New Study from Luebecke in journal of strength and conditioning
Posted: 22 February 2014 04:09 PM   [ Ignore ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  25
Joined  2010-11-04

I was hoping Anoop might have some input to contextualize Luebecke’s new study below (this is actually a commentary/write-up)...

http://suppversity.blogspot.com/2014/02/strength-size-thats-result-of-7-weeks.html

The study is very recent and may not be officially published yet.

I had been incorporating an idea that Anoop suggested years ago and Mind and Muscle where he recommended using 5x5 with a high rep finisher of about 20 reps.  This exact protocol was used in a study by Goto yielding a 58% increase in strength…

Goto K, Nagasawa M, Yanagisawa O, Kizuka T, Ishii N, Takamatsu K., Muscular Adaptations to Combinations of High- and Low-Intensity Resistance Exercises, J Strength Cond Res, 2004, 18(4), 730-737.

My rationale was to get the best hypertrophy effect by “piggy-backing” off of the heavy sets of 5-8 reps with 1-2 high rep sets of 15-20 to fatigue and therefore induce a training effect in the fibers that may have only been activated but not “trained”. 

It appears that maybe the combo of heavy and light load may be counterproductive for size.  But the one issue I had with Luebeckes approach was that he chose 20% 1RM (for 1x30, 2x20) in the “H/S” group as a control against blood flow restriction.  This showed an actual reduction in efficacy versus the “H” group. 

So, I’m wondering if the problem was just that the high rep load was just too light to be of benefit versus my use of 50% 1RM for sets of 15-20? 

Also, would using rest pause (like Borge’s Myo Reps) alleviate this apparent problem?

Thanks, Anoop.  I knew you would be the guy to come to for a complete answer.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 February 2014 04:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1105
Joined  2009-03-25

It might be too much volume, too much metabolic sets after heavy sets
In study you site earlier they use only one high reps set
That’s only difference that I can think of that made a difference in results

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 February 2014 03:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1362
Joined  2008-07-28

I just looked at the study. I wouldn’t bother looking at the hypertrophy data. They used a tape measure. Didn’t even bother explaining how they did it & did not used calipers to subtract the fat. And you are talking about mean difference of .5 to 1 cm.

I don’t understand why he puts it on a graph in his blog. None of the girth measurements showed any statistical significant difference between the groups. But when you look at the graphs people naturally think there were some differences. Nothing can be said about the differences.

Strength measurements for squat was really weird. The mean increase in the HSR was 24 kg! That’s like 57 lbs in 7 weeks for trained athletes! See what you miss when show things in percentages.Only squat strength showed a difference between groups.

And I don’t think this was true randomization: “The football coaching staff was
aware that the experimental design called for one of the group’s training program to be modified in such a way that its members would not complete any high-intensity lifting. They expressed concern about restricting players who held the traditional strength and power positions (linemen and linebackers) from high-intensity work. Their concern was addressed by removing those positions from the initial selection pool, and forming the modified group (M/S/R) from the remaining subset of players.”

 Signature 

Exercise Biology - The Science of Exercise & Nutrition

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 February 2014 07:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  25
Joined  2010-11-04

Thanks, Anoop.  I knew I came to the right place!  Those graphs do give the impression of something significant happening. 

Recently at elitefts, Borge had mentioned conversations with the researcher Mathias Wernbom being quite positive about occlusion and high rep work for stimulating satellite cells even in advanced lifters etc.  These two sources seemed to conflict with two different opinions about the efficacy of high rep work (both occluded and not) for advanced lifters.

Here is Borge’s recent thoughts from personal conversations with Wernbom and access to unpublished research data…

http://articles.elitefts.com/training-articles/reignite-progress-with-new-science/

Thanks as always, Anoop.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 February 2014 04:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1362
Joined  2008-07-28

I read Borge’s article. I just feel like it is a bit exaggerated. I do think there is an advantage of high frequency.I have talked about this here long back. Bryan’s HST program is high frequency.

