V O L U ME 2 , ISS U E 10 OC T O BE R 2 0 1 8

MASS
M ONTHLY A PPL ICATIO N S IN
STRE N G TH SPO R T

E R IC H E LMS | G R E G NUC KOLS | MIC HAEL ZO URDO S

 The Reviewers
Eric Helms
Eric Helms is a coach, athlete, author, and educator. He is a coach for drug-free strength and
physique competitors at all levels as a part of team 3D Muscle Journey. Eric regularly publishes
peer-reviewed articles in exercise science and nutrition journals on physique and strength sport, in
addition to writing for commercial fitness publications. He’s taught undergraduate- and graduate-
level nutrition and exercise science and speaks internationally at academic and commercial
conferences. He has a B.S. in fitness and wellness, an M.S. in exercise science, a second Master’s
in sports nutrition, a Ph.D. in strength and conditioning, and is a research fellow for the Sports
Performance Research Institute New Zealand at Auckland University of Technology. Eric earned pro status as a natural
bodybuilder with the PNBA in 2011 and competes in the IPF at international-level events as an unequipped powerlifter.

Greg Nuckols
Greg Nuckols has over a decade of experience under the bar and a B.S. in exercise and sports
science. Greg is currently enrolled in the exercise science M.A. program at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill. He’s held three all-time world records in powerlifting in the 220lb and
242lb classes. He’s trained hundreds of athletes and regular folks, both online and in-person.
He’s written for many of the major magazines and websites in the fitness industry, including Men’s
Health, Men’s Fitness, Muscle & Fitness, Bodybuilding.com, T-Nation, and Schwarzenegger.com.
Furthermore, he’s had the opportunity to work with and learn from numerous record holders,
champion athletes, and collegiate and professional strength and conditioning coaches through his previous job as Chief
Content Director for Juggernaut Training Systems and current full-time work on StrongerByScience.com.

Michael C. Zourdos
Michael (Mike) C. Zourdos, Ph.D, CSCS, is an associate professor in exercise science at Florida
Atlantic University (FAU) in Boca Raton, FL., USA, with a specialization in strength and conditioning
and skeletal muscle physiology.  He earned his Ph.D. in exercise physiology from The Florida State
University (FSU) in 2012 under the guidance of Dr. Jeong-Su Kim. Prior to attending FSU, Mike
received his B.S. in exercise science from Marietta College and M.S. in applied health physiology
from Salisbury University. Mike served as the head powerlifting coach of FSU’s 2011 and 2012
state championship teams. As an associate professor at FAU, Mike is the director of the FAU
Muscle Physiology Research Laboratory. He also competes as a powerlifter in the USAPL, and
among his best competition lifts is a 230kg (507lbs) raw squat at a body weight of 76kg. Mike
owns the company Training Revolution, LLC., where he has coached more than 100 lifters, including a USAPL open
division national champion.

2
 Letter from
the Reviewers

W
elcome to Volume 2, Issue 10 of Monthly Applications in Strength Sport. It’s been an
amazing 2018 for MASS, and we intend to keep that trend going for the last few issues
of the year.
Over the past month, a recent study published in Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise (one
of the best journals in our field) that examined different set-volumes on hypertrophy and strength
outcomes has already garnered significant chatter in the online community. Eric has thoroughly bro-
ken down the study’s findings and provided an unbiased analysis of the online chatter and criticisms.
We think this will clarify some points you may have seen. For his other written effort, Eric tackles
the concept of caffeine as an appetite suppressant.
We’ve had our interpreting research guide on the member’s site since Day 1 of MASS; this month,
Greg significantly adds to your research understanding with a concept review titled “When to Trust
the Results of a Study.” This one-of-a-kind article breaks down the potential flaws, biases, and issues
you may see in a study to aid your ability in pinpointing these factors when reading original research.
We wish we could tell you to believe everything on PubMed; however, as this article points out, that
isn’t quite the case.
Mike returns to the concept of daily 1RM training, but this time, a new study has compared max-
ing just a few times per week versus typical periodization training in powerlifters preparing for a
competition. The results were equivocal, but recommendations are provided for how you can use the
data. Further, Mike analyzes a mechanistic study that examines the relationship between how fast
a muscle fiber can transmit an action potential and how quickly a lifter can reach peak rate of force
development.
In the video content, Mike’s video overlaps with his mechanistic article, as it lays out some prac-
tical strategies to take advantage of the findings from that article (or, in other words, improve “neu-
romuscular efficiency”). Eric’s video examines approaches to run specialization cycles for a particular
muscle group. Of great benefit, Eric lays out what exercises he would count toward a muscle group
(i.e. rows count for biceps) when running a specialization.
It continues to be our honor to work on MASS each month. Please touch base in the Facebook
group with any questions or comments, and give the audio roundtables a listen.
We hope you enjoy, and we’re already working away on the November issue.

The MASS Team

Eric, Greg, and Mike

3
 Table of Contents

6
BY G R EG NUCKOL S

When To Trust the Results of a Study

It’s becoming clear that a lot of published research is unreplicable and untrustworthy.
How do incorrect findings occur, and how can we predict whether the results of a
particular study are likely to be sound?

24
BY M I CHAEL C. ZOUR DOS

Neuromuscular Efficiency and How it Can Help Your Strength

We often think that we know things even when data haven’t shown them to be true yet.
It’s a treat when we review a study that confirms our long-held suspicions. This study
demonstrates exactly what neuromuscular efficiency is.

34
BY E RI C HEL MS

Understanding Volume
A recent study reported that very high volumes were associated with the greatest
hypertrophy when compared to lower volumes. Before you conclude that this
changes everything and double your sets, read this first.

53
BY G R EG NUCKOL S

Log Press is a Grind, Even for the Experts

There haven’t been many studies on overhead pressing exercises. A recent study
compared barbell push press to log push press in competitive strongmen, finding
that log press allows you to use the same loads, but with slower speeds.

4
61
BY M I CHAEL C. ZOUR DOS

New Data Makes Cases Both For and Against 1RM-Type Training
Data have shown that maxing out every day or just a few times a week substantially
boosts strength, but does it work as well as typical periodized training? This study
compares just maxing a few times per week to periodized training in powerlifters
preparing for a competition.

73
BY E RI C HEL MS

Is Caffeine an Effective Appetite Suppressant?

It’s common for caffeine to be included in fat-loss supplements as an appetite
suppressant, but does it actually work?

81
BY G R EG NUCKOL S

Can You Build More Size and Strength with Overloaded Eccentrics?
You can produce more force eccentrically than concentrically, so it stands to reason
that you’ll get better results by handling heavier eccentric loads, right? A recent study
puts this idea to the test.

92
BY M I CHAEL C. ZOUR DOS

VIDEO: Strategies to Improve Neuromuscular Efficiency

Rate of force development can be a limiting factor of max strength, but specifics of
training this process are rarely explained. This video provides practical strategies to
improve your neuromuscular efficiency.

94
BY E RI C HEL MS

VIDEO: Muscle Group Specialization Cycles

While volume should only be increased if plateaued and if all other variables are
optimal, there may come a time when higher volumes for hypertrophy are necessary.
One way to increase volume without digging too deep of a recovery hole is the use
of muscle group specialization cycles.

5
 Concept Review

When To Trust the

Results of a Study
BY G RE G NUC KO LS

It’s becoming clear that a lot of published research is unreplicable and

untrustworthy. How do incorrect findings occur, and how can we predict
whether the results of a particular study are likely to be sound?

6
H
ere at MASS, we’re mostly in
the business of breaking down
individual studies. We also do
concept reviews, and we attempt to con-
textualize each study based on the rest of
the literature, but reviews of individual
studies are our bread and butter. So, it
matters to us that our analysis and inter-
pretation of each study is as accurate as
possible.
However, that presents us with a prob-
lem: Many published studies reach in-
correct conclusions. By one famous es-
timation (1), most published research
findings are false, and in projects de-
signed to directly replicate landmark
studies, replication rates of positive find-
ings are often below 50% (2, 3, 4).
In this article, I want to explain why
incorrect research findings are so com-
mon, and then discuss criteria you can
use to predict the likelihood that the
findings of a paper are accurate.
There are several reasons why incorrect
results frequently get published.
Publication Bias
I think publication bias is the primary
reason why the literature contains a dis-
proportionate amount of incorrect find-
ings. Journals are much more likely to
publish “statistically significant” results
than non-significant results (5), because
significant results are often seen as sexier
and more exciting.
What’s a concept review?
A written concept review is similar
to our signature video reviews. The
aim of this article type is to review a
cornerstone topic in physiology or
applied science research.
Often, if an experiment doesn’t turn up
significant results, a scientist won’t even
bother submitting it for publication, ei-
ther because they view the experiment
as a failure (even though null results are
important results too!), or because they
know they’ll deal with multiple rounds
of submissions, revisions, reformatting,
further submissions, further revisions,
further reformatting, etc., before even-
tually landing the study in a low-impact
journal that probably won’t have much
of an effect on their career prospects.
Trying to get a non-significant result
published can just seem like a huge un-
dertaking with very little payoff.
More often, however, publication bias
is driven by the journals rejecting per-
fectly good science that just didn’t hap-
pen to get statistically significant results.
Publication bias is insidious due to
sheer probability. If all research is per-
formed in good faith (i.e. there’s no
shady data analysis going on), a cer-
tain percentage of study results will be
false positives purely due to chance. If
all true positives and all false positives
get published, while most true nega-
7
“
Journals are much more likely to
publish “statistically significant”
results than non-significant results.
tives and most false negatives wind up
in a file drawer, the rate of published false
positive results will be much higher than
the rate of actual false positive results. I
made a spreadsheet that helps illustrate
this point; you can find the spreadsheet
and instructions for how to use it here.
As I mentioned, I think publication
bias is the primary reason why the scien-
tific literature is littered with incorrect,
non-replicable research findings. This is
not primarily the fault of the scientists
– it’s a matter of journals and publishers
responding to market incentives. Posi-
tive results are exciting, exciting results
get cited, citations drive impact factors,
and impact factors drive subscriptions
and revenue. Thus, publication bias is
primarily driven by journals, but is also
driven by university press departments
(who hype significant findings more
than non-significant findings), lay-press
science writers (who create awareness
for exciting, significant findings), fund-
ing agencies (who also like to see excit-
ing, significant findings before opening
their wallets to fund big projects build-
ing on that research), and the scientific
community as a whole (which still plac-
es way more weight on journal impact
factors than is warranted).
It’s worth noting that publication bias
doesn’t always work in favor of significant
findings. It works in favor of “exciting”
findings, which are usually significant
findings. However, a null result that runs
counter to some well-supported ortho-
doxy may also be viewed as exciting, and
thus be likely to get published. For ex-
ample, you’d expect lower energy intake
to lead to greater weight loss, if all other
variables are controlled. If a metabolic
ward study found no significant differ-
ence in weight loss with two dramatical-
ly different levels of energy intake, that
would be a very exciting null finding
and would have absolutely no problem
getting published (assuming the study’s
methodology wasn’t horrible). For the
most part, though, “exciting” findings
tend to be significant results.
P-hacking
A second factor contributing to the
publication of incorrect research find-
ings is p-hacking. P-hacking is probably
at least somewhat motivated by publica-
tion bias, but while journals bear most
of the responsibility for publication bias,
8
scientists bear most of the responsibility
for p-hacking.
P-hacking describes a wide variety of P-HACKING DESCRIBES A
tools and approaches for finding “statis-
tically significant” results in a dataset af- WIDE VARIETY OF TOOLS
ter you fail to find the significant effect
you were actually looking for. This can AND APPROACHES FOR
be accomplished several different ways. FINDING “STATISTICALLY
One common method of p-hacking
(or ensuring you have a dataset you can SIGNIFICANT” RESULTS IN
p-hack) is simply to collect a load of
outcome variables: the more variables A DATASET AFTER YOU FAIL
you have to analyze, the greater your
chances of having at least one false posi-
TO FIND THE SIGNIFICANT
tive. For example, in this famous “sting,”
researchers intentionally set up a study
EFFECT YOU WERE
to demonstrate the ease of p-hacking ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR.
by testing the effects of chocolate con-
sumption on a whole host of measures
associated with health. Sure enough,
purely by chance, they got some “signif-
you only report the significant results
icant” results showing that chocolate led
and don’t use statistical procedures to
to weight loss and improved cholesterol
adjust your false positive risk, you can
levels. Their study got a ton of press (peo-
wind up with a lot of “significant” find-
ple like to hear that chocolate is good for
ings due to chance alone.
them) before the researchers confessed
to the game they were playing. Another method of p-hacking is the
use of sub-analyses. For example, if you
Now, simply collecting a ton of data
compare two training approaches in a
isn’t necessarily insidious. The issue is
large, heterogeneous sample, you may
with the way the data are reported and
not find any significant differences with
analyzed. If you have 30 outcome mea-
the full sample. However, you can then
sures, and you report the results for all
isolate the analysis to just men, or just
variables and use the correct statistical
women, or just older subjects, or just
procedures to adjust your false positive
younger subjects, or just subjects that
risk (making it harder to attain signifi-
trained in the morning, or just subjects
cance for any single variable), collecting
that ate pancakes for breakfast, or just
more data is a good thing. However, if

9

SOME P-HACKING IS
CONDUCTED MALICIOUSLY,
BUT I THINK MOST
INSTANCES ARE SIMPLY
DUE TO PEOPLE NOT
KNOWING ANY BETTER.
Geminis, etc. If you have a dataset that
allows for a lot of sub-analyses, some of
them are likely to give you significant
results due to chance alone, unless you
perform statistical adjustments to con-
trol your false positive risk. While sta-
tistical adjustments for multiple out-
come measures are common, statistical
adjustments for multiple sub-analyses
are much less common. And again, au-
thors can also choose whether to report
all sub-analyses they ran, or to just re-
port the ones that gave them significant
results. The presence of sub-analyses
doesn’t always indicate that p-hacking
occurred – the authors may have set
up the experiment with clear hypothe-
ses about the entire cohort, and about a
particular subsection of the cohort – but
running a slew of sub-analyses is a com-
mon tool for squeezing false positives
out of noisy datasets.
Another method of p-hacking simply
involves statistical shenanigans. There
are often multiple ways you can analyze
a dataset. Some approaches are conser-
vative, with low risk of false positives but
greater risk of failing to detect an actual
significant effect. Other approaches are
more liberal, detecting almost all actu-
al significant effects, along with more
false positives. There are situations when
more conservative approaches are pref-
erable and situations when more liber-
al approaches are preferable. However,
that’s a decision that should be made
before data analysis actually starts. If
a researcher decides to use a conserva-
tive statistical approach when planning
a study, doesn’t find significant results
once the data are collected, and switches
to a more liberal approach in order to
find significance, that’s p-hacking.
Finally, one very blunt way to p-hack is
simply to drop the results of one or two
participants who are holding you back
from attaining statistical significance.
In a training study, the participants in
group A may have mostly made larger
strength gains than the participants in
group B, but one or two members of
group B made huge gains, which keep
the results from being significant. If you
had a predefined plan for dealing with
outliers (and if these subjects meet some
objective criterion to qualify as outliers),
then maybe you could legitimately re-
move their results. But if you didn’t have
a predefined plan for dealing with out-
liers, and you make the decision to toss
10
“
Additional noise from sloppy data
collection can dramatically increase the
odds of finding erroneous significant
effects in an underpowered study.
out their data after all the results are in,
that’s p-hacking.
I think that some p-hacking is con-
ducted maliciously, but I think most
instances are simply due to people not
knowing any better. When you get a
dataset, it’s fun to poke around and see
what sort of relationships you can find.
If you don’t have a defined data analysis
plan, you may not realize how much you
actually poked around, and how many
of the significant results you found are
likely due to chance. However, regard-
less of intent, p-hacking increases the
number of incorrect research findings,
compounding the effects of publication
bias.
General Sloppiness
Publication bias and p-hacking are ex-
citing (at least to nerds like me) because
they represent systemic problems with-
in the entire system and may even arise
from malicious intent in some cases.
Sloppiness, on the other hand, is much
more mundane. However, sloppiness
can also contribute to incorrect research
findings.
P-hacking and “creative” data analy-
sis rely on finding false positives. When
data aren’t collected cleanly, that intro-
duces more noise into the dataset. Espe-
cially when statistical power is low, all it
can take are a few erroneously low data
points in one group and a few errone-
ously high data points in another group
for a “significant” effect to materialize.
Low power is almost a fact of life in ex-
ercise science, but low power shouldn’t
increase false positive risk if the data are
collected cleanly (in fact, low power has
the opposite effect, decreasing your odds
of detecting true positive effects). How-
ever, additional noise from sloppy data
collection can dramatically increase the
odds of finding erroneous significant ef-
fects in an underpowered study.
Another domain where sloppiness can
rear its head is in the planning phase of a
study. Some studies simply use data from
assessments that are inadequate for an-
11
swering their research questions, or use
statistical methods that are improper for
the data collected. Both of those issues
could be avoided by better attention to
detail when designing the experiment.
In a perfect world, scientists would al-
ways consult with methodologists and
statisticians when designing a research
project to make sure the design of the
study and the statistical analysis plan are
appropriate, but that rarely happens, at
least in our field.
Data Peeking/Lack of
Clearly Defined Endpoint
When you run a study, you should
have a clearly defined endpoint. Typ-
ically, that endpoint is defined by the
number of subjects recruited. As the
study rolls along, you may enter the data
as you collect it, but you shouldn’t start
analyzing the data until data collection
is finished. However, if you don’t have a
clearly defined endpoint, and you ana-
lyze your data as you collect it, you can
inflate the odds of finding false posi-
tives. During the process of data collec-
tion, you may just hit a random run of
subjects that all have results leaning in
one direction. If you’re peeking at your
data as you collect it, you may notice
that your results have attained signif-
icance, and stop data collection there.
However, if you ran more subjects
through the study, those abnormal re-
sults would wash out, leaving you with
IF YOU DON’T HAVE A
CLEARLY DEFINED ENDPOINT,
AND YOU ANALYZE YOUR
DATA AS YOU COLLECT IT,
YOU CAN INFLATE THE ODDS
OF FINDING FALSE POSITIVES.
no significant findings.
Peeking at your data and analyzing
as you go can dramatically increase the
risk of false positives, especially if your
study doesn’t have a clearly defined
endpoint. If you planned to recruit 40
subjects, instead of just worrying about
your risk of false positives once all data
is collected, you also have to deal with
the risk of false positives after 10 sub-
jects have been through the study, after
11 subjects have been through the study,
12, 13, 14, etc. When you combine data
peeking with p-hacking and a dash of
sloppiness, it would be incredibly un-
likely that you wouldn’t end up with at
least one false positive.
This paper explains in more detail
why this is a problem (6).
HARKing
12

