In my case it would be my chest area. As I mentioned in previous installments of this series, it’s hard for me to stimulate or feel a pump in my chest area - that's specifically ture, whe I am doing compound movements like a flat bench press, but if I do a set of ...
   
   • close (neutral) grip DB presses
   • before a set of BB presses
   I can really feel my chest being stimulated. In conjunction with the boost in workout density (i.e. the number of sets you perform within a given timeframe) you're actually killing two birds with one stone (or 2 workouts in 1 exercise ;-). 
5. Just move weight! This is what you do on those days, when you feel like a Neanderthal. Those days, when you just want to push, grunt and bang weight; ignoring the world around you and do nothing but lift! Usually, I stick to my plan, even on those days, but there are those rare occasions, when I just say:

   

   There are those days where you just have to follow your instinct and tear down the gym like in the good old days ;-)

   F#ck it! And to hell with the mind and muscle connection, negatives, focused reps or any other of your other techniques to how weights should be lifted. I just want to move weight!  – Fast, hard, heavy (a weight that you can bang all through your workout), but controlled.
   On those occasions I don't even count my reps; I just keep pushing and pulling, rest for a couple of seconds and head on to the next set. Same for the sets… sometimes I’ll do 3 to 4 but whenever, if I feel that the Neanderthal in me likes do to a few extra sets, I’ll do it… and then? On to the next exercise!
   This is a fun way for me to not think so much and just go with the flow as I go through my workout routine – and yes I still have an agenda of what body part I’m training and what exercises I will be doing but other than that, the only thing on my mind is moving weight! Simple as that!

Hey, where you heading? Oh, I see you are in Neanderthal mode right now? Ok, no problem. See you next Thursday, then ;-)