About the whole satellite cells: Satellite cells going up means nothing. Satellite cell numbers goes up with just regular endurance training too! Satellite cell going up doesn’t mean that it gets activated and get differentiated to actual myonuclei and contribute to increased protein synthesis and muscle mass. Writing all that stuff is great because most people have no clue and hence just blindly believe all of it. I would put more emphasis to the study figure when it gets published.

Now for strength gains. Peaking programs like these such as Smolov (3-4 times a week) are pretty well-known to give pretty impressive quick gains. But most of the gains goes back when you get to a regular routine. So it doesn’t mean it you gain 50 lbs, the 50lbs will stay. It usually goes down to half and maybe less. And these type of programs beat you down pretty quick unless you have some very well cycled routines. Hence there are many powerlifting programs which are low frequency and pretty well cycled and rely on slow gains that are more permanent.

 Signature 

Exercise Biology - The Science of Exercise & Nutrition

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 February 2014 04:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  25
Joined  2010-11-04

I appreciate the input, Anoop.

I read years ago from Fred Hatfield that he used a technique of using about 6 sets per muscle group with 2-3 sets of heavier load (5-8rm) and then a few sets of 10-20 thereafter. 

Do you still see value in using this type of combination program as in the Goto study? 

As an aside, Phil Hernon uses a higher frequency program with what amounts to a 5-10-15 rep scheme.  It may not work out so cleanly, but it is usually working up to a heavy 5, then -10% and get what you can (about 8-12 usually) and then subtracting a final 10% and going until technical failure (usually about 12-15).  The frequency is once every 2-3 days.  You get about 25-30 reps this way.  Its not quite rest pause like myoreps, but it is usually a 30-60s rest between each phase. 

I’m trying to capitalize on the idea that unless a range of reps are used then many moderate fatigue fibers may only be recruited but never reach a true training stimulus due to insufficient time under load and/or fatigue. 

I had also read that Bill Pearl and Reg Park would go with 2-3 heavy sets and then 2-3 lighter sets thereafter to get the best of both worlds. 

Anyway, I apologize for getting to lengthy. My question is this…

Would you see better value in using high rep myo rep (just rest pause without seeking failure) as an adjunct after a few heavy sets as well as using it as a high frequency “filler” such as the following:

2x per week
Heavy Rows 3x5-8
Pulldowns 1x9-12 + 3x (myo rep set)
Pullovers 1x12-15 + 5x (myo rep set)

Or

3x per week
A-B-A
Day 1 Monday: 3x5-8 Row & 2x10 Vertical pulls

Day 3 Wednesday: 2x20 + 5 (myo reps)

Day 5 Friday: 3x5-8 vert pull & 2x10 db rows

The 3x frequency is basically using a few high reps myo sets to “bump” protein synthesis and some satellite cell utilization while “waiting” for the next heavy workout.  Hopefully without causing any drain on the recovery process between heavy bouts but still gaining some anabolic value. 

I’m a very experienced lifter (15yrs) so I know that the MPS response is blunted for me and I’m trying to find that clever way to work around it to my advantage so to speak.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 February 2014 05:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1362
Joined  2008-07-28

It has changed a bit considering how studies show no increase in protein synthesis with lower reps compared to higher reps ( not shown in trained still). I have an article on this. So higher reps to begin the cycle and lower reps as you come close to the cycle (with almost the same volume).That is if there is any benefit to lower reps that we haven’t figured out/like some strength increase/greater damage. And you can stick with low reps and do higher for assistance exercises. It doesn’t have to be either or.

His whole satellite theory is very tenuous. As I said even endurance training increase satellite cells. We have no clue if these satellite cells are actually differentiated into myonuclei which is what we want.As far as I know, it is eccentric damage that activates these cells to diffentiate to myonuclei. Satellite cells increase doesn’t mean much. And the low load increase in satellite cells were found in beginners not trained athletes. And I am curious how steroids use plays into all this. We know know that combining steroids and training can increase myonuclei a lot more than training & steroids by itself. Considering this was a powerlifting group, I would suspect some steroid use.