HARKING IS PROBABLY
THE MOST COMMON
IN CROSS-SECTIONAL
AND EPIDEMIOLOGICAL
RESEARCH, WHICH
OFTEN DEALS WITH
HUGE DATASETS AND A
MULTITUDE OF VARIABLES.
HARKing (7) stands for “hypothesiz-
ing after the results are known.” In other
words, instead of designing a study to
investigate a clear hypothesis, you run an
experiment, see what significant results
you can find, and write your manuscript
as if the study was designed to investi-
gate the specific variable(s) where the
outcome was significant.
HARKing doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
It’s primarily just a method to make
p-hacking more powerful and convinc-
ing. For example, if you run a study,
collect 30 variables and analyze them
all with t-tests (instead of an ANO-
VA, which would adjust the false posi-
tive risk), report all outcomes, and don’t
clearly state a hypothesis in your paper,
it’ll be clear to most people that you
p-hacked your study to smithereens.
However, if you instead identify the sig-
nificant results, then craft a hypothesis to
make it look like the study was designed
to investigate those specific variables,
and don’t report results for the measures
that didn’t yield significant results, no
one would know that you should have
statistically adjusted for the multitude
of unreported outcome measures. On
the surface, your paper looks solid, but
in reality, you got away with statistical
murder, and there’s a pretty good chance
your results are false positives.
HARKing is probably the most com-
mon in cross-sectional and epidemiolog-
ical research, which often deals with huge
datasets and a multitude of variables.
For example, if you download the data
from the National Health and Nutri-
tion Examination Survey (NHANES),
it wouldn’t surprise me if you could find
hundreds (or even thousands) of signif-
icant effects. Once you have your result,
you just need to come up with a reason
why you expected to find that result, use
that made-up reason to justify a hypoth-
esis, and ignore the dozen analyses you
ran that didn’t find significant results.
Low Power
The other issues primarily increase risk
of false positive findings. However, low
statistical power is a double whammy –
it increases the risk of false positives and
false negatives (8).
13
“
When there are mechanistic studies, you
can compare theory and outcome to see
if results of a study “make sense.”
Statistical power is the likelihood of
detecting a true effect if one exists. In
our field, we’re supposed to aim for 80%
power (detecting true effects 80% of the
time), though actual power is likely much
lower. On the surface, this means that if
you do everything right (you don’t peek
at your data, you don’t p-hack, etc.) but
underpower your study, you’ll be more
likely to “miss” true, positive effects.
However, if you combine low power
with unethical research practices, you
also inflate the chance of finding false
positives. In a scenario where there’s
truly no effect, large sample sizes should
converge on the “true” effect size of 0.
However, the observed effect in a sample
can fluctuate substantially before even-
tually approaching zero. It’s a lot easier
to wind up with 8 atypical people in an
experimental group than 50.
Fraud
Outright fraud is the most serious
transgression on this list, but probably
the least common. Fraud exists on a
continuum, such that aggressive enough
p-hacking or HARKing probably counts
as fraud (especially if you know what
you’re doing and aren’t simply engag-
ing in those practices because you don’t
know any better), while wholesale data
manipulation or fabrication is much
more serious fraud. It’s impossible to
know how much research is truly fraud-
ulent, but my hunch is that it’s a fairly
small minority. However, it does hap-
pen, and it does contribute to the rate of
incorrect research findings.
___________________________
If you made it this far, congratulations!
You now know more about creative ways
to mishandle data (and why they’re prob-
lematic) than most researchers. While I
consider myself an advocate for science,
I think it’s important the people are also
informed about its dark side. Unless
you know about the problems, you don’t
know how to protect yourself. Also note,
I’m certainly not saying that science is
worthless; I recognize that there are se-
rious flaws in the way it’s often practiced,
but I also think it’s the best process we
have for discovering truths about the
14
world around us. The march of scientific
and technological progress over the past
300 years should be evidence enough
that, in spite of its flaws, the scientific
process is ultimately effective.
With that in mind, here are some
things to look out for when reading re-
search that will help you judge the like-
lihood that the findings of an individual
paper are accurate.
Biological Plausibility
One problem in our field is that we of-
ten rush to applied research before do-
ing mechanistic research. In a field like
medicine, the molecular effects of a drug
are generally thoroughly researched be-
fore testing the efficacy of that drug in
animals or humans. In exercise science,
we often investigate “does this work” be-
fore investigating “mechanistically, why
should we expect that this would work?”
However, when there are mechanis-
tic studies, you can compare theory and
outcome to see if results of a study “make
sense.” For example, we know that be-
ta-alanine increases muscle carnosine
levels, and we know that carnosine is an
important biological buffer. Thus, before
running any experiments, we’d expect
that beta-alanine would boost perfor-
mance in situations when metabolic ac-
idosis would limit performance, but not
in situations when metabolic acidosis
isn’t likely to limit performance. When
we compare theory to outcomes, that’s
IF THE RESULTS OF A STUDY
ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE OF
PREVIOUS STUDIES, YOU CAN
HAVE MORE CONFIDENCE IN
THE RESULTS. HOWEVER, IF
A STUDY REPORTS RESULTS
THAT ARE MARKEDLY
DIFFERENT FROM SIMILAR
RESEARCH, IT DESERVES
MORE SKEPTICISM.
exactly what we see: For short-duration
and long-duration performance (which
likely aren’t limited by metabolic acido-
sis), beta-alanine doesn’t seem to have
much of an effect, while it does seem
to improve moderate-duration perfor-
mance (9). If a new study finds that be-
ta-alanine improves 800m run times,
we know that’s a plausible and expected
outcome, since 800m running is at least
partially limited by metabolic acidosis.
However, if a new study finds that acute
beta-alanine supplementation increases
1RM deadlift strength, we’d have every
right to be skeptical, as there’s no clear
15
mechanistic reason to expect such a re-
sult.
If a paper is well-written (and if mech-
anistic research exists on the subject), it
should discuss possible mechanistic rea-
sons for the observed results. If a paper
doesn’t discuss possible mechanisms, or
if it notes that the results are the oppo-
site of what would be expected based on
known mechanisms, then you have ev-
ery right to be a bit more skeptical of the
results.
Comparisons to Past
Research
If a study investigates a completely
novel hypothesis, you won’t have any-
thing to compare the results to. How-
ever, most studies investigate hypothe-
ses that are similar to those of previous
research, while perhaps using a slightly
different population or experimental
setup. If the results of a study are similar
to those of previous studies, you can have
more confidence in the results. However,
if a study reports results that are mark-
edly different from similar research, it
deserves more skepticism. If this occurs,
a well-written paper will discuss possi-
ble reasons for its differing results. If a
paper doesn’t discuss possible reasons
for its divergent results, or if the authors
seem to be grasping at straws, the results
deserve even more skepticism.
If a study tackles a research question
you’re really passionate about, it’s worth
conducting your own literature search
to see how that study fits into the lit-
erature. Oftentimes, authors will discuss
a majority of the research findings that
agree with their results but fail to men-
tion several studies that had different
outcomes. And, of course, older studies
won’t cite more recent research, and the
weight of the evidence may have shifted
between the time a study was published
and the time that you’re reading it.
Financial Incentives and
Funding Sources
I’m not going to harp on financial in-
centives and funding sources (10) too
much, because they seem to be one of
the few things most people are already
aware of when critically reading re-
search, and discussions of financial in-
centives or conflicts can often venture
into tinfoil-hat territory.
However, the mere presence of a finan-
cial incentive (funding source or affilia-
tion of the authors) doesn’t necessarily
mean the results of a study are incorrect,
and it certainly doesn’t mean the re-
sults are fraudulent. Financial incentives
probably primarily influence study de-
sign (using a design that maximizes the
odds of a positive result), suppression of
negative or null results (magnifying the
effect of publication bias), and interpre-
tation (casting positive results in an even
more laudatory light). So, when reading a
16

BLINDING INCREASES
THE TRUSTWORTHINESS
OF ANY STUDY, BUT IT’S
ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT
FOR STUDIES WHERE THE
AUTHORS HAVE CLEAR
FINANCIAL INCENTIVES OR
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
study with a financial incentive, pay extra
close attention to the study protocol (i.e.
was the protocol specifically designed to
show an effect?), and read the interpreta-
tion with a bit more skepticism, but don’t
necessarily assume the results are incor-
rect. Additional skepticism is certainly
warranted, however.
Finally, in studies where there’s a clear
financial incentive, pay attention to
blinding. If the person analyzing the data
isn’t blinded to the subjects’ group alloca-
tion, the risk of biased data collection and
biased analysis increases. Blinding in-
creases the trustworthiness of any study,
but it’s especially important for studies
where the authors have clear financial in-
centives or conflicts of interest.
Reported P-Values
I won’t belabor this point, because I
know it would likely make many people’s
eyes glaze over. However, most research
in our field determines statistical signif-
icance based on p-value thresholds, and
the most common threshold is p<0.05.
The issue with a threshold of p<0.05
is that it’s not too hard to p-hack your
way to a p-value of 0.049. However, it
is hard to p-hack your way to a p-value
of 0.01, and even harder to p-hack your
way to a p-value of 0.001. If you see a lot
of p-values in a paper between 0.04 and
0.05, that doesn’t necessarily mean the
authors p-hacked or HARKed their way
to significant results, but it is certainly
a cause for concern and skepticism. On
the other hand, it’s much more likely
that very low p-values are indicative of
true positive results. A very low p-value
doesn’t guarantee that a finding is legit,
but it certainly increases the likelihood.
If a paper doesn’t report p-values (i.e.
it just reports p<0.05, but not p=0.021),
but it does report sample sizes and t-val-
ues, r-values, or F-ratios, you can use on-
line calculators to convert those number
to p-values.
Effect Sizes
Effect sizes give you additional infor-
mation that helps you determine the
importance of a significant result. They
also help you ascertain the likelihood of
17
“
Statistically significant comparisons or
associations with moderate-to-large
effect sizes are more likely to be true
positives than comparisons or associations
with trivial-to-small effect sizes.
false positives in large datasets.
If a result is statistically significant but
only associated with a small or trivial ef-
fect size, it may not actually be very im-
portant for coaches or athletes, even if
the p-value is really low. In exercise sci-
ence, that doesn’t happen too often since
most studies don’t use large samples (you
generally need a medium or large effect
to achieve statistical significance if your
sample is small), but it’s at least worth
keeping in mind.
Furthermore, in large samples, ef-
fect sizes help you determine wheth-
er a significant finding is likely to be a
false positive. If a large study uses true
random sampling, then the data should
be accurate and unbiased. Howev-
er, true random sampling is extremely
rare, meaning that large studies can still
have biased samples. With hundreds or
thousands of participants, almost every
comparison or association will be signif-
icant, simply because statistical power is
so high. When you combine enormous
statistical power with non-random sam-
pling, you have a high risk of false posi-
tive results. However, statistically signif-
icant comparisons or associations with
moderate-to-large effect sizes are more
likely to be true positives than compari-
sons or associations with trivial-to-small
effect sizes, simply because greater sam-
pling bias is required to produce erro-
neous large effects than erroneous small
effects.
Pre-Registration
If you pre-register a study (11), you
tell the world exactly how you’re going
to conduct the study and analyze the
data before initiating data collection. If
a study is pre-registered, and the pub-
lished methods and statistical analyses
of the study match the pre-registered
methods and analyses, risk of p-hacking,
HARKing, etc., is dramatically reduced.
You can be much more confident in its
results.
However, if a study is pre-registered,
and the methods or analyses differ from
the pre-registered account, you can be
quite confident that some sort of she-
nanigans are afoot. This is pretty rare,
though, because the researchers know
18
 and don’t use labor-intensive measures),
and some studies are colossal undertak-
IF A STUDY REPORTS ings. Specifically, in our field, training
studies are a HUGE pain in the ass, and
MULTIPLE BARELY can easily require 500+ man hours for all
SIGNIFICANT OUTCOME of the training visits.
I can’t pretend like I have data on this,
MEASURES, AND IT’S but I think that there’s a strong relation-
ship between ease of conducting a study
PRETTY OBVIOUS THAT and risk of publication bias.
THE RESEARCHERS HAD If you didn’t have to sink much time
into a study, and the study doesn’t turn
OTHER OUTCOME MEASURES up any significant results, it’s not a huge
loss if the study doesn’t get published.
THAT WEREN’T REPORTED, You may not even bother submitting
it, or you may just cut your losses after
THERE’S A PRETTY one or two rejections. If, on the oth-
GOOD CHANCE THAT THE er hand, you spent months of your life
and hundreds of hours carrying out a
STUDY WAS P-HACKED. study, you’re going to be willing to wade
through hell or high water to make sure
it gets published. If you don’t have any
significant results, it may not get accept-
that they’re leaving a paper trail that will ed in a high-impact journal, but you’re
expose them. going to keep submitting it until it finds
Pre-registration is great, and more a home.
people should do it.

Ease of Conducting a
Study
This is a factor you wouldn’t consider
unless you’ve conducted research.
Some studies don’t take much time or
effort to conduct (primarily cross-sec-
tional studies that are easy to recruit for
Evidence of P-Hacking
or HARKing
P-hacking and HARKing are dan-
gerous because, if someone knows what
they’re doing, they can completely hide
the fact that any chicanery took place.
However, many authors aren’t that slick.
For example, if a study reports multi-

19
ple barely significant outcome measures,
and it’s pretty obvious that the research-
ers had other outcome measures that
weren’t reported, there’s a pretty good
chance that the study was p-hacked.
To illustrate, if someone uses bar kinet-
ics for their outcome measures, and they
report significant differences in mean
power and peak velocity with p-values
between ~0.03 and 0.05, but they don’t
report any other measures of bar kinet-
ics, they probably p-hacked. If they re-
port mean power and peak velocity, you
know they also have data on peak power
and mean velocity. Since they have pow-
er data (which has a force component),
they also have data on mean and peak
force. Since power and velocity both have
time components, they also have data on
impulse. Thus, we know that they have at
least seven outcome measures (impulse,
mean and peak power, mean and peak
velocity, and mean and peak force), but
they only reported two outcomes, and
both outcomes were barely significant.
If they reported all outcomes and used
correct statistical procedures to control
their false positive rate, their mean pow-
er and peak velocity findings would not
have been significant anymore (12).
A method of p-hacking that’s easier to
spot (if you’re at all conversant in statis-
tics) is the use of non-standard, inappro-
priate statistical procedures. If you’re not
conversant in stats, and you see a study
use something other than t-tests, ANO-
VAs, ANCOVAs, Bonferroni or Tukey’s
SCIENTISTS GENERALLY
HAVE A PRETTY GOOD IDEA
OF WHICH STUDIES WILL
REPLICATE AND WHICH ARE
PROBABLY FALSE POSITIVES
post-hoc tests, pearson regression, spear-
man regression, chi-squared tests, mul-
tiple regression, logistic regression, or
random effects meta-analysis (the most
common procedures in our field), ask
a friend who knows about stats about
whether the statistical procedures used
were valid.
Prediction
One interesting finding in recent years
is that scientists generally have a pretty
good idea of which studies will replicate
and which are probably false positives
(4, 13). Researchers set up betting mar-
kets, and scientists can place bets on the
studies they think are most likely to suc-
cessfully replicate. These betting markets
have done a surprisingly good job of
predicting which studies won’t replicate
and which will.
Obviously, you won’t have the time to
20
“
If the research is unblinded, consider
whether the measurements used in the study
allow room for the researchers to either
purposefully or inadvertently “tip the scales.”
set up a betting market for every new
study that’s published, but I think it can
be helpful to ask experts about the re-
sults of studies that seem fishy to you.
If multiple experts aren’t surprised by
the results, then there’s a decent chance
the results are accurate. However, if re-
searchers in the field are also surprised at
the result, or if they also think it seems
fishy, there’s a decent chance that its re-
sults are incorrect (either as a false posi-
tive or a false negative).
Note: I’m not making an appeal to au-
thority. I’m not saying that expert opin-
ion about a study is inherently correct.
I’m saying that we have good evidence
that experts are able to predict whether a
particular research finding will replicate
with a pretty high degree of accuracy,
meaning that if they think a particular
finding is legit, that should rationally
increase your perceived odds of it being
legit.
Measures with Minimal
Room for Subjectivity
In unblinded research, there’s still
room for researcher bias to skew results,
even if they’re trying to be as objective
and impartial as possible. The choice of
measurements can make a big difference.
For example, if strength is assessed via
a squat, the researchers may be slightly
more strict on depth requirements (ei-
ther intentionally or unintentionally) in
the group they don’t expect to do as well;
on the other hand, if strength is assessed
via bench press, there’s little subjectivi-
ty in observing whether the bar touched
the chest, and whether the lifter locked
the rep out. When assessing body com-
position, DEXA scans leave little room
for user error (assuming you’re enforcing
the same pre-testing guidelines for all
subjects), while there’s more subjectivity
when taking skinfold measurements us-
ing calipers.
If the research is unblinded, consider
whether the measurements used in the
study allow room for the researchers to
either purposefully or inadvertently “tip
the scales.” If the measurements contain
less room for bias to influence the out-
come, you can be a bit more confident in
the results. If the measurements contain
more room for bias to influence the out-
come, you need to be a bit more wary.
21
Conclusion
So, to wrap things up, the findings of
individual studies aren’t nearly as trust-
worthy as most people would like to be-
lieve. There are a variety of ways to wind
up with false positive results, and the
publishing system more heavily rewards
positive results, which means a dispro-
portionate amount of false positive re-
sults wind up in the literature. How-
ever, if you know what to look for, you
can roughly appraise individual studies
to determine the likelihood that their
results are incorrect. The simplest and
most straightforward things to look for
are large effects, small p-values (below
0.01, not 0.05), results that can be ex-
plained by known mechanisms, and re-
sults that jive with prior research. If you
want to get more sophisticated, you can
see whether the study was pre-registered,
look at financial incentives, determine if
the study would be time-consuming to
conduct, look for evidence of p-hacking
or HARKing, see whether the measure-
ments allow substantial room for bias,
and ask experts if they would predict
that the findings would replicate.
Ultimately, you can never be sure
about the accuracy of any single study,
but if you know how people can cheat
the system, and you know the hallmarks
of solid research findings, you’ll be able
to more accurately appraise and inter-
pret research.

22
References
1. Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005 Aug;2(8):e124.
2. Open Science Collaboration. PSYCHOLOGY. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological sci-
ence. Science. 2015 Aug 28;349(6251):aac4716.
3. Begley CG, Ellis LM. Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature.
2012 Mar 28;483(7391):531-3.
4. Camerer CF et al. Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science
between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behavior. 2018 Aug 27; 2:637-44.
5. Mlinarić A, Horvat M, Šupak Smolčić V. Dealing with the positive publication bias: Why you
should really publish your negative results. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2017 Oct 15;27(3):030201.
6. Wood J, Freemantle N, King M, Nazareth I. Trap of trends to statistical significance: likelihood of
near significant P value becoming more significant with extra data. BMJ. 2014 Mar 31;348:g2215.
7. Kerr NL. HARKing: hypothesizing after the results are known. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 1998;2(3):196-
217.
8. Dumas-Mallet E, Button KS, Boraud T, Gonon F, Munafò MR. Low statistical power in biomedical
science: a review of three human research domains. R Soc Open Sci. 2017 Feb 1;4(2):160254.
9. Saunders B, Elliott-Sale K, Artioli GG, Swinton PA, Dolan E, Roschel H, Sale C, Gualano B.
β-alanine supplementation to improve exercise capacity and performance: a systematic review and
meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2017 Apr;51(8):658-669.
10. Lexchin J. Sponsorship bias in clinical research. Int J Risk Saf Med. 2012;24(4):233-42.
11. Nosek BA, Ebersole CR, DeHaven AC, Mellor DT. The preregistration revolution. Proc Natl Acad
Sci U S A. 2018 Mar 13;115(11):2600-2606.
12. Obviously, you need to be reasonable when judging whether it’s likely that variables were examined
but weren’t reported on. Using the example of a linear position transducer, you could also get data on
rate of force development over half a dozen time windows, eccentric as well as concentric measures
for force, power, velocity, and impulse, and some LPTs even tell you about bar path. You could also
subdivide all of these analyses by lift phase (for example, in the squat, you could also look at power,
velocity, and force up to the point of minimum bar velocity, and after the point of minimum bar
velocity). You could come up with 30 different outcome measures pretty easily, but most of them
wouldn’t be variables that most researchers would typically look at. Also keep the aim of the study
in mind. For example, a study designed to examine load-velocity profiles really only needs to report
velocity; the researchers have data on a ton of other variables, but velocity is the only variable that’s
relevant to their research question and is probably the only variable they actually analyzed.
13. Dreber A, Pfeiffer T, Almenberg J, Isaksson S, Wilson B, Chen Y, Nosek BA, Johannesson M. Using
prediction markets to estimate the reproducibility of scientific research. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.
2015 Dec 15;112(50):15343-7.

23
Study Reviewed: Higher Muscle Fiber Conduction Velocity and Early Rate of Torque
Development in Chronically Strength Trained Individuals. Del Vecchio et al. (2018)

Neuromuscular Efficiency and How it

Can Help Your Strength
BY MIC HAE L C . ZO URD O S

We often think that we know things even when data haven’t shown them
to be true yet. It’s a treat when we review a study that confirms our long-
held suspicions. This study demonstrates exactly what neuromuscular
efficiency is.

24
 KEY POINTS
1. This paper found for the first time that rate of torque development during a biceps
curl was related to muscle fiber conduction velocity.
2. In other words, this paper is stating that with an increased training status, individuals
are able to transmit action potentials more quickly. This translates into quicker
recruitment of motor units.
3. Subsequently, improvements in rate of torque (or force) development are a key
factor in maximizing strength. Overall, these data help to explain “neuromuscular
efficiency,” and this article discusses practical uses for these findings.

R
ecently, MASS reviewed a
study demonstrating that pow-
er-type training works for some
but not all lifters. Training to improve
rate of force development (i.e. faster re-
cruitment of motor units) maximizes
strength gains in some lifters, but not
others (2). Theoretically, rate of force
development is related to muscle fiber
conduction velocity, which is the rate at
which an action potential is transmit-
ted. In brief, skeletal muscle is inner-
vated by the somatic nervous system,
and an action potential (i.e. electrical
signal) is originally sent from the ner-
vous system to initiate the muscle con-
traction process. Once the action po-
tential from the motor neuron reaches
the muscle fibers (at the neuromuscular
junction), it triggers another action po-
tential in the muscle fiber itself, which
then must travel along the muscle fiber
to trigger the processes which initiate
muscle contraction. Therefore, a fast-
er conduction velocity or transmission
of an action potential along the mus-
cle fiber should be related to increased
rate of force development. If an indi-
vidual has a higher fiber conduction
velocity and can recruit motor units
more quickly, it might be possible to
improve our “neuromuscular efficien-
cy,” which is an important element in
max strength. This study (1) compared
trained versus untrained individuals
and found that trained individuals had
greater fiber conduction velocity and
faster motor unit recruitment than the
untrained individuals. This may suggest
that improving the rate of motor unit
recruitment during a heavy contraction
may be a trainable process. While these
findings are at the neuromuscular lev-
el, this article will discuss how to make
training adjustments to optimize this
adaptation.

25
Table 1 Subject characteristics
Subjects Age (years) Body Mass (kg)
Trained (n=8) 22.2 ± 2.5
Untrained (n=8) 23.4 ± 3.1
Data are Mean ± SD
Subject characteristics from Del Vecchio et al. 2018 (1)
Purpose and Research
Questions
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to deter-
mine if muscle fiber conduction velocity is
associated with greater rate of force devel-
opment in trained versus untrained indi-
viduals during a biceps curl.
Research Questions
1. Do trained individuals have greater
muscle fiber conduction velocity and
rate of force development than un-
trained individuals?
2. Is rate of force development related
to muscle fiber conduction velocity?
Hypotheses
The authors hypothesized that great-
er rate of force development would occur
early in the contraction in trained versus
untrained individuals. The authors also
predicted that there would be a significant
relationship between fiber conduction ve-
locity and rate of force development.
Training Age
Height (cm)
(years)
85.2 ± 8.3 181.2 ± 9.3 At least 3 years
73.2 ± 7.5 177.3 ± 7.5 Untrained
Subjects and Methods
Subjects
Eight trained and eight untrained
men participated in this study. Typical
multi-joint exercises weren’t used in this
study, so it’s difficult to know the exact
training status, but the trained subjects
had to have been training at least three
times per week for at least three years.
Also, seven subjects in the trained group
were athletes who had performed at the
national or international level in volley-
ball, boxing, karate, or the javelin throw;
thus, it stands to reason they were well-
trained. Details of the subjects are in Ta-
ble 1.
Protocol
Subjects came to the lab twice to com-
plete the study. The first day was simply
to familiarize the subjects with the exer-
cise, which was contraction of the elbow
flexors (i.e. a biceps curl) using only the
dominant arm on an isokinetic dyna-
mometer. At this point, we should note
that in the paper, the authors referred
26
Table 2 List of outcome measures

Outcome measure Methods of obtainment

Maximal torque The highest torque of the three maximal contractions

• Torque was determined using the explosive contractions
at increments of milliseconds (ms) as follows: T50, T100,
T150, T200
• Rate of torque development was then calculated at
Rate of torque development
T50, and for all time intervals: T50 – T100, T100 – T150, and
T150 – T200
• The above were calculated from the 5 (of the 8) explosive
contractions which has the greatest torque at T150
• EMG electrodes were on the muscle for the
explosive contractions
• A validated algorithm was used to extrapolate
conduction velocity
• Conduction velocity was calculated using the average of
the 5 best explosive contractions
• Max conduction velocity was calculated, as well as
velocity conduction velocity during the 0-50, 50-100, 100-150,
and 150-200 ms time intervals
• Conduction velocity was also calculated during the
electromechanical delay, which is the time between
the onset of muscle activation and actual muscle
force production.

Outcome measures assessed in Del Vecchio et al. 2018 (1)

to rate of force development as rate of jects performed maximal contractions

torque development because a biceps
curl uses angular motion. Torque is es-
sentially the rotating force. Thus, we will
use rate of torque development for the
remainder of this article.
To test the research questions, sub-
and explosive contractions. First, to test
max strength, the maximal voluntary
contractions were performed with one
minute between contractions. The best
of the three contractions was used in the
results. Then, subjects began a series of

27
 Figure 1 RTD is greater in trained individuals from 0-50 ms

1200

1000
Trained
Untrained
800
RTD (N·m·s-1)

600

400

200

0
0-50 50-100 100-150 150-200

Time windows from torque onset (ms)

RTD = rate of torque development; * = Significantly greater RTD than untrained

eight explosive contractions. Four explo-
sive contractions were performed with
20 seconds of rest between reps, with five
minutes of rest after the fourth contrac-
tion. Next, four more contractions were
performed with 20 seconds of rest be-
tween reps. The outcome measures ob-
tained during either the maximal or ex-
plosive contractions are listed in Table 2.
Please note that I left out a few details of
exactly how rate of torque development
and conduction velocity were calculated,
as those methods are little outside of our
scope; rather, just understand that both
were obtained using the five best explo-
sive contractions.
Findings
So that we don’t get bogged down too
much in the details, I’ve chosen to report
only the findings that are relevant to us.
Maximal Torque
As expected, the trained subjects had

28
 Figure 2 MFCV is greater in trained individuals

5.5

5.0
MFCV (m/s)

4.5

4.0

3.5
EMD 0-50 50-100 100-150 150-200

Time windows from EMG and force onset (ms)

MFCV = muscle fiber conduction velocity; * = significantly greater than untrained

significantly greater (p<0.001) maximal 50-100 millisecond time interval, suggest-

elbow flexion torque than the untrained
subjects (39.3% greater in trained).
Rate of Torque Development and Conduc-
tion Velocity
Rate of torque development was great-
er in the trained individuals during the
0-50 millisecond time interval (Figure 1),
and muscle fiber conduction velocity was
greater in the trained subjects during all
time intervals (Figure 2). Further, conduc-
tion velocity reached its peak during the
ing that full motor unit recruitment might
have occurred early in the contraction.
Perhaps the most novel finding was that
significant correlations were observed be-
tween rate of torque development and
muscle fiber conduction velocity in trained
(R2 = 0.65) and untrained subjects (R2 =
0.57), but only during the 0-50 millisec-
ond time interval. This indicates that there
is a positive relationship between muscle
fiber conduction velocity and rate of force
development.

29
Interpretation
Since the findings were a little mech-
anistic, let’s provide a straightforward
explanation of the results. The trained
group was stronger (of course), the
trained lifters had greater rate of torque
development during the early part of the
explosive contractions, and the trained
lifters had greater muscle fiber conduc-
tion velocity throughout the entirety of
an explosive contraction. In other words,
the trained lifters possibly recruited mo-
tor units more quickly (torque develop-
ment) and that was related to faster ac-
tion potential transmission (conduction
velocity), thus the authors’ hypotheses
were supported. However, it is necessary
to state that the measures of motor unit
recruitment were indirect, so it’s likely
that motor units were recruited more
quickly in the trained lifters, but we can-
not be entirely sure.
These findings suggest that the pro-
cess of “neuromuscular efficiency” – the
ability to quickly recruit motor units – is
possibly trainable. Various studies have
shown that lifters who are more trained
perform 1RMs at slower velocities than
less-trained lifters (3, 4, 5). Some of
these studies have cited neuromuscular
efficiency as the reason for the velocity
difference, but haven’t provided a clear
explanation of the term. That is indeed
a knock on those studies, but check the
references: I’m knocking myself. I just
THESE FINDINGS SUGGEST
THAT THE PROCESS
OF “NEUROMUSCULAR
EFFICIENCY” – THE ABILITY
TO QUICKLY RECRUIT
MOTOR UNITS – IS
POSSIBLY TRAINABLE.
didn’t have a great citation at the time
to make that claim (although I was con-
fident in what I was saying); the current
study provides that citation.
So, how does this information affect
training? General training should im-
prove neuromuscular efficiency in the
early stages of training. The question
then becomes how can we continue to
improve neuromuscular efficiency af-
ter we pass the intermediate stage since
there’s a point of diminishing returns
for training status to produce slower ve-
locities at high intensities (5). The sim-
plest way to improve quickness of motor
unit recruitment is by training heavier.
Assuming that we are all training heavy
enough with normal periodized training,
we can add in additional heavy work by
including semi-heavy singles every once
30

I WOULDN’T BE AFRAID
TO INCLUDE A SINGLE
AROUND A 7-8RPE EITHER
BEFORE OR AFTER YOUR
NORMAL TRAINING DURING
A VOLUME BLOCK.
in a while in an effort to improve neu-
romuscular efficiency. If you notice that
you have trouble grinding out a 1RM,
then including heavy-ish singles once
a week or every other week through-
out the year (not only when peaking)
may be beneficial to practice working
with heavy loads. Therefore, I wouldn’t
be afraid to include a single around a
7-8RPE either before or after your nor-
mal training during a volume block. For
example, if you have 4 sets of 8 @70%, a
single @7-8RPE beforehand will allow
you to get more experience with heavy
loads in an effort to improve the quick-
ness of motor unit recruitment, but it
shouldn’t be too fatiguing that it actu-
ally affects your volume work.
Another practical application is to
incorporate more power training if
your strength has plateaued a bit. We
examined this concept in MASS re-
cently when reviewing a study (2) that
showed some lifters maximize rate of
force development with power training
and some don’t. Essentially, speed work
or explosive training likely isn’t bene-
ficial for everyone, but it is for some.
Therefore, if you’re not great at grind-
ing a 1RM and you’re already including
a bunch of heavy singles, then try some
explosive training between 40-60% of
1RM. It’s possible you could do this at
even heavier loads (i.e. 80%), but ei-
ther way, the RPE should remain low
(i.e. 1-4 RPE or >5 RIR). This strate-
gy seems to increase rate of force de-
velopment in those who are “power-re-
sponders.” I would recommend heavy
singles as your first option to improve
rate of force development, but if neuro-
muscular efficiency still isn’t improving,
then give “power-type” training a shot.
For details on how to incorporate this
strategy, I would strongly recommend
our previous article on the topic and
my video from this month.
Lastly, it should be noted that signif-
icant relationships have been observed
between muscle fiber conduction veloc-
ity and both muscle cross-sectional area
and percentage of type IIx fibers (6). To
be clear, this does not mean that great-
er CSA is a causative factor in conduc-
tion velocity; however, this relationship
means that you cannot rule out some
degree of hypertrophy being important
to maximize rate of torque or force de-
velopment.
31
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
1. Trained lifters have a greater rate of torque development in the early part of a
contraction than untrained individuals. This is related to greater muscle fiber
conduction velocity.
2. Therefore, neuromuscular efficiency seems to increase with training status. Whether
it is a directly trainable process or not remains equivocal; however, these results
do indicate that the ability to recruit motor units quickly does improve with training
experience. There is one training study, however, that suggests otherwise (7).
3. Both muscle size and absolute strength seem to be important for maximizing
neuromuscular efficiency. If you don’t have the ability to grind a heavy weight,
your efficiency may be lacking. Incorporating semi-frequent heavy singles or
some explosive power-type training may be warranted to improve neuromuscular
capabilities.

Next Steps
The next question I’d like to see an-
swered is at what point in a training
career is neuromuscular efficiency max-
imized? In other words, at what relative
strength or what training age do mea-
surable changes in neuromuscular effi-
ciency stop occurring? To answer this
question, a similar design to the present
study could be used and subjects of vari-
ous training ages could be included. For
example, a cohort with no training expe-
rience, a cohort with two years of expe-
rience, and other cohorts with four, six,
eight, and ten years of experience. This
proposed design should be able to de-
termine if a point of diminishing returns
occurs for neuromuscular efficiency.

32
References
1. Del Vecchio A, Negro F, Falla D, Bazzucchi I, Farina D, Felici F. Higher muscle fiber conduction
velocity and early rate of torque development in chronically strength trained individuals. Journal of
Applied Physiology. 2018.
2. Peltonen H, Walker S, Hackney AC, Avela J, Häkkinen K. Increased rate of force development
during periodized maximum strength and power training is highly individual. European journal of
applied physiology. 2018 May 1;118(5):1033-42.
3. Torrejón A, Balsalobre-Fernández C, Haff GG, García-Ramos A. The load-velocity profile differs
more between men and women than between individuals with different strength levels. Sports bio-
mechanics. 2018 Mar 21:1-1.
4. Ormsbee MJ, Carzoli JP, Klemp A, Allman BR, Zourdos MC, Kim JS, Panton LB. Efficacy of the
repetitions in reserve-based rating of perceived exertion for the bench press in experienced and nov-
ice benchers. J. Strength Cond. Res. doi. 2017 Mar 13;10.
5. Zourdos MC, Klemp A, Dolan C, Quiles JM, Schau KA, Jo E, Helms E, Esgro B, Duncan S, Me-
rino SG, Blanco R. Novel resistance training–specific rating of perceived exertion scale measuring
repetitions in reserve. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2016 Jan 1;30(1):267-75.
6. Methenitis S, Karandreas N, Spengos K, Zaras N, Stasinaki AN, Terzis G. Muscle Fiber Conduc-
tion Velocity, Muscle Fiber Composition, and Power Performance. Medicine and science in sports
and exercise. 2016 Sep;48(9):1761-71.
7. Matsunaga, S, Sadoyama, T, Miyata H, Katsuta S. The effects of strength training on muscle fi-
ber conduction velocity of surface action potential. Japanese Journal of Physical Fitness and Sports
Medicine. 1990 Apr 1;39(2):99-105.

33
 Study Reviewed: Resistance Training Volume Enhances Muscle Hypertrophy.
Schoenfeld et al. (2018)

Understanding Volume
BY E RI C HE LMS

A recent study reported that very high volumes were associated with
the greatest hypertrophy when compared to lower volumes. Before you
conclude that this changes everything and double your sets, read this first.