And try it out. Test it out on one or two body parts. There is nothing to lose you know.

 Signature 

Exercise Biology - The Science of Exercise & Nutrition

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 February 2014 07:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1105
Joined  2009-03-25
alphaomega - 24 February 2014 04:38 PM

2x per week
Heavy Rows 3x5-8
Pulldowns 1x9-12 + 3x (myo rep set)
Pullovers 1x12-15 + 5x (myo rep set)

Or

3x per week
A-B-A
Day 1 Monday: 3x5-8 Row & 2x10 Vertical pulls

Day 3 Wednesday: 2x20 + 5 (myo reps)

Day 5 Friday: 3x5-8 vert pull & 2x10 db rows

I would suggest training more frequently(3x) in the beginning of cycle when the weights still sub maximal, and move to 2x or once in 5 days at the end of cycle, kind of accumulation/intencification

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 February 2014 03:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  25
Joined  2010-11-04
Anatoly - 26 February 2014 07:25 AM
alphaomega - 24 February 2014 04:38 PM

2x per week
Heavy Rows 3x5-8
Pulldowns 1x9-12 + 3x (myo rep set)
Pullovers 1x12-15 + 5x (myo rep set)

Or

3x per week
A-B-A
Day 1 Monday: 3x5-8 Row & 2x10 Vertical pulls

Day 3 Wednesday: 2x20 + 5 (myo reps)

Day 5 Friday: 3x5-8 vert pull & 2x10 db rows

I would suggest training more frequently(3x) in the beginning of cycle when the weights still sub maximal, and move to 2x or once in 5 days at the end of cycle, kind of accumulation/intencification

Thanks,Anatoly.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 February 2014 03:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  25
Joined  2010-11-04

Very informative, Anoop.

So for an advanced lifter,do you see utility in doing the ABA BAB split with “A” being the core lifts for low/moderate reps like 6-9 and the “B” rotations being 2-3 sets of 20-25rm to boost MPS while still allowing for recovery between heavy session?

My premise is that most advanced lifters have to load comparatively heavier (Rhea meta analysis)and the consequence of this is a longer recovery period.  At the same time, advanced persons also have a blunted MPS response.  So we have to wait longer and yet get a reduced response.

In effect it seems the “curse” of being advanced is two-fold.  Needing to induce greater damage to elicit a response to begin with and then having to wait well past the MPS peak before being able to train heavier again. Seems like a lot of wasted opportunity.

I’m wondering if you like the idea of amplifying the MPS response with low set/high reps sets in between heavy bouts.  Like a jab before the next knockout punch with loads in the 75-85% range.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 March 2014 04:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1362
Joined  2008-07-28

I think the 2 times a week with one heavy and one light is good. I am not sure if the 20-25 reps does much for protein synthesis or satellite cells in trained. Even the study cited by Borge is on just moderately trained. Twice a week is good for strength and it might be making all the hypertrophic changes than the other way you know.

I still think that when you are advanced , there is mot much room for change. I think the majority of people will make a lot of gains if they can get their diet and sleep perfect like a bodybuilder. But for some weird biases we only focus on the training part.

 Signature 

Exercise Biology - The Science of Exercise & Nutrition

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 March 2014 01:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  25
Joined  2010-11-04

Sounds good, Anoop.  Would you consider writing an updated version of what would be your “best” system for pure hypertrophic purposes?  Of course nothing is perfect and context dictates all things but I would enjoy seeing a write-up of your thoughts.

Thanks

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 March 2014 01:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1105
Joined  2009-03-25

Brad Schoenfeld reviews the study
http://www.lookgreatnaked.com/blog/does-blood-flow-restriction-increase-muscle-when-combined-with-traditional-resistance-training/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 March 2014 05:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1362
Joined  2008-07-28

Thanks for the link. I guess pretty much what we talked about.

I might. Give the program a shot and see how it works.

 Signature 

Exercise Biology - The Science of Exercise & Nutrition

Profile