34
 KEY POINTS
1. Trained males were divided into three groups performing one, three, or five sets
per exercise during a three-day-per-week full body training program, resulting in
6-9, 18-27, and 30-45 sets per muscle group (counting isolation and compound
exercises) for both the upper and lower limbs.
2. Subjects performed 8-12 reps per set to failure, increased load when possible
week-to-week, and rested 2 minutes between exercises and 90 seconds between
sets. Similar strength and muscular endurance outcomes were reported between
groups, but hypertrophy tended to increase with volume.
3. Broadly speaking, performing 10-20 sets per muscle group/movement seems to
most consistently result in peak gains in muscle size and strength; however, when
experienced lifters are plateaued and all other factors are optimized, increasing
volume may be an appropriate strategy to make further progress.

T
he authors of the present study
are the first to examine what most
people would consider very high
training volumes in trained lifters (1).
While a prior meta-analysis found that
performing 10+ sets per muscle group
per week resulted in greater hypertrophy
than 1-4 sets or 5-9 sets, “10+” is a very
broad guideline. Thus, examining volume
levels beyond 10 sets per muscle group
per week can help us better understand
the point at which the relationship be-
tween volume and muscular adaptation
changes. To explore this topic, the au-
thors had three groups perform a three-
day-per-week full body program, with
each group performing a different num-
ber of sets per exercise. The groups per-
formed either one, three, or five sets per
exercise, resulting in 6-9, 18-27, and 30-
45 weekly sets per muscle group in the
low-, medium-, and high-volume groups,
respectively. Volume per muscle group
was quantified by simply counting every
set performed in which a given muscle
group contributed to an exercise (isola-
tion or compound). Interestingly, 1RM
bench press and squat and maximum
bench press repetitions at 50% 1RM did
not differ significantly nor meaningfully
between groups after eight weeks. How-
ever, muscle growth, measured via mus-
cle thickness, was significantly greater in
the high- versus low-volume group for
the biceps and quadriceps. Additionally,
while not significant, evidence also tend-
ed to favor a dose-response relationship
between volume and biceps and quad-
riceps hypertrophy (according to Bayes
Factors, which I’ll explain later), show-
ing that the medium-volume group in-
creased muscle thickness more than the
low-volume group, and the high-volume
group increased muscle thickness more

35
than the medium-volume group. These
outcomes have already spurred discussion
in the practical realm, leading the authors
to discuss the findings in further detail.
Therefore, this article will discuss this
study and use the authors’ further com-
mentary to contextualize these results.
Purpose and Research
Questions
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to exam-
ine previously unexplored levels of volume
in trained lifters and to observe chang-
es in strength, muscular endurance, and
muscle mass between groups performing
different levels of training volume.
Hypothesis
The authors hypothesized that there
would be a dose-response relationship
for all outcomes in relation to volume. In
other words, the more sets performed, the
greater the predicted increases in strength,
hypertrophy, and muscular endurance (of
note, a dose-response relationship does
not necessarily mean a linear relation-
ship).
Subjects and Methods
Subjects and Design
Thirty-four resistance trained, healthy
males between the ages of 18-35 com-
pleted this study (height = 175.0 ± 7.9
cm; body mass = 82.5 ± 13.8 kg; age
= 23.8 ± 3.8 years; training experience
= 4.4 ± 3.9 years). To qualify for this
study, participants had to have at least
one year of consistently training at least
three times per week and had to confirm
that they had not used supplements or
drugs known to affect muscular perfor-
mance for at least the prior year. To give
you another metric partially associated
with training experience, the partici-
pants, as a group, had an average bench
press of 93.8kg (~207lb) and an average
squat of 108.9kg (~240lb) at a body-
weight of 82.5kg (~182lb). This means
they benched about 1.14x bodyweight
and squatted about 1.32x bodyweight.
From a strength perspective, this means
the participants were reasonably well-
trained bench pressers, but actually not
very well-trained squatters. Participants
were randomized into a low (n=11;
one set per exercise per day; 6-9 sets
per muscle group per week), medium
(n=12; three sets per exercise, 18-27 sets
per muscle group), or high (n=11; five
sets per exercise, 30-45 sets per muscle
group) volume group and were instruct-
ed to not perform any resistance train-
ing or high-intensity cardio outside of
the study.
Training
The participants trained full body, three
days per week, on non-consecutive days.
36
All sets were taken to momentary mus-
cular failure for 8-12 reps on every set.
All sessions consisted of the back squat,
leg press, leg extension, bench press,
military press, lat pulldown, and cable
row. There were 90 seconds between
sets and two minutes between exercises.
Load was initially set via 10-repetition
maximum (established during pre-test-
ing after 1RM tests) prior to the initi-
ation of training, and load was adjusted
intra-session if fewer than 8 reps were
completed to ensure failure occurred in
the 8-12 rep range. Additionally, load
was progressively increased from week
to week as needed.
Diet
Participants were given a scoop of
protein by the research staff on training
days to better ensure consistent and ad-
equate protein intakes between groups.
Subjects were taught how to weigh and
track foods, and they used MyFitnessPal
for five days to track nutrition during the
first and last weeks of the study. Subjects
were instructed to maintain their nor-
mal eating habits and not consume any
supplements outside of the protein pro-
vided.
Outcome Testing
At pre- and post-study, back squat and
bench press 1RM were tested along with
muscular endurance on the bench press
(max reps at 50% of pre-test 1RM).
Ultrasound was used to obtain muscle
thickness measurements of the biceps,
triceps, vastus lateralis, and rectus fem-
oris at pre- and post-study. The post-
study measurements were taken 48-72
hours after the last training session to let
swelling subside (2).
Quality of Methods
I’ve seen the quality of the methods in
this study heavily critiqued. While I be-
lieve we should always critically evaluate
studies (scientists can always improve
and develop better methods over time),
I think the methods in this study were
sound, as someone who both conducts
and reviews exercise science research.
Thus, I want to point out specific aspects
of the methods which, in my mind, show
that the authors did their due diligence
by avoiding many methodological errors
that would confound the results.
For one, the authors reported very good
reliability statistics for both ultrasound
and strength testing, in terms of both
intraclass correlation coefficients (0.93-
0.998) and standard errors of measure-
ment (0.34-1.09 mm and 2.0-2.4 kg).
Also, unfortunately, in many exercise
studies, nutrition is not addressed at all.
However, the authors made an effort to
control for nutrition as a potential con-
founder. The authors also waited 48-
72 hours after the last training session
before performing post-training ultra-
sound measurements to prevent swell-
ing from confounding the results, which
is often not considered in our field. This
37
was likely adequate to prevent swelling
from muddying the hypertrophy re-
sults (see my citation in the “Outcome
Testing” section), especially consider-
ing the body part frequency and trained
status of the participants (the repeated
bout effect would be in play). Howev-
er, given how high the volumes were, it
might have been even better to have a
taper week where each group performed
½-⅔ their normal volume the week be-
fore testing. This could have let any re-
sidual fatigue subside, which might have
modified the outcomes for strength or
muscular endurance, while also ensuring
swelling had subsided and should have
been adequate to maintain the gains they
made. With that said, the leg extension
volume load improvements (and their
relationship with hypertrophy) – which
I’ll discuss in the interpretation – sug-
gests hypertrophy was indeed the driver
of the muscle thickness changes rather
than swelling. Further contradicting the
idea that swelling drove the hypertro-
phy differences between groups, there
are studies using ultrasound, which did
not specify any extended waiting peri-
od, that don’t show a dose response with
hypertrophy and volume (3); if swelling
had caused the outcomes, this would be
a finding in all studies of this design.
Lastly, I’ve seen the critique that the
ultrasound technician was not blinded
to the groups, which could potential-
ly introduce bias. In a perfect world, I
agree that it’s always ideal to do as much
blinding as possible. However, the par-
ticipants visited the lab 26 times for this
study: twice to do pre- and post-testing,
and 24 times to be trained. If you blind
your ultrasound technician to group as-
signment, this means they can’t be pres-
ent for training, which is over 90% of
the lab visits. In exercise science, where
personnel is limited, this may create an
insurmountable logistical barrier. It’s
worth noting that technicians aren’t
blinded in the vast majority of studies
in our field. So, if a lack of blinding did
create bias, the same bias has occurred
in nearly every other study published
in this area. Personally, when I see this
brought up, it makes me wonder why it’s
being presented as something out of the
norm (not that this shouldn’t change),
when that’s not the case, and why it
hasn’t been mentioned in relation to the
other studies on this topic. Lastly, for
any researchers reading this, it would be
feasible to simply have someone who’s
uninvolved in the study analyze the im-
ages, which would help reduce bias. It
is much easier to train someone to use
a digital caliper on a computer program
than it is to actually use an ultrasound.
Findings
The authors used two different sta-
tistical models to analyze and present
their findings. They used a tradition-
al null-hypothesis testing model called
an ANCOVA (analysis of covariance),
which compares groups while adjust-
38
Table 1 Adjusted and unadjusted differences between groups and significance
Baseline
Pre Mean ± Post Mean ± Unadjusted
Outcome Group Adjusted
SD SD Δ (±SD)
Δ (CI)***
Squat 1RM (kg) 1 104.5 ± 14.2 123.4 ± 12.9 18.9 ± 6.0 18.6 (13.7, 23.4)
3 114.9 ± 26.0 128.5 ± 24.7 13.6 ± 5.4 14.1 (9.5, 18.7)
5 106.6 ± 24.0 126.2 ± 25.0 19.6 ± 10.0 19.4 (14.9, 24.0)
Bench 1RM (kg) 1 93.6 ± 16.1 102.9 ± 15.2 9.3 ± 4.4 9.3 (6.9, 11.9)
3 96.4 ± 21.2 102.1 ± 20.1 5.7 ± 5.8 5.9 (3.4, 8.4)
5 91.1 ± 20.9 97.9 ± 20.0 6.8 ± 2.3 6.6 (4.0, 9.2)
Bench endurance 1 25.1 ± 3.6 28.2 ± 4.6 3.1 ± 3.9 3.1 (0.8, 5.4)
3 23.7 ± 5.2 28.0 ± 5.6 4.3 ± 4.1 4.2 (2.0, 6.4)
5 26.2 ± 4.3 31.0 ± 6.1 4.8 ± 2.9 4.9 (2.6, 7.3)
Biceps thickness (mm) 1 42.6 ± 4.3 43.3 ± 5.1 0.7 ± 2.0 0.7 (-0.4, 1.8)*
3 44.6 ± 5.9 46.7 ± 5.8 2.1 ± 1.6 2.1 (1.1, 3.2)ab
5 41.9 ± 3.6 44.8 ± 4.1 2.9 ± 1.7 2.9 (1.8, 4.0)b
Triceps thickness (mm) 1 47.2 ± 4.5 47.7 ± 4.6 0.6 ± 2.0 0.5 (-1.0, 2.1)
3 48.4 ± 6.2 49.8 ± 6.3 1.4 ± 3.1 1.4 (-0.1, 3.0)
5 47.1 ± 3.5 49.7 ± 4.9 2.6 ± 2.3 2.6 (1.0, 4.1)
Rectus femoris thickness (mm) 1 59.7 ± 6.7 61.7 ± 5.5 2.0 ± 2.6 2.2 (0.3, 4.2)a
3 57.9 ± 8.1 61.0 ± 8.7 3.0 ± 3.1 3.1 (1.0, 5.2)ab
5 54.4 ± 3.4 61.2 ± 4.5 6.8 ± 3.6 6.4 (4.2, 8.6)b
Vastus lateralis thickness (mm) 1 57.5 ± 6.0 60.4 ± 6.3 2.9 ± 1.9 3.1 (1.6, 4.5)a
3 57.9 ± 8.0 62.5 ± 7.0 4.6 ± 2.3 4.9 (3.5, 6.3)ab
5 52.4 ± 6.2 59.6 ± 5.8 7.2 ± 3.0 6.8 (5.2, 8.3)b

*** = When superscript letters are different it indicates a significant (p<0.05) difference between groups. When no
superscripts are present, no significant differences were present, and when superscript letters are the same,
differences between groups are also nonsignificant.

ing for baseline values and also produces
p-values (which MASS readers are likely
familiar with) in addition to a less com-
mon (but no less valid) Bayesian mod-
el. Briefly, Bayesian statistics provide
probabilities of evidential strength that
a value is or is not different than another
value, based on a theorem that mathe-
matically accounts for prior knowledge
on the topic. Its output – rather than be-
ing a binary outcome (e.g. p is either less
than or greater than 0.05) – is an odds
ratio, whereby the evidence is consid-
ered stronger if the odds ratio is larger.
Specifically, a Bayes factor (abbreviated
BF10) of two that favors a higher out-
come in group A versus group B sug-
gests the outcome is twice as likely to
be higher in group A than in group B,
while a Bayes factor of four would mean
four times as likely, and so forth. Bayes
factors are qualitatively described in cat-

39
 Figure 1 Hypertrophy outcomes of individuals within each group

7 7

6
6

Δ Tricep Thickness (mm)

Δ Bicep Thickness (mm)

5
4 4

3
2
a 2 b
1 0
0
-2
-1

-2 -2
-3 1 set 3 sets 5 sets
1 set 3 sets 5 sets
Δ Rectus femoris thickness (mm)

12 14

Δ Vastus lateralis thickness (mm)

10 12

8 10

6 8
c 4
d 6

2 4

0 2

-2 0

-3 -2
1 set 3 sets 5 sets 1 set 3 sets 5 sets

egories much like effect sizes: a BF10 also presented in James Krieger’s (one
of 1-3 is considered “weak” evidence in of the authors) blog in a figure that was
favor of an outcome; a BF10 of 3-20 is submitted but wasn’t included in the fi-
considered “positive” evidence; a BF10 nal, peer-reviewed version of the study.
of 20-150 “strong” evidence; and a BF10 I think this figure is useful, as it shows
of >150 is considered “very strong” evi- each individual’s data point, the baseline,
dence. and the group means in a visually intui-
With that background information tive manner, which I’ve included here as
out of the way, strength, muscular en- Figure 1.
durance, and hypertrophy outcomes are To sum up the results, there were no
presented in Table 1 both as raw and significant nor meaningful differenc-
baseline-adjusted values, with indica- es between groups for either muscular
tions of significance when found. strength or endurance (although I will
The muscle thickness differences were discuss an interesting specific perfor-
mance outcome in the interpretation).

40
However, biceps and both quadriceps
muscle thickness measures increased
more in the high-volume group than the
low-volume group. Further, Bayes fac-
tors indicated “weak” evidence in favor
of the medium-volume group increas-
ing muscle thickness when compared
to the low-volume group for the vastus
lateralis (BF10 = 1.42) and biceps (BF10 =
1.30). Likewise, Bayes factors indicated
weak evidence in favor of the high-vol-
ume group increasing muscle thickness
more than the medium-volume group
in the vastus lateralis (BF10 = 2.25) and
rectus femoris (BF10 = 2.34). While the
mean changes in triceps thickness scaled
with volume, which can been seen when
looking at Figure 1, you can also see how
variable the individual outcomes were,
which prevents any firm conclusions
from being made for this specific mea-
surement site.
Interpretation
This study has resulted in a lot of con-
troversy since publication, and I think
that’s understandable. Most people in
health and fitness want others to be fit
and healthy (shocking, I know). At the
core of the controversy, I think many of
the folks picking apart this study and
looking for holes in its methods, analy-
sis, or discussion are concerned that ev-
eryone seeking hypertrophy is going to
start doing 30-45 sets per muscle group
and get hurt, so they are hoping to find
a reason that this study is bogus. To be
sure, 30-45 sets is a lot of volume, but it’s
also important to point out that this val-
ue counts each set for each muscle group
on a 1:1 basis, regardless of whether the
muscle is directly or indirectly trained.
For example, if I told the average lift-
er to do four sets of lat pulldowns, rows,
cable curls, and DB hammer curls twice
per week, they probably wouldn’t think
that was too crazy (even though, by the
counting method used here, that’s 32
sets for biceps). However, if I told them
to do 32 sets for biceps per week without
preamble, their initial reaction would
probably be a wide-eyed expression until
they understood the counting method. I
do think it’s a fair concern that this study
could lead people to overdo it; however,
it’s also important to remember that no
single study tells you how to train. You
have to put this study into context with
the broader literature, rather than taking
it as the sole study of import in this area,
and subsequently taking the conclusions
right to application.
Secondary to hypertrophy, some of
the most interesting findings in this
study are the dissimilar outcomes be-
tween strength and muscle thickness.
While this may surprise many, it isn’t a
surprising finding to me given just how
specific 1RM strength on a compound
movement is. While strength, like hy-
pertrophy, has a positive relationship
with volume (4), the principle of speci-
ficity is still highly important. Meaning,
41
when trying to improve 1RM strength,
a unit of volume that is not specific to
the strength-test is going to contribute
less than a unit of volume that is specif-
ic. Thus, I’m not that surprised that do-
ing 3, 9, or 15 weekly sets of squats or
bench press in the 8-12 rep range had
similar effects on 1RM squat or bench
press strength, especially when you con-
sider the participants only rested 90 sec-
onds between sets. With this short of a
rest, each subsequent set after the first
set was in a fatigued state, and subse-
quently, often performed with a lighter
load (and, therefore, was increasingly
less specific). Mike covered a study in
MASS showing that the top intensity in
a series of sets likely has a greater impact
on changes in strength than the average
intensity across sets. Also, consulting
other literature using similar repetition
ranges on the same movements, some-
times more sets are associated with sig-
nificant improvements in strength (5),
but sometimes they aren’t (3). Thus, all in
all, these findings aren’t that surprising.
While it’s established that the load on
the bar (above a certain very low thresh-
old) is not that important for hypertro-
phy so long as you train with adequate
effort, the same can’t be said for 1RM
strength, where load is considered a pri-
mary variable of importance (6). On the
other hand, volume does seem to have
an impact on strength development,
but when meta-analyzed, the effects are
trivial to small (4). Also, this was not an
ideal protocol for strength development
(and I don’t think it was designed to be),
and if anything, it highlights the impor-
tance of specificity. I would also venture
a guess that the subjects probably weren’t
previously squatting and bench pressing
three times per week, and regardless of
volume, this alone might have had an ef-
fect on strength, washing out differences
between groups.
With that said, one intriguing bit of
data was presented in James’ blog on a
less specific measure of performance
that shows how hypertrophy can impact
strength. Specifically, he analyzed the
within-group volume load improvement
on the leg extension, comparing the
percentage change from the first week
to the last week of the study. Interest-
ingly, there was a relationship just short
of significance (p = 0.057) between sets
performed and the improvements in leg
extension volume load. The low-volume
group improved their leg extension vol-
ume load by 23.8%, medium-volume by
33%, and high-volume by 54%. While
this could be related to improvements in
interset recovery in groups doing more
sets, he also found a significant correla-
tion between the percentage improve-
ment in vastus lateralis thickness and
the percentage improvement in leg ex-
tension volume load (r = 0.40; p = 0.02)
and a correlation that approached signif-
icance with the improvement in rectus
femoris thickness (r = 0.34; p = 0.075).
This makes sense: When you remove
more of the skill and neurological com-
42
ponents that contribute to strength and
isolate a single muscle group, the impact
of hypertrophy on force development
should be clearer (something Greg has
discussed in MASS previously).
Now, going back to what I said earli-
er, a single study doesn’t tell you what to
do in the gym, and we have to put this
study in context. Thus, I’ll discuss it in
a number of ways including: 1) concep-
tualizing and quantifying volume and
2) how the results compare to other re-
search exploring high-volume training.
Volume as a Theoretical Construct and
Quantification
Ever since this study was published,
I’ve watched people debate whether
progressive tension overload or volume
is the primary driver of hypertrophy.
Conceptually, I don’t think this debate
makes sense. Progressive tension over-
load is the primary mechanism by which
resistance-training induced hypertrophy
occurs (7), while volume is simply the
amount of progressive tension over-
load you are supplying when all else is
held constant. One can’t be opposed to
the other; rather, one is quantifying the
amount of the other. Better questions
might be: How much volume should one
do at different effort levels (proximity
to failure), loads, when using single- or
multi-joint movements, when plateaued,
or at different stages of a lifting career,
and how do drop sets and rest-pause sets
figure into these calculations?
PROGRESSIVE TENSION OVERLOAD
IS THE PRIMARY MECHANISM BY
WHICH RESISTANCE-TRAINING
INDUCED HYPERTROPHY OCCURS,
WHILE VOLUME IS SIMPLY THE
AMOUNT OF PROGRESSIVE
TENSION OVERLOAD YOU ARE
SUPPLYING WHEN ALL ELSE IS
HELD CONSTANT. ONE CAN’T
BE OPPOSED TO THE OTHER;
RATHER, ONE IS QUANTIFYING
THE AMOUNT OF THE OTHER.
While we don’t have all of the answers
to these questions, we have some. In
MASS, we’ve already reviewed research
that established the boundaries of what
would make a set an “effective” dose of
volume for hypertrophy. As covered by
Greg a few issues ago, high-rep sets with
very low loads (< 30% 1RM) when taken
to failure can’t produce enough muscular
stimulus to put them on equal footing
with sets of heavier loads, likely due to
inadequate tension, as failure might oc-
cur more via global versus local muscu-
lar fatigue (8). Likewise, it’s been shown
43
that 3 x 2-4 RM results in less hypertro-
phy than 3 x 8-12 RM, even though the
number of sets is matched (9). Presum-
ably, this is because high-load, low-rep
sets (< 6) simply don’t last long enough
to give enough of a training stimulus to
the fibers being recruited. Collectively,
this body of research culminated in a sys-
tematic review that Mike dove into last
month, in which the authors reviewed
research supporting the notion that any
set of adequate effort in the 6-20 (I’d
venture 6-30) rep range results in a sim-
ilar hypertrophy stimulus as any other
reasonably hard set in that rep range.
Subsequently, the authors concluded
that to count hypertrophy-specific vol-
ume, you can just count the number of
hard sets in this rep range (10).
Another issue that this definition of
volume doesn’t clarify is how we quan-
tify muscle group-specific volume given
the full spectrum of exercises we can use
in training. In research, in order to code
data for analysis, we have a precedent
of counting every set for every muscle
group that contributes to the movement.
Meaning, a row, a pulldown, and a bi-
ceps curl are all counted toward biceps
volume on a 1:1 basis. This was how vol-
ume was counted in the present study
and in a prior meta-analysis (11). How
does it actually work though? That’s
hard to say. There are data showing that
adding single-joint exercises to multi-
joint exercises targeting the same mus-
cle group improves arm size, but it’s a
much smaller difference in hypertrophy
than you might expect and often doesn’t
reach the point of statistical significance
(12, 13), but sometimes does (14). Addi-
tionally, there is a study comparing bicep
curls to lat pulldowns head-to-head on
a set-to-set basis, finding they both pro-
duce similar biceps hypertrophy – albeit
in untrained subjects (15).
I’ve heard many practitioners who I
respect take different approaches to an-
swering the question of what contrib-
utes to volume of a specific muscle group.
Some have suggested only counting sets
toward the prime movers (although you
can debate what defines a prime mover),
while others suggest counting second-
ary muscle groups as getting half or one
third of a set, etc. Greg suggested that
how a movement might “count” toward
a muscle group’s volume is likely based
on the range of motion of the movement
for a given joint and its associated mus-
cles. I think this makes sense, and this
supposition is at least partially support-
ed by the lat pulldown versus biceps curl
study I mentioned in the last paragraph
(15), as a full range of motion pulldown
takes you through a full range of elbow
flexion. Perhaps dips, a full range of
motion overhead press, and close-grip
bench press can be counted fully toward
triceps volume just like a triceps push-
down, while a powerlifting-style bench
press cannot? Perhaps lat pulldowns and
chins can be counted fully toward biceps
volume just like a curl, while a bent-
44
Table 2 Greatest gains associated with number of weekly sets in high volume studies
Population and
Study Low volume Med volume High volume Outcome
length

45 men, 4.4 ± 3.9 of greater hypertrophy with higher volume,

Schoenfeld - 6-9 sets per 18-27 sets per 30-45 sets per
years experience,
present study (1) muscle group# muscle group muscle group*^
8 weeks comparing high to low. Leg extension

quadriceps hypertrophy.
51 men aged
1923 total reps 2481 total reps 3030 total reps
16.6 ± 1.5 years,
Gonzalez-Badillo of snatch, C&J, of snatch, C&J, of snatch, C&J,
3.7 ± 0.7 years
(20) squats, and squats, and squats, and snatch 1RM in med vs low, and approached
experience,
derivatives derivatives# derivatives
10 weeks

27 men, 1-4 years 6-14 sets per 12-28 sets per Triceps CSA % change greatest in med
3-7 sets per
Ostrowski (3) experience, 10 muscle group* muscle group^ and high (2.3%, 4.7%, 4.8%). Quad CSA
muscle group#
weeks (14 for triceps) (12 for quads) % change was greatest in high (6.7%, 5%,
13.1%).

18 men, untrained, 3-6 sets per 9-18 sets per

Paulsen (17) NA
6 weeks muscle group muscle group#
high vs low.
Upper body 5RM mostly scaled with
volume, similar lower body 5RM among
48 military men, 3-6 sets per 9-18 sets per 15-30 sets per
groups. Lower and upper 20RM scaled with
Radaelli (16) only callisthenics muscle group muscle group muscle group
volume. Biceps muscle thickness scaled with
history, 6 months (9 for triceps) (27 for triceps) (45 for triceps)*^
volume only.
49 men, min 1
Heaselgrave (21) year experience, 9 sets for biceps 18 sets for biceps* 27 sets for biceps# high vs baseline. Trend for greatest muscle
6 weeks thickness increase in med.
12 men, min 1
9-18 sets per 14-28 sets per
Hackett (23) year experience, NA
muscle group *^# muscle group
12 weeks lean mass vs baseline in higher.
19 men, min 1
9-18 sets per 14-28 sets per
Amirthalingam (22) year experience, NA
muscle group*^# muscle group and greater trunk lean mass in lower volume.
6 weeks
16 men, min 1
9-12 sets per 27-36 sets per
Baker (19) year experience, NA
muscle group# muscle group between groups.
8 weeks

strength in lower body, but not upper in high

21 men, untrained, 3-6 sets per 9-18 sets per
Rønnestad (18) NA
11 weeks muscle group muscle group*^#
high vs low, trend for all other muscle groups
being greater as well.

For each study, the lowest volume group where a meaningful outcome occured is marked:
* = Best for upper body hypertrophy; ^ = Best for lower body hypertrophy; # = Best for muscular performance

over row cannot? Perhaps full range of my best crack in my book’s second edi-
motion squats, leg presses, and leg ex- tion). However, we mustn't think that
tensions all count similarly to quad hy- just because a theoretical model for
pertrophy? You could certainly make a counting the volume of different move-
system informed by our understanding ments exists and is convenient that it
of biomechanics in an effort to quantify therefore must be correct. We have to
muscle-group volume based on exercise accept that we simply don't know and
selection (hell, I will probably give it that not everything can be quantified at

45
 Figure 2 Inverted U relationship with volume and gains
End of dose-response,
beginning of plateau
Gains
Volume
this stage.
Research Exploring High Volumes
One study never tells you everything.
Developing science-based conclusions,
especially in exercise science where we
never have huge studies with a ton of
funding, requires the consideration of the
existing literature on a given topic. Thus,
the present study must be considered as
a data point alongside other studies that
explore “higher volume” training. But
what defines “higher volume”? For one,
the goal. MASS readers are interested in
optimizing strength and/or hypertrophy.
Fortunately, two recent meta-analyses
have helped us quantify the upper lim-
its of what we currently know regarding
volume’s impact on strength and hyper-
trophy. An analysis by Ralston and col-
End of plateau, beginning
of decreased progress rate
End of decreased progress,
beginning of regression
leagues found that 5-12+ sets per week
seemed to optimize strength gains (3),
while Schoenfeld and colleagues found
that 10+ sets per week seemed to opti-
mize hypertrophy (11). Both reported
a graded dose response (that does not
mean a linear dose-response, mind you)
between volume and gains. However, in
both meta-analyses, the authors pointed
out the limitation of not having enough
data to make truly conclusive recom-
mendations, leaving the door open that
perhaps even higher volumes could con-
tinue the trend.
Thus, in Table 2, I’ve listed the out-
comes of all the studies I’m aware of
that assessed strength and hypertrophy
where one or more groups utilized week-
ly volumes of training beyond the upper
limits of what has been observed in the
46

I THINK ~10-20 SETS PER
MUSCLE GROUP/MOVEMENT
IS PROBABLY WHERE THE
“OPTIMAL VOLUME” IS
FOR MOST PEOPLE (E.G.
WHAT YOU WOULD START
WITH IF YOU WERE TO
WRITE A PROGRAM WITH
NO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE
ABOUT SOMEONE).
aforementioned meta-analyses. For each
study, I’ve noted the lowest volume at
which the highest meaningful (not nec-
essarily statistically significant) increas-
es in hypertrophy or strength occurred.
When assessing these studies, you’ll see
a few different outcomes: greater gains
associated with greater volumes (1, 16,
17, 18), similar rates of gains in lower
and higher volume even though more
sets are performed in a higher volume
group (5, 19), a slower rate of muscle or
strength gain (but a gain nonetheless) as
volume is increased past a certain point
(20, 21), no meaningful gains occurring
relative to baseline when volume is in-
creased past a certain point (22), or an
actual regression in gains relative to
baseline when volume is increased past
a certain point (23). While these might
seem like different outcomes, they all
paint different parts of the same pic-
ture, just from the perspective of differ-
ent populations (e.g. training ages) and
different points along the volume spec-
trum. In aggregate, we can see that in-
creasing volume initially results in faster
gains. Then, you get to a point where no
additional progress is made as you add
sets. If you continue to add sets, prog-
ress slows. And eventually, if you keep
adding sets, you may plateau or actually
regress. This “inverted U” (Figure 2) is
pretty much the way all adaptations to
stress occur in the body, and you could
argue it is a core principle of biology.
To give the semblance of guidelines,
we can do apples-to-apples compar-
isons by counting the number of sets
per muscle group the same way as was
done in the present study to see where
the volume thresholds often lie. For ex-
ample, Ostrowski observed non-signifi-
cant differences between groups, but 2.3,
4.7, and 4.8% increases in triceps muscle
thickness when comparing low, medium,
and high volumes, with 14 sets per week
causing about as much growth as 28 sets
per week. In the quadriceps, however,
6.7, 5.0, and 13.1% increases in muscle
thickness occurred in the low, medium,
and high groups, respectively, but the
high-volume group only performed 12
47
sets (3). Paulsen found that 9-18 sets
outperformed 3-6 sets for strength (17),
and Baker found that 27-36 sets was
no better than 9-12 (19). Heaselgrave
reported the most meaningful biceps
hypertrophy in a group performing 18
versus 27 and 9 weekly sets of combined
biceps work – rows, curls, and lat pull-
downs (21). Rønnestad reported great-
er strength and hypertrophy in a group
performing 9-18 sets compared to 3-6
(18). As covered previously by Mike in
his article on the first “German Volume
Training” study, and in his brief review
of the follow-up, 14-28 sets per muscle
group resulted in poorer hypertrophy
and strength compared to 9-18 (22, 23).
In my assessment, this paints a picture
that there is a wide range of individual
responses to volume. These differences,
since they are always observed in the
short term (studies typically last 6-12
weeks), could be driven by the previ-
ous program someone was doing and
also by their prior training experience.
When you have a reasonably low min-
imum training experience and strength
cut off in a study, like bench pressing
at least bodyweight and at least 1 year
of experience (common metrics), you
will get participants from broad train-
ing backgrounds (notice that the stan-
dard deviation is nearly the same as the
mean for the training age in the present
study). Given that fact and based on the
best data we have, I think ~10-20 sets
per muscle group/movement (which is a
broad range) is probably where the “op-
timal volume” is for most people (e.g.
what you would start with if you were to
write a program with no prior knowledge
about someone). In the two studies that
demonstrated a higher optimal volume –
the present study (1) and Radaelli (16) –
it’s important to point out that they have
some unique facets. In Radaelli, while
the subjects were “untrained,” they were
also young, fit, Navy men with a calis-
thenics background, confined to a ship
with regular sleeping and eating sched-
ules. Probably more importantly, it was a
6-month study, while every other study
was 6-12 weeks; meaning, the subjects
had more time to adapt to the higher
volumes (16). In the present study by
Schoenfeld (1), the subjects were among
the more trained out of all the studies
I’ve assessed. Comparing them to the
first German Volume Training study
(22), where high volume led to smaller
gains than lower volume, Schoenfeld’s
subjects were on average 6.5kg (~14lb)
heavier despite being 5cm (~2in) short-
er and could bench press 19kg (~42lb)
more. Thus, it may be that factors such as
the recovery environment and training
experience should be considered before
very high-volume training is undertak-
en.
Next Steps
At its core, I didn’t find the outcomes of
this study that surprising, simply based
48
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
1. Remember that this was an eight-week, test-of-concept study, not a dictate of how
to train. My anecdotal experience as a coach and the majority of research would
suggest that ~10-20 sets per muscle group/movement is a much more appropriate
beginning range to program for hypertrophy and strength. Sometimes, higher
volumes actually result in worse outcomes.
2. Of note, if you look at Figure 1, you can see the number of negative or non-responders
decreased with increasing volume – also a finding in endurance training, by the way
(24). This indicates that perhaps for those who really struggle to make gains, more
volume might be a consideration. However, volume should be increased only if a
plateau has truly occurred, not simply because of a lack of satisfaction with a rate
of progress you perceive as too slow.
3. With that said, increasing volume should be your final option when addressing a
plateau after ensuring nutrition, sleep, life stress, proximity to failure, technique,
frequency, and adherence are all taken care of. If all of those boxes are ticked,
and the only stone left unturned is an increase in volume, then you can consider a
higher volume approach. For hypertrophy, this may be best delivered via muscle-
group specialization, which I discuss in this month’s video.

on what we know about the drivers of hy-
pertrophy and strength. Rather than the
outcomes themselves, the magnitude of
volumes performed was what surprised
me. Thus, I think interesting future re-
search might take the angle of trying to
determine what individual factors might
predict an appropriate volume. I think
training age is a big player, but perhaps
a test of set-to-set strength-endurance
(how many reps do you “lose” at a fixed
load across multiple sets when training
to failure in a standardized fashion) or
some other biological or performance
marker could be developed as a screen-
ing tool to assess appropriate volumes?
Another aspect of this research I’m in-
terested in is the conversion of hypertro-
phy to 1RM strength. I’d love to know
what would happen if you tacked on a
low- to moderate-volume strength pro-
gram with longer rest periods, less ex-
ercises, and higher load, lower rep work
on bench press and squat to the end of
this protocol. Would the highest volume
group that grew the most also end up
transferring that hypertrophy into great-
er 1RM strength compared to the low-
er volume groups? I don’t know, but I’d
love to find out. Lastly, I think a study
specifically examining joint pain, subjec-
tive ratings of motivation, desire to train,
number of dropouts, injuries, and other
potential over-use variables in relation to
volume is an absolute necessity before we
even consider very high-volume training

49
(such as the protocol used in this study)
in the real world. It’s very possible that
high volumes could prove superior over
time periods common among studies. In
the real world, though, you may end up
with a tortoise versus the hare scenario
in which a more conservative approach
that keeps you from being injured even-
tually proves superior when compared to
a higher volume approach.

50
References
1. Schoenfeld, B.J., et al., Resistance Training Volume Enhances Muscle Hypertrophy. Med Sci Sports
Exerc, 2018.
2. Ogasawara, R., et al., Time course for arm and chest muscle thickness changes following bench press
training. Interventional Medicine & Applied Science, 2012. 4(4): p. 217-220.
3. Ostrowski, K.J., et al., The Effect of Weight Training Volume on Hormonal Output and Muscular
Size and Function. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 1997. 11(3): p. 148-154.
4. Ralston, G.W., et al., The Effect of Weekly Set Volume on Strength Gain: A Meta-Analysis. Sports
Med, 2017. 47(12): p. 2585-2601.
5. Robbins, D.W., P.W. Marshall, and M. McEwen, The effect of training volume on lower-body
strength. J Strength Cond Res, 2012. 26(1): p. 34-9.
6. Schoenfeld, B.J., et al., Strength and hypertrophy adaptations between low- versus high-load resis-
tance training: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res, 2017.
7. Goldberg, A.L., et al., Mechanism of work-induced hypertrophy of skeletal muscle. Medicine and
Science in Sports, 1975. 7(3): p. 185-98.
8. Lasevicius, T., et al., Effects of different intensities of resistance training with equated volume load
on muscle strength and hypertrophy. Eur J Sport Sci, 2018. 18(6): p. 772-780.
9. Schoenfeld, B.J., et al., Differential Effects of Heavy Versus Moderate Loads on Measures of Strength
and Hypertrophy in Resistance-Trained Men. J Sports Sci Med, 2016. 15(4): p. 715-722.
10. Baz-Valle, E., M. Fontes-Villalba, and J. Santos-Concejero, Total Number of Sets as a Training Vol-
ume Quantification Method for Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review. J Strength Cond Res,
2018.
11. Schoenfeld, B.J., D. Ogborn, and J.W. Krieger, Dose-response relationship between weekly resis-
tance training volume and increases in muscle mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sports
Sci, 2017. 35(11): p. 1073-1082.
12. Gentil, P., et al., Effect of adding single-joint exercises to a multi-joint exercise resistance-training
program on strength and hypertrophy in untrained subjects. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab, 2013. 38(3):
p. 341-4.
13. de Franca, H.S., et al., The effects of adding single-joint exercises to a multi-joint exercise resistance
training program on upper body muscle strength and size in trained men. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab,
2015. 40(8): p. 822-6.
14. Barbalho, M., et al., Influence of Adding Single-Joint Exercise to a Multijoint Resistance Training
Program in Untrained Young Women. J Strength Cond Res, 2018.
15. Gentil, P., S. Soares, and M. Bottaro, Single vs. Multi-Joint Resistance Exercises: Effects on Muscle
Strength and Hypertrophy. Asian J Sports Med, 2015. 6(2): p. e24057.
16. Radaelli, R., et al., Dose-response of 1, 3, and 5 sets of resistance exercise on strength, local muscular
endurance, and hypertrophy. J Strength Cond Res, 2015. 29(5): p. 1349-58.
17. Paulsen, G., D. Myklestad, and T. Raastad, The influence of volume of exercise on early adaptations
to strength training. J Strength Cond Res, 2003. 17(1): p. 115-20.

51
18. Ronnestad, B.R., et al., Dissimilar effects of one- and three-set strength training on strength and
muscle mass gains in upper and lower body in untrained subjects. J Strength Cond Res, 2007. 21(1):
p. 157-63.
19. Baker, J.S., et al., Strength and Body Composition Changes in Recreationally Strength-Trained
Individuals: Comparison of One versus Three Sets Resistance-Training Programmes. BioMed Re-
search International, 2013. 2013: p. 615901.
20. Gonzalez-Badillo, J.J., et al., Moderate resistance training volume produces more favorable strength
gains than high or low volumes during a short-term training cycle. J Strength Cond Res, 2005. 19(3):
p. 689-97.
21. Heaselgrave, S.R., et al., Dose-Response of Weekly Resistance Training Volume and Frequency on
Muscular Adaptations in Trained Males. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Perfor-
mance, 2018: p. 1-28.
22. Amirthalingam, T., et al., Effects of a Modified German Volume Training Program on Muscular
Hypertrophy and Strength. J Strength Cond Res, 2017. 31(11): p. 3109-3119.
23. Hackett, D., et al., Effects of a 12-Week Modified German Volume Training Program on Muscle
Strength and Hypertrophy—A Pilot Study. Sports, 2018. 6(1): p. 7.
24. Montero, D. and C. Lundby, Refuting the myth of non-response to exercise training: ‘non-respond-
ers’ do respond to higher dose of training. The Journal of Physiology, 2017. 595(11): p. 3377-3387.

52
Study Reviewed: Strongman Log Push Press: The Effect Log Diameter has on
Force-Time Characteristics. Renals et al. (2018)

Log Press is a Grind,

Even for the Experts
BY G RE G NUC KO LS

There haven’t been many studies on overhead pressing exercises.

A recent study compared barbell push press to log push press in
competitive strongmen, finding that log press allows you to use the
same loads, but with slower speeds.

53
 KEY POINTS
1. In this sample of competitive strongmen, the athletes could log press as much as
they could push press with a barbell.
2. Even with the same load, however, force, velocity, and power were lower with log
push press than barbell push press.
3. If you aim to compete in strongman, you should practice log press until you
can log press about as much as you push press. However, if you don’t aim to
compete in strongman, barbell push press seems to be the better option.

A Purpose and Research

mong the compound exercises that
most lifters care about, overhead
pressing gets the least love in the Questions
research. So, when the presently reviewed
study was published, I knew I had to tackle Purpose
it this month, since it compares the over- The purpose of this study was to com-
head pressing exercise that I personally pare the force-time characteristics of bar-
think is best (barbell push press) to the bell push press, push press with a small log,
overhead pressing exercise I personally en- and push press with a large log.
joy the most (log push press).
The athletes in this study were competi- Research Questions
tive strongmen who could, on average, push Would choice of pressing implement af-
press the same amount of weight with both fect push press impulse, force, power, dis-
a log and a barbell. The athletes completed placement, and phase length?
three reps with 65% of their 1RM using
a barbell, a small log, and a large log. The Hypotheses
researchers examined average force output,
It was hypothesized that impulse, mean
velocity, power, and impulse during the dip
force, and mean power would be greater
phase and the propulsive phase of the push
with barbell push press than log push press,
press with all three implements. Average
but that there would be no differences be-
force, power, velocity, and impulse were all
tween different sized logs. It was also hy-
higher with barbell push press than with
pothesized that displacement and lift du-
either of the logs, and force, power, velocity,
ration would be the same with all pressing
and impulse tended to be (non-significant-
implements.
ly) higher with the small log than with the
large log.

54
Table 1 Mean (±SD) subject physical characteristics and training experience
Demographic and training experience
Age (years)
Height (cm)
Mass (kg)
Weight (N)
Resistance training experience (years)
Strongman training experience (years)
Number of sessions (per week)
Average training time per session (minutes)
Log push press 1RM (kg)
Barbell push press 1RM (kg)
Barbell push press 65% 1RM (kg)
Barbell push press 1RM relative to body mass
Squat 1RM (kg)
Squat 1RM relative to body mass
Subjects and Methods
Subjects
The subjects were 10 strongman com-
petitors. They had an average of 9.7
years of lifting experience and 4.45
years of strongman training experience.
Their average push press was approxi-
mately 145kg (~320lb) with both a bar-
bell and a log. Further details about the
participants can be seen in Table 1.
Experimental Methods
The subjects performed push press
from the rack (i.e. they didn’t have to
clean the implements before the press)
with all three implements, standing on
Mean ± SD
29.80 ± 3.68
183.52 ± 6.31
116.04 ± 16.88
1138.35 ± 165.55
9.70 ± 5.70
4.45 ± 2.61
4.30 ± 0.95
99 ± 20.25
145.45 ± 10.29
145.70 ± 9.63
94.71 ± 6.26
1.28 ± 0.22
244.50 ± 20.20
2.10 ± 0.30
force plates to measure force-time vari-
ables. The load used was 65% of their
max barbell push press. They performed
3 sets of 1 rep with a barbell, small log
(250mm diameter; 9.8 inches), and
large log (620mm diameter; 24.4 inch-
es) in a randomized order. The athletes
were not allowed to use a jerk tech-
nique. In a push press, you use your legs
to assist you in driving the bar upward
at the start of the press and finish the
lift solely with your upper body, but you
don’t re-bend your legs after the initial
dip. In a jerk, on the other hand, you
use your legs to assist you in driving the
bar upward, and you also drop under
the bar (in either a split jerk or squat
jerk position), catching it with your
55
elbows locked out. The athletes in this
study were only allowed to use the push
press technique. THE SHORTENED RANGE OF
Measures MOTION OF A LOG PRESS
The researchers measured impulse HELPS TO COMPENSATE
(force multiplied by time), average ve-
locity, average force, and average pow- FOR A SLOWER, GRIND-
er during each phase of the push press.
The lift was split into three phases: the IER PRESSING MOTION.
dip (from the initiation of the lift un-
til the bar started moving upward), the
braking phase (from the point of max- the logs, and there weren’t significant
imum downward velocity to the point differences between the two logs for
when the bar started moving upward), any variable measured. However, there
and the propulsive phase (when the bar were non-significant trends for many
was moving upward during the actual of these variables to be greater with
press). the small log than the large log, so
mean differences tended to show the
largest values when using a barbell,
Findings the smallest values when using the
Braking impulse, average braking large log, and middle-of-the-road val-
force, average braking velocity, average ues when using the small log (with the
braking power, propulsive impulse, av- small log values being slightly closer
erage propulsive force, average propul- to the large log values than the barbell
sive velocity, average propulsive power, values). Propulsion phase duration, dip
dip displacement, and propulsion dis- phase duration, and total lift duration
placement were all significantly great- didn’t significantly differ between im-
er with the barbell than with either of plements.

Table 2 Mean (±SD) push press braking parameters

Barbell Small log Big log

Braking impulse (N·s) 130.50 ± 27.29*† 116.05 ± 28.73 106.04 ± 27.83

Braking force (N) 775.38 ± 316.85 † 680.13 ± 262.43 625.12 ± 251.90
Braking velocity (m·s-1) -0.40 ± 0.05* † -0.36 ± 0.06 -0.33 ± 0.06
Braking power (W) -1087.34 ± 283.43* † -946.26 ± 280.97 -854.09 ± 275.88

* = Significant difference between barbell and small log (p<0.05)

† = Significant difference between barbell and big log (p<0.05)

56
 This was a simple study with simple
findings, but I thought it was worth re-
BASED ON THE RESULTS viewing simply because there’s so little
research on overhead pressing. There’s
OF THIS STUDY, I THINK reams of research about the squat and
bench press and a reasonable amount of
BARBELL PUSH PRESS research about the deadlift, but overhead
pressing tends to get the short end of
WOULD BE A BETTER the stick, at least among the core com-
OPTION FOR MOST LIFTERS pound exercises most lifters care about.
If you’re interested in the research that
WHO AREN’T TRAINING TO we do have on overhead pressing, check
the reference list of this article; all of the
COMPETE IN STRONGMAN. major studies will be linked.
The finding that bar displacement dif-
fered between implements isn’t too sur-
prising. Since the handles of a log are
located in the middle of the log, range
Interpretation of motion should decrease by approxi-
The results of this study were pretty mately the radius of the bar. If a log has
straightforward once you strip away the an 18-inch diameter, you’d expect range
jargon. Lift duration didn’t differ, but of motion to be approximately 9 inch-
displacement, power, force, impulse, and es shorter than it would be for a barbell
velocity did. Thus, the lifters used a larg- push press.
er dip and had a longer press when using However, it is interesting that push
a barbell, but accomplished the lift just press and log press 1RMs were similar,
as fast, meaning they applied more force in spite of lower average force, power, ve-
to the barbell and moved it faster than locity, and impulse during the log press.
they moved the logs. This tells us that the shortened range of

Table 3 Mean (±SD) push press propulsion parameters

Barbell Small log Big log

Propulsive impulse (N·s) 293.08 ± 40.04*† 254.89 ± 38.79 241.19 ± 28.67

Propulsive force (N) 3399.02 ± 492.02*† 3232.74 ± 356.73 3131.29 ± 362.65
Propulsive velocity (m·s-1) 0.74 ± 0.07*† 0.64 ± 0.07 0.62 ± 0.06
Propulsive power (W) 2469.00 ± 481.85*† 2040.56 ± 376.70 1896.64 ± 295.12

* = Significant difference between barbell and small log (p<0.05)

† = Significant difference between barbell and big log (p<0.05)

57
motion of a log press helps to compen-
sate for a slower, grind-ier pressing mo-
tion. The athletes in this study didn’t dip YOUR LOG PRESS STRENGTH
quite as far before initiating the press
when using a log, which may contribute
CAN (AND PROBABLY
to the lower velocity and power output.
If you’ve ever done heavy log presses and
SHOULD) BE COMPARABLE
heavy barbell push presses, this shouldn’t TO YOUR BARBELL PUSH
come as a surprise. With a push press,
the bar can rest in a fully supported rack PRESS STRENGTH.
position when you dip, which allows you
to dip a bit lower and generate a lot of
power as you drive upward. With a log
are a bit safer as well, since the move-
press, on the other hand, the rack posi-
ment is a bit more controlled.
tion is pretty awkward, and you have to
dip a bit more gingerly so that the log On the flip side, this study also pro-
doesn’t start to fall forward or crumple vides us with good information for
you backward. strongman competitors. The kinetic dif-
ferences show us that barbell push press
As strongman gets more mainstream,
and log press are meaningfully different
log pressing is getting more popular.
movements and that log press proba-
However, based on the results of this
bly becomes increasingly difficult as log
study, I think barbell push press would
size increases. We also see that, in these
be a better option for most lifters who
highly trained strongmen, they could log
aren’t training to compete in strongman.
press as much as they could push press
Barbell push presses allow for a slightly
(which would be highly uncommon for
longer range of motion and higher force
non-strongmen). If you aim to compete
and power output with the same load;
in strongman, it would behoove you to
though this study didn’t quantify injury
include the log press in your training
risk, I’d assume that barbell push presses

Table 4 Displacement and time parameters of push press

Barbell Small log Big log

Dip displacement (m) -0.17 ± 0.04*† -0.14 ± 0.03 -0.13 ± 0.02

Propulsion displacement (m) 0.17 ± 0.03*† 0.14 ± 0.02 0.14 ± 0.02
Propulsion duration (s) 0.22 ± 0.03*† 0.22 ± 0.02 0.22 ± 0.02
Total duration (s) 0.54 ± 0.47*† 0.67 ± 0.06 0.64 ± 0.07

* = Significant difference between barbell and small log (p<0.05)

† = Significant difference between barbell and big log (p<0.05)

58
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
If you aim to compete in strongman, you absolutely need to practice log press, and
you should expect the reps to move a bit slower than barbell push press. However, if
you don’t plan on competing in strongman, barbell push press seems to be the better
option.

(and not just hope that your log press

strength goes up as your overall pressing
strength goes up), especially if you hav-
en’t yet mastered the movement. Your log
press strength can (and probably should)
be comparable to your barbell push press
strength; if it’s not, you should spend
some time hammering log press tech-
nique until your log press numbers catch
up to your barbell push press numbers,
since your performance is probably bot-
tlenecked moreso by technique than
strength.

Next Steps
Several studies have now investigated
the kinetics (force, power, etc.) of over-
head pressing, but I haven’t yet seen a
good kinematic (joint angles, bar path,
etc.) analysis of overhead pressing. Just
for the sake of thoroughly describing
and characterizing the lift, that would be
an important contribution to the litera-
ture. A study comparing overhead press
kinematics of expert and novice press-
ers would also help coaches objectively
critique their athletes’ overhead pressing
technique.

59
References
1. Renals L, Lake J, Keogh J, Austin K. Strongman Log Push Press: The Effect Log Diameter has on
Force-Time Characteristics. J Strength Cond Res. 2018 Jul 26.
2. Shinkle J, Nesser TW, Demchak TJ, McMannus DM. Effect of core strength on the measure of
power in the extremities. J Strength Cond Res. 2012 Feb;26(2):373-80.
3. Dicus JR, Holmstrup ME, Shuler KT, Rice TT, Raybuck SD, Siddons CA. Stability of Resistance
Training Implement alters EMG Activity during the Overhead Press. Int J Exerc Sci. 2018 Jun
1;11(1):708-716.
4. Williams MR Jr, Hendricks DS, Dannen MJ, Arnold AM, Lawrence MA. Activity of Shoulder Sta-
bilizers and Prime Movers During an Unstable Overhead Press. J Strength Cond Res. 2018 Jun 8.
5. Saeterbakken AH, Fimland MS. Effects of body position and loading modality on muscle activity
and strength in shoulder presses. J Strength Cond Res. 2013 Jul;27(7):1824-31.
6. Kalb JS, Hunter GR. Weight training economy as a function of intensity of the squat and overhead
press exercise. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 1991 Jun;31(2):154-60.
7. Uribe BP, Coburn JW, Brown LE, Judelson DA, Khamoui AV, Nguyen D. Muscle activation when
performing the chest press and shoulder press on a stable bench vs. a Swiss ball. J Strength Cond
Res. 2010 Apr;24(4):1028-33.
8. Ichihashi N, Ibuki S, Otsuka N, Takashima S, Matsumura A. Kinematic characteristics of the scap-
ula and clavicle during military press exercise and shoulder flexion. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014
May;23(5):649-57.
9. Büll ML, Vitti M, Freitas V, Rosa GJ. Electromyographic validation of the trapezius and serratus
anterior muscles in military press exercises with middle grip. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol. 2001
Jul-Aug;41(5):263-8.
10. Lake JP, Mundy PD, Comfort P. Power and impulse applied during push press exercise. J Strength
Cond Res. 2014 Sep;28(9):2552-9.
11. Grabe SA, Widule CJ. Comparative Biomechanics of the Jerk in Olympic Weightlifting. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 1988; 59:1, 1-8.
12. McGill SM, McDermott A, Fenwick CM. Comparison of different strongman events: trunk muscle
activation and lumbar spine motion, load, and stiffness. J Strength Cond Res. 2009 Jul;23(4):1148-
61.
13. Paoli A, Marcolin G, Petrone N. Influence of different ranges of motion on selective recruitment
of shoulder muscles in the sitting military press: an electromyographic study. J Strength Cond Res.
2010 Jun;24(6):1578-83.
14. Winwood PW, Cronin JB, Posthumus LR, Finlayson SJ, Gill ND, Keogh JW. Strongman vs. tradi-
tional resistance training effects on muscular function and performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2015
Feb;29(2):429-39.
15. Winwood PW, Cronin JB, Brown S, Keogh JW. A biomechanical analysis of the strongman log lift
and comparison with weightlifting’s clean and jerk. Dissertation, Bond University. 2016.

60
 Study Reviewed: Reduced Volume “Daily Max” Training Compared to Higher
Volume Periodized Training in Powerlifters Preparing for Competition – A Pilot Study.
Androulakis-Korakakis et al. (2018)

New Data Makes Cases Both For

and Against 1RM-Type Training
BY MIC HAE L C . ZO URD O S

Data have shown that maxing out every day or just a few times a week
substantially boosts strength, but does it work as well as typical periodized
training? This study compares just maxing a few times per week to
periodized training in powerlifters preparing for a competition.

61
 KEY POINTS
1. This paper examined the influence of typical multi-set periodized training and 1RM
training (i.e. maxing 1-3 times per week) in competitive powerlifters preparing for
a meet. The study lasted 11 weeks, and the researchers measured squat, bench
press, and deadlift strength.
2. Both protocols had varying effects, with some lifters improving performance on
competition day and some lifters underperforming compared to pre-testing.
3. Frequent maxing or 1RM-type training can be effective; however, research is still in
its infancy. Thus, at this point in time, it would be inappropriate to recommend it as
a standalone training strategy. Further, this study only had eight subjects, making
it difficult to make between-group comparisons.

D
aily one-repetition maximum
(1RM) training is the stuff of
legend. Does it really work? Did
lifters really survive this? The first study
to truly examine this concept was pub-
lished just two years ago (2), and while it
showed promise, it was only a case series
with three participants. As I discussed in
a previous MASS video – which I would
recommend watching before moving for-
ward with this article – daily 1RM train-
ing is clearly effective; however, many
questions remain, and one should be
cautious before embarking on that jour-
ney. Among the remaining questions are:
1) Does 1RM training have to be every
single day? and 2) Does it actually out-
perform typical periodized training with
higher volumes?
Last year, Buckner et al (3) conducted
an eight-week study comparing twice-
per-week 1RM training to a program
involving 4 sets of 8-12 reps twice per
week on the chest press and leg extension
in untrained individuals. Both groups in
this study experienced similar strength
gains. However, these data in untrained
individuals using machine-based training
is not as applicable as the original dai-
ly 1RM training study on the squat in
competitive lifters. The current study (1)
compared 1RM training a few times per
week (1-3 times per week depending on
the specific lift) on all three power lifts
against traditional periodized training
over 10 weeks in Greek powerlifters. The
sample size (1RM group, n=5; periodized
group, n=3) was quite low, and of the
three subjects in the periodized group,
two of them increased their powerlifting
total, while the other lifter maintained his
total. Out of the five subjects in the 1RM
group, four of them increased their total
from pre-testing to the peak point for
each lift; however, from pre- to post-test-
ing, three subjects in the 1RM group ac-
tually decreased their powerlifting total.
I believe the decreases in total were not

62
Table 1 Subject characteristics
Body Mass
Age (years) Height (cm)
(kg)
27 ± 6 90.5 ± 16.7 178.9 ± 6.2
Data are Mean ± SD
Subject characteristics from Androulakis-Korakakis et al. 2018 (1)
due to lost strength, but rather a func-
tion of the post-testing being conducted
at an actual competition (more on that
later). In general, I’m not sure how much
new knowledge this study contributes to
the literature; however, it does illustrate
that in the short term, trained lifters can
maintain strength by simply performing a
near max a few times per week. However,
does maxing a few times per week work
as well as maxing every day? How would
this play out in the long term compared
to typical periodized training? Lastly, if
you were to perform 1RM training every
day, could you really do it for all three lifts
at the same time? In addition to inter-
preting the present data, this article will
also take a stab at those questions.
Purpose and Research
Questions
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to exam-
ine changes in squat, bench press, and
deadlift strength in powerlifters who
maxed a few times per week and power-
Training Age Squat 1RM Bench 1RM Deadlift 1RM
(years) (kg) (kg) (kg)
2-4 177.5 ± 28.29 123.13 ± 18.84 192.5 ± 36.65
lifters who followed a normal periodized
program in the 11 weeks leading up to a
competition.
Research Questions
1. How effective is performing 1RM
training a few times per week on
squat, bench, and deadlift when
preparing for a competition?
2. How does 1RM training compare
to normal periodized training when
preparing for a powerlifting meet?
Hypothesis
A formal hypothesis was not given, but
it seems clear that the authors expected
the 1RM group to get stronger. How-
ever, it’s not clear which group they ex-
pected to perform better. For the record,
I would have predicted similar adaptations
between the groups, but a large variability
in responses between individuals.
Subjects and Methods
Subjects
Ten men with a powerlifting experi-
63
Table 2A Training protocol every week for the daily 1RM group
Lift Monday
Squat Single @ 9-9.5 RPE
Bench Single @ 9-9.5 RPE
Deadlift
1RM = One-repetition maximum. RPE = rating of perceived exertion
ence of 2 ± 1 years and a general training
experience of 5 ± 2 years participated.
However, two subjects in the periodized
group did not complete the study. The
paper reported anthropometrics on all
ten, and only reported strength levels on
the eight who finished. So, in Table 1,
the anthropometric characteristics are
from ten subjects, while the strength
levels are from eight subjects.
Overall Design
All subjects trained for 10 weeks (the
study lasted 11 weeks total with pre- and
post-testing) in either the periodized
(n=3) or 1RM group (n=5). Pre-train-
ing 1RMs for the squat, bench press,
and deadlift were tested in the laborato-
ry, while post-training 1RM was tested
at the Hellenic Powerlifting Federation
(HPF – Greece’s International Pow-
erlifting Federation affiliate) national
championships. We’ll discuss that last
detail more later, but post-testing occur-
ring in a different setting than pre-test-
ing (i.e. at a meet versus in the lab) is, on
one hand, a significant limitation, and
Wednesday Friday
Single @ 9-9.5 RPE
Single @ 9-9.5 RPE Single @ 9-9.5 RPE
Single @ 9-9.5 RPE
on the other, an aspect that improves
real-world application. Changes in
strength from pre- to peak (the highest
1RM performed in training) were also
calculated in the 1RM group.
Training Protocol
Both groups trained three times per
week. Squat was performed twice per
week, bench press three times per week,
and deadlift once a week. The 1RM
group simply worked up to one set of
one rep at a 9-9.5RPE each time a lift
was performed. The periodized group
performed a four-week prep phase, fol-
lowed by four weeks of transition, and
then a two-week peaking block. In the
periodized group, subjects were instruct-
ed not to take any set beyond a 9RPE.
The training protocols are in Tables 2AB.
Findings
With only five subjects in one group
(daily 1RM) and three in the other (pe-
riodized), it wasn’t appropriate to present
typical statistics (i.e. ANOVA) to make
64
Table 2B Program in the periodized group

Lift Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10

Squat
Number of sets 4-6 7-8 6-7 7-8 5-6 5-6 4-5 6-7 4-5 3-5
Repetition range 2-3 2-3 2-3 2-5 2-3 2-3 2-3 1-3 2-3 1-2
%1RM range 70-85% 70-85% 70-85% 75-85% 70-85% 70-80% 70-85% 70-90% 70-90% 70-93%
Sessions 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Bench press
Number of sets 6-15 7-8 7-9 7-8 6-7 7-11 8-10 7-9 3-5 3-5
Repetition range 3-4 3-4 1-4 2-3 2-3 1-7 2-3 2-3 2-3 1-3
%1RM range 70-85% 70-85% 70-90% 70-85% 70-85% 55-90% 70-85% 70-85% 70-90% 70-93%
Sessions 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Deadlift
Number of sets 6 8 9 8 6 5 6 6 5 3
Repetition range 2-3 2-3 1-3 2-3 3 2-3 2-3 3 1-2 1
%1RM range 70-85% 70-80% 70-85% 70-85% 70-80% 70-80% 70-90% 70-80% 70-90% 70%
Sessions 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

This table shows the specific ranges for number of sets, reps, and intensities that were performed each week for the squat, bench press, and deadlift. In each week the
squat was performed twice, the bench press three times, and the deadlift once.

between-group comparisons. Rather, provided a clear benefit over the other.

a sample size such as this allows us to Finally, the average RPE was 8.9 ± 0.4
present individual responses. Thus, Table in the 1RM group and 8.4 ± 0.1 in the
3AB presents the individual response periodized group. The periodized group
for all subjects. performed substantially more volume
Two of the three subjects in the peri- (as expected) than the 1RM group.
odized group increased their total, and
one lifter had no change in total. In the
1RM group, four out of five lifters im- Interpretation
proved their powerlifting total from pre Overall, it’s awesome that this study was
to peak 1RM, with one subject experi- done. It is one of the first in what I pre-
encing a decrease. However, three sub- dict will be a trend of researchers investi-
jects actually decreased their total from gating some form of frequent maxing (or
pre- to post-testing, while one subject near-maxing) versus more “traditional”
had the same total, and the other had a protocols. The totality of results suggests
small increase in total. We’ll elaborate that both training styles have merit in the
on this later; however, it’s unlikely that short-term; however, the significant lim-
those three subjects in the 1RM group itation of post-testing occuring at a com-
truly got weaker. Rather, it’s more like- petition makes it difficult to infer a lot re-
ly a function of post-testing being con- garding true strength changes. Therefore,
ducted at an actual competition. With let’s examine the impact that limitation
such a limited sample size and limita- may have had on the results, then infer
tions of the post-testing measurement, I what we can from this study.
think it’s fair to say that neither program

65
 Table 3A Individual strength changes in the periodized group

Measure Participant 1 Participant 2 Participant 3

Squat
Pre 1RM (kg) 200 175 175
Post 1RM (kg) 205 175 180
Pre-Post 1RM Δ (%) 2.5 0 2.8
Bench press
Pre 1RM (kg) 145 120 140
Post 1RM (kg) 147.5 120 140
Pre-Post 1RM Δ (%) 1.7 0 0
Deadlift
Pre 1RM (kg) 230 165 200
Post 1RM (kg) 235 165 230
Pre-Post 1RM Δ (%) 2.1 0 14
Total
Pre 1RM (kg) 575 460 515
Post 1RM (kg) 587 460 550
Pre-Post 1RM Δ (%) 2 0 6.5
1RM = One-repetition maximum

Limitations of the Present Study post-test than at pre-test. This lifter’s

Post-testing occurring at an actual
competition is a limitation because dif-
ferent conditions were present at pre-
and post-testing. Importantly, the point
of an actual competition is not always
to perform a 1RM. Each individual has
different goals: some lifters may be per-
forming a true 1RM, some are aiming
to go 9 for 9, while others may be con-
cerned with placing. In the 1RM group,
only two subjects increased their total at
the competition; however, four of them
increased their total at its “peak” point
during the study. For example, partici-
pant four in the 1RM group (Table 3B)
increased his total by 11kg from pre to
peak; however, he lifted 20kg less at
bench press also decreased by 15kg at
the competition; however, I would be
willing to bet that such a large decrease
in 11 weeks was more a function of poor
attempt selection on meet day than ac-
tual strength loss. That isn’t to say that
true strength may not have decreased in
some individuals in a specific lift; how-
ever, we can’t know for sure, due to how
post-testing was conducted. On the oth-
er hand, one could make the case that
carrying out post-testing at a competi-
tion could increase ecological validity;
however, it still makes it tough to com-
pare true strength changes. If there were
velocities or RPEs on the post-testing
numbers, then we could predict what
the true 1RM change was. Without

66
Table 3B Individual strength changes in the periodized group

Measure Participant 1 Participant 2 Participant 3 Participant 4 Participant 5

Squat
Pre 1RM (kg) 145 210 145 215 155
Peak 1RM (kg) 155 217.5 145 217.5 155
Post 1RM (kg) 155 210 150 215 155
Pre-Post 1RM Δ (%) 6.6 0 3.3 0 0
Pre-Peak 1RM Δ (%) 6.6 3.5 0 1.1 0
Week of Peak 1RM 8 9 7 6 5
Bench press
Pre 1RM (kg) 100 135 120 132.5 92.5
Peak 1RM (kg) 100 142.5 120 135 92.5
Post 1RM (kg) 100 140 112.5 117.5 82.5
Pre-Post 1RM Δ (%) 0 3.6 -6.4 -12 -11.4
Pre-Peak 1RM Δ (%) 0 5.4 0 1.8 0
Week of Peak 1RM 1 4 4 3 3
Deadlift
Pre 1RM (kg) 160 230 160 240 155
Peak 1RM (kg) 175 240 180 246 150
Post 1RM (kg) 170 250 160 235 145
Pre-Post 1RM Δ (%) 6 8.3 0 -2.1 -6.6
Pre-Peak 1RM Δ (%) 9 4.2 11.7 2.4 -3.2
Week of Peak 1RM 9 6 4 5 7
Total
Pre 1RM (kg) 405 575 425 587.5 402.5
Peak 1RM (kg) 420 600 445 598.5 397.5
Post 1RM (kg) 425 600 422.5 567.5 382.5
Pre-Post 1RM Δ (%) 4.8 4.2 -0.5 -3.4 -5
Pre-Peak 1RM Δ (%) 3.6 4.2 4.5 1.8 -1.2

1RM = One-repetition maximum

that, though, I think the limitations of
competition data override the ecolog-
ical validity argument. To the authors’
credit, they mention this limitation. A
secondary limitation, but still important,
is that equipment was likely different at
the competition. Specifically, since this
federation is an IPF affiliate, it’s possible
that a stiffer barbell was used at compe-
tition than was used in training; calibrat-
ed plates were used at the meet versus
non-calibrated plates in training; and, of
course, the competition atmosphere can
also affect performance. Finally, judging
standards at the meet could have been
different than in a laboratory setting,
which could also skew the results. The
criteria for a “good” lift is objective, but
the judging is subjective, thus we must
add this to the list of limitations.

67
 A sample size of only eight subjects is
obviously another limitation. It is true
that it’s difficult to recruit subjects for a
daily 1RM training study, and it’s dif-
ficult for the investigators to conduct
1RM testing every single day (Chad
Dolan and I know this all too well);
however, this study only involved three
near-max sessions a week. Further, the
periodization protocol was pretty typi-
cal. This means that the data collection
would not have been that arduous. It’s
more likely that it was difficult to re-
cruit lifters because the authors needed
powerlifters who were competing at this
specific competition and needed the lift-
ers to start the study exactly 11 weeks
beforehand. Furthermore, it’s tough to
convince serious lifters to let you put
them on a cookie-cutter training pro-
gram for a study when there’s nothing
on the line; it’s bound to be even harder
to convince a serious lifter to turn their
meet prep over to a research study. In
that case, the small sample size makes
sense.
Present Results
My main conclusion is that, in the
short-term, both training styles can work.
My hunch is that the lifters weren’t used
to maxing frequently; thus, maxing a
couple of times per week boosted neuro-
muscular adaptations, which led to some
impressive increases from pre to peak
(Table 3A). I do believe that post-test-
ing at the meet is the primary reason
IN THE SHORT-TERM,
BOTH TRAINING
STYLES CAN WORK.
for some of the “decreases” in strength,
but we should also explore other pos-
sibilities. It is possible that volume was
too low for too long in the 1RM group,
and the novelty of the frequent maxing
wasn’t effective anymore as competition
approached – hence the increase in peak
1RM, but decrease at the competition.
For the periodized group, the same lim-
itations exist for post-testing, which may
have caused one lifter to not gain any
strength compared to pre-testing (Ta-
ble 3A). However, the other two lifters
in the periodized group gained 12.5 and
35kg on their total, which is quite good
for 11 weeks. Therefore, if I was forced
to choose if one protocol was more ef-
fective than the other in this study, I
would choose the periodized program,
as it seemed to prepare the subjects
better for competition. At least the pe-
riodized protocol is a “safer” approach
when peaking, as 1RM-type training is
an unknown for most. In fact, the lifters
seemed to agree, as they were asked on
a 5-point Likert scale (higher responses
are positive) how effective the protocol
68

IT IS ALSO UNLIKELY THAT
SOMEONE WOULD BE ABLE
TO MAX ON ALL THREE LIFTS
EVERY DAY AND SUSTAIN
IT FOR A SUBSTANTIAL
AMOUNT OF TIME.
was for optimizing performance at the
competition, and the average response
in the periodized group was 4.3, versus
the average response of 2.8 in the daily
1RM group. Obviously, the sample size
is small, but the competition results do
seem to match up with the subjects’ per-
ceptions.
We also must note that responses
are highly individual. To illustrate this,
two subjects in the daily 1RM group
increased their totals by 20 and 25kg,
which included an increase from 230-
250kg in the deadlift for one lifter. We
frequently see a high degree of individual
variability in the training response. This
is due, in part, to the fact that the style of
training a lifter does before a study im-
pacts their results during the study, yet
this is rarely discussed by authors. For
example, if someone was maxing every
day and then started maxing three times
per week, they might not see much – if
any – progress. In short, different train-
ing styles are appropriate at different
times, and not everyone will respond the
same way.
When comparing the results of the
1RM group in this study versus the pre-
vious daily 1RM training study, the pre-
vious study shows slightly greater and
more consistent strength improvement
(2). Specifically, the previous study saw
well-trained lifters increase their squats
by 5.8, 9.5, and 10.8% over 37 days.
However, the previous study was quite
different from this one, in that subjects
maxed every day (36 out of 37 days) and
also performed 5 volume sets at 85%
(for 3 reps) or 90% (for 2 reps) of 1RM
after the daily max. Further, the previ-
ous study only had subjects max in the
squat, as opposed to all three lifts. These
discrepancies highlight that there is a
lot to learn regarding optimizing 1RM
training. We don’t know if maxing just
a couple of times per week can increase
strength to the same degree as max-
ing every day. We also don’t know how
great of a role the volume in the origi-
nal study played in improving strength.
It is also unclear how sustainable 1RM
training is over the long term. If truly
pressed, I would say that in a trained
lifter who has the sole goal of improving
their 1RM, the best way to increase that
in one month is to max every day (or at
least frequently); however, the best way
to increase 1RM over the long term is
69
to follow a periodized approach, during
which daily 1RM training would sim-
ply comprise one mesocycle every now
and then. Admittedly, this conclusion
is somewhat speculative and is built on
what both science and experience have
taught me not only about adaptation,
but also feasibility. Ultimately, we need
more long-term data on 1RM training
to truly decide if 1RM training for an
extended period of time (i.e. >6 months)
is a good idea, and practicality must be
considered.
Speaking of feasibility, it is also unlike-
ly that someone would be able to max
on all three lifts every day and sustain it
for a substantial amount of time. It’s one
thing to perform daily 1RM training on
one lift daily, but performing it on all
three lifts is a different story. It would
be more manageable to max on all three
lifts without performing any volume or
“back off sets” afterward, but I do think
some volume is beneficial. Therefore, if
performing true daily 1RM training, it
probably makes the most sense to focus
on one lift for a month and just aim to
maintain the other two.
A positive aspect of this study was that
it examined pre to peak changes in 1RM
between the different lifts in the 1RM
group. When looking at Tables 3A and
3B, I don’t think there is a clear trend
that shows that results on one lift were
any better than another; however, it does
seem that all three lifts responded simi-
larly when examining the average of all
lifters in the 1RM group (squat = +3.7%,
bench press = +3.6%, deadlift = +4.8%,
total = +2.58%). This is interesting be-
cause the squat, bench, and deadlift were
trained with different frequencies. This
either means that a single 1RM ses-
sion per week is sufficient (used on the
deadlift), or the optimal frequency dif-
fers between the squat, bench press, and
deadlift. I suspect it’s the latter, but not
only for the obvious reason of different
recovery times between the three lifts. I
think that an individual’s biomechanics
play a role in the optimal frequency of
1RM training. For example, if some-
one’s biomechanics cause a fair amount
of unavoidable forward lean in the squat,
then back squatting to a max may not be
advisable on a frequent basis, and could
actually be a detriment to performance.
The point is: Individual factors must be
considered if embarking on max-type
training.
Ultimately, my position on daily 1RM
or even frequent 1RM training as a sole
method of training is largely unchanged
from the daily 1RM video in MASS.
Frequent maxing should not be used as
a standalone strategy over the long term.
We simply don’t have enough long-term
data to make this claim. I will acknowl-
edge, though, that my position could
change in the future. For now, though,
I think it would be inappropriate to rec-
ommend only 1RM-type training based
on the totality of available data. Finally,
I always feel compelled to recommend
70
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
1. Maxing on a lift a few times per week may causes similar strength gains to performing
typical multi-set volume training over a mesocycle.
2. Post-testing being conducted at a competition is a major limitation; however, it is
worth noting that a majority of participants in the 1RM group underperformed at the
competition. This could have simply been due to poor attempt selection, but the
athletes indicated that they thought the periodized program prepared them better
than the 1RM protocol.
3. Ultimately, I believe sustainability and feasibility must play a role when choosing
whether to implement 1RM-type training. For now, it should be used sparingly and
certainly isn’t a standalone strategy. Further, it remains to be seen if maxing a few
times per week is as effective as maxing every day in the short term. I suspect that
maxing every day is more beneficial, but also comes at a potentially greater cost.

extreme caution before deciding to per-
form a daily lRM-type program. I elab-
orate more on this in the linked video.
Next Steps
We need a longer study with more
subjects. I’d like to see three groups
training for a long-term training study:
1) A typical periodized group, 2) Daily
1RM group, and 3) A group performing
a 1RM 2-3 times per week. I also think
that both 1RM groups should perform
back-off sets for volume. Further, the
1RM groups should only max on the
squat, as we currently have the most ev-
idence on that lift. While future stud-
ies on all three lifts will be beneficial, it
is prudent in research to go from point
A to point B. We know that daily 1RM
training with volume sets works, and we
know that normal periodized training
works, but we need a direct comparison
with standardized post-testing. Further,
only one study (an older study from
1981) has compared different week-
ly frequencies of 1RM daily maxing: 1,
2, 3, 4, or 5 days per week performing
1RM training on the bench press, ob-
serving a response scaling with frequen-
cy (4). However, that certainly needs up-
dating, and the above proposal would be
the first update to that concept in almost
40 years. Following that proposed study,
many research questions remain: Does
the volume of back-off sets following a
1RM really matter? How long is 1RM
training sustainable? What are the psy-
chological responses to performing pro-
longed 1RM training? And are there
differences in how frequently the squat,
bench, and deadlift should be performed
in a 1RM-type program? We’ll get to all
of them … eventually.

71
References
1. Androulakis-Korakakis P, Fisher J, Kolokotronis P, Gentil P, Steele J. Reduced Volume ‘Daily Max’
Training Compared to Higher Volume Periodized Training in Powerlifters Preparing for Competi-
tion—A Pilot Study. Sports. 2018 Aug 29;6(3):86.
2. Zourdos MC, Dolan C, Quiles JM, Klemp A, Jo E, Loenneke JP, Blanco R, Whitehurst M. Efficacy
of daily one-repetition maximum training in well-trained powerlifters and weightlifters: a case se-
ries. Nutrición Hospitalaria. 2016;33(2).
3. Mattocks KT, Buckner SL, Jessee MB, Dankel SJ, Mouser JG, Loenneke JP. Practicing the Test Pro-
duces Strength Equivalent to Higher Volume Training. Medicine and science in sports and exercise.
2017 Sep;49(9):1945-54.
4. McKenzie GG. Effects of frequency of weight training on muscle strength enhancement. The Jour-
nal of sports medicine and physical fitness. 1981 Dec;21(4):432-6.

72
 Study Reviewed: Caffeine Transiently Affects Food Intake at Breakfast.
Panek-Shirley et al. (2018)

Is Caffeine an Effective
Appetite Suppressant?
BY E RI C HE LMS

It’s common for caffeine to be included in fat-loss supplements as an appetite

suppressant, but does it actually work?

73
 KEY POINTS
1. In the present randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial, 0,
1, and 3 mg/kg of caffeine were given to participants. Following administration,
energy intake at a buffet breakfast in the lab was assessed. Researchers also
assessed sensations of hunger and energy intake outside of the lab for the rest of
the day.
2. The participants consumed about 10% fewer calories in the lab-provided buffet
breakfast when they were in the 1mg/kg caffeine condition, compared to the 0
and 3 mg/kg caffeine conditions. However, total energy intake for the entire day
was not different between conditions, suggesting that appetite suppression was
transient and that reduced energy intake at breakfast was compensated for later
in the day.
3. The overall evidence for caffeine as an appetite suppressant is not promising, and
even in studies where an effect is shown, the absolute reduction in energy is either
too small to be meaningful or transient in nature. However, caffeine does have
other benefits related to suppressing tiredness and enhancing lifting performance,
which may be desirable while dieting (when fatigue is common).

C
affeine is frequently marketed
as an appetite suppressant or
fat burner and included in fat-
loss supplements for this reason. While
caffeine is one of the most well-studied
supplements, its impact on appetite sup-
pression is actually one of its least-stud-
ied proposed effects. In the present study
(1), 50 adult men and women consumed
either 0 (placebo), 1, or 3 mg/kg of caf-
feine as a part of a flavored beverage 30
minutes prior to consuming a buffet
breakfast in the lab. Energy intake at
breakfast was measured, as well as sub-
jective hunger sensations. Then, the par-
ticipants recorded how much food they
consumed for the rest of the day outside
of the lab. While the 1 mg/kg caffeine
condition consumed significantly less
energy at breakfast than the other con-
ditions (by about 10%), total 24-hour
energy intake was not significantly dif-
ferent between conditions, indicating
that the appetite suppression is transient
and compensated for in other meals. In
this review, I’ll discuss caffeine as a po-
tential aid for dieters, what it does and
doesn’t do, and how this study sits with
the rest of the literature on this topic.
Purpose and Research
Questions
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to exam-
ine the impact of acute caffeine adminis-

74
 Table 1 Baseline characteristics

BMI < 25 BMI 25-35

Characteristic Mean ± SD N (%) Mean ± SD N (%) P value

Gender (% male) 32 (34) 19 (53)
Age (y) 24.9 ± 1.2 25.7 ± 1.9 0.60
BMI 21.8 ± 1.9 29.1 ± 3.7 <0.001
Weight (kg) 63.8 ± 11.8 84.8 ± 15.7 <0.001
Waist (cm) 75.1 ± 8.5 88.8 ± 12.6 <0.001
Waist-to-hip ratio 0.79 ± 0.06 0.84 ± 0.06 0.01
200.4 ± 205.2 163.2 ± 134.8 0.48

0 N/A N/A
1 47-104 62-129
3 140-311 185-388
Three factor eating questionnaire
Restraint 8.8 ± 5.7 12.2 ± 4.9 0.04
Disinhibition 4.9 ± 3.4 6.0 ± 2.9 0.24
Hunger 4.4 ± 3.2 5.7 ± 3.2 0.17
Binge eating scale 7.2 ± 5.4 9.6 ± 6.1 0.16

Baseline characteristics of 18- to 50-year old men and women (n=51) participating in a clinical trial of dose response to acute caffeine
administration on ad libitum laboratory and free-living energy intake and appetite.

tration on energy intake at breakfast and
throughout the remainder of the day in
adults.
Hypothesis
The authors made three hypotheses:
(1) caffeine reduces ad libitum labora-
tory and free-living energy intake in a
dose-dependent manner; (2) caffeine
exerts its effects on energy intake by re-
ducing hunger and desire to eat; and (3)
the effects of caffeine on appetite and
energy intake are affected by the level of
adiposity of the individual.
Subjects and Methods
Subjects and Study Design
Fifty adult men and women (21 males,
29 females) between the ages of 18-50
completed this placebo-controlled, ran-
domized, crossover trial. Each partici-
pant visited the laboratory for breakfast
on three different occasions. This oc-
curred at the same time of day, on the
same day of the week, for three consec-
utive weeks to complete each condition.
Participant characteristics are shown in
Table 1, organized by participants over
and under a 25 body mass index (BMI),
as the authors hypothesized that adipos-
ity would impact the tested outcomes.
Aside from baseline characteristics re-
lated to adiposity (weight, waist to hip
ratio, etc.), there were no differences in
demographic characteristics that could
plausibly affect eating behavior such as

75
Table 2 Energy intake organized by body mass index

BMIb < 25 (n=32) BMI 25-35 (n=19)

Intake 0 mg/kg 1 mg/kg 3 mg/kg 0 mg/kg 1 mg/kg 3 mg/kg P valuec d e

Total (kcal) 675.6 ± 438.3 538.2 ± 270.1 715.0 ± 629.5 832.3 ± 461.8 846.3 ± 446.9 739.5 ± 448.4 0.05 0.23 0.49
Carbohydrates (g) 100.0 ± 61.2 83.8 ± 41.4 106.3 ± 79.8 110.7 ± 55.0 111.4 ± 57.7 100.1 ± 51.7 0.42 0.16 0.07
Fats (g) 20.9 ± 20.7 14.4 ± 12.7 20.2 ± 20.5 31.5 ± 24.9 31.4 ± 21.8 26.3 ± 23.1 0.09 0.30 0.08
Proteins (g) 25.7 ± 18.0 21.9 ± 11.4 26.6 ± 25.5 29.7 ± 17.7 32.7 ± 22.8 28.4 ± 22.2 0.46 0.17 0.03
Total intake for entire day
Total (kcal) 2161.8 ± 935.1 1921.5 ± 869.7 2067.7 ± 1092.5 2438.2 ± 900.0 2546.4 ± 1050.0 2225.9 ± 910.1 0.237 0.21 0.05
Carbohydrates (g) 287.0 ± 120.1 256.3 ± 136.0 278.3 ± 133.7 300.3 ± 103.7 292.8 ± 105.3 264.4 ± 112.2 0.457 0.13 0.07
Fats (g) 75.1 ± 44.6 63.0 ± 47.5 71.0 ± 65.0 96.0 ± 49.2 99.9 ± 49.9 85.1 ± 39.3 0.074 0.27 0.05
Proteins (g) 85.2 ± 46.9 84.7 ± 33.1 80.5 ± 34.0 91.3 ± 35.1 111.5 ± 46.4 93.6 ± 43.1 0.075 0.25 0.11

Data are unadjusted mean ± standard deviation for total calories and macronutrients (grams) consumed.
b = BMI = body mass index (calculated as kg/m2); c = p-values from analysis of covariance with BMI group, caffeine treatment, and usual caffeine intake as the independent variables;
d = effect size calculated from unadjusted mean and standard deviation of total calories and macronutrients by BMI and caffeine treatment; e = effect size calculated from unadjusted
mean and standard deviation of total calories and macronutrients by caffeine treatment only

income, ethnicity, menstrual cycle phase, Thirty minutes after beverage con-
or education. Eating behavior question- sumption, the participants were pro-
naires at baseline did show a significant vided a buffet style breakfast and ate as
difference in dietary restraint between much as they wanted. Energy intake was
those with a BMI > 25 compared to recorded by the researchers, and subjec-
those under, which is a common find- tive scores for appetite and hunger were
ing; overweight individuals often have a recorded by participants via a Likert
more restrained attitude toward food, as scale. Participants had their perceptions
they are frequently trying to lose weight of hunger and appetite anchored (points
or prevent further weight gain. on the scale intentionally associated with
subjective feelings of hunger) prior to
Controls the study start, and participants also re-
Participants were required to not con- corded scores using a subset of the Pro-
sume caffeine in the 24 hours prior to file of Mood States questionnaire before
each testing session, and participants and after beverage and breakfast con-
were informed that caffeine abstinence sumption. Participants then left the lab
would be confirmed via salivary testing. and continued their normal day, eating
Saliva was collected (simply as a deter- freely; however, they were required to
rent) but not analyzed. All conditions complete an entry in their dietary habit
received a cold, flavor-of-choice bever- books (which they were trained to use)
age with either a caffeine additive or a at every eating and drinking occasion
bitter flavor-matched placebo additive for the remainder of the day, recording
to control for the effect of palatability on foods, portions, and subjective scores for
subsequent food intake. appetite and hunger.

Outcome Testing

76
Findings
Table 2 displays the energy and mac-
ronutrient intakes organized by BMI, as
the authors hypothesized BMI would
moderate the effect of caffeine on energy
intake. However, contrary to the authors’
hypothesis, BMI did not alter caffeine’s
impact on energy intake. When grouped
together, the 1 mg/kg caffeine treatment
had a moderate effect on mean energy
intake at breakfast with their consump-
tion of 650.4 ± 52.2 kcal being signifi-
cantly lower (p = 0.046) than the 0 mg/
kg (721.2 ± 63.2) or 3 mg/kg (714.7 ±
79.0) conditions. However, there were
no significant differences between con-
ditions in subjective ratings of hunger
and appetite or in total energy intake for
the remaining portion of the day.
Interpretation
Caffeine has many notable effects that
we’ve previously covered in MASS. As a
recap, Greg, Mike, and I have all written
about caffeine and its various effects and
their nuances. Specifically, in Volume 1
Issue 3, Greg described the effect of caf-
feine on strength, noting that at a dose of
~3-6 mg/kg, increases in 1RM strength
and repetitions to failure at submaximal
loads occur, but that these outcomes are
most reliable in lower body exercises. In
Volume 1 Issue 6, I discussed the effects
of caffeine tolerance on performance,
noting that while the cognitive stimu-
THIS SHOWS THAT EVEN
IF A TRANSIENT APPETITE
SUPPRESSION OCCURS, IT IS
COMPENSATED FOR LATER IN
THE DAY, IN MOST CASES.
lation effects fade with caffeine toler-
ance, suppression of tiredness and the
primary mechanisms by which caffeine
enhances lifting performance (pain sup-
pression, reduction of perceived effort,
and improved calcium handling) largely
remain, even in habitual caffeine con-
sumers. Most recently, in Volume 1 Is-
sue 9, Mike further clarified caffeine’s
effect on lifting performance, noting
that the most consistent performance
improvements occur when consuming 6
mg/kg one hour before training. Mike
cautioned that you should consume the
minimum effective dose, though, as caf-
feine can negatively affect sleep (if con-
sumed too late in the day) and can cause
discomfort and jittery sensations at high
doses.
In contrast, in this article, we examine
a more tenuous claim: that caffeine sup-
presses appetite and could subsequently
result in greater fat loss due to a reduc-
tion in energy intake. Simply put, the
current study doesn’t support that no-
77

WHILE CAFFEINE MAY NOT
HELP WITH THE HUNGER
PANGS, IT CAN CERTAINLY TAKE
THE EDGE OFF LETHARGY,
IMPROVE FOCUS, AND
RESCUE SOME GYM SESSIONS
WHEN YOU FEEL LIKE JUST
WALKING TO THE RACK IS
A SIGNIFICANT EFFORT.
tion. It’s also not a one-of-a-kind find-
ing that caffeine isn’t an effective appe-
tite suppressant. In a review published
last year (2), the authors noted an acute
reduction in energy intake during a meal
in studies when caffeine was consumed
0.5-4 hours prior. However, they noted
that long-term data were lacking, and
reductions in 24-hour energy consump-
tion were inconsistent; only one of two
studies showed a significant decrease in
24-hour energy intake, and only in the
overweight participants – not those who
were lean (3). Again, this shows that
even if a transient appetite suppression
occurs, it is compensated for later in the
day, in most cases.
It’s worth noting that caffeine and cof-
fee are not synonymous. We could ar-
gue that coffee is somewhat of a distinct
substance containing other bioactive
phytonutrients, even if the active ingre-
dient (caffeine) is the cause of its prima-
ry effects. However, despite speculation
that some other component of coffee (or
maybe simply its flavor or temperature)
could have appetite-suppressing effects
not captured in the present study, other
research (4) specifically comparing caf-
feinated and decaffeinated coffee and a
placebo reported no significant differ-
ences in energy intake, subjective hun-
ger ratings, or gastric emptying rates (a
mechanistic measure related to satiety)
between groups.
As a final note, there is a single study
from the ’80s showing that caffeine re-
duces energy intake in men but not
women (5). If there are differences be-
tween men and women, this could have
impacted the results of the present study
since the participants were 58% female.
This also could have impacted the results
of the study I mentioned above on cof-
fee, as the participants there were 75%
female. However, there are two issues
with the study that reported sex differ-
ences: 1) It is a short-term study only
assessing the meal following caffeine
consumption, so it may be that 24-hour
energy intake is not changed; and 2) a
2011 study specifically on men did not
find any effect of caffeine on energy in-
take, subjective hunger and appetite, or
78
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
1. Caffeine does a great job of suppressing tiredness and improving performance,
both of which are great in and out of diet phases. However, if you are expecting
additional fat loss or lasting appetite suppression, caffeine likely won’t deliver.

hormonal markers related to hunger and
appetite (6). Thus, on balance, I think it’s
safe to conclude that if caffeine has any
appetite-suppressing properties, they are
short lived and typically compensated
for over the course of 24 hours.
With that said, in my experience as a
bodybuilding coach, I can tell you that
performance, desire to train, energy lev-
els, and focus all become much more in-
consistent at a certain stage when diet-
ing. While caffeine may not help with
the hunger pangs, it can certainly take
the edge off lethargy, improve focus, and
rescue some gym sessions when you feel
like just walking to the rack is a signifi-
cant effort.
that caffeine didn’t result in additional
fat loss over time, perhaps by some other
mechanism than appetite suppression –
like improving mood and subsequently
reducing emotional eating or via some
other mechanism I’m unaware of. How-
ever, in this case, we already have data
showing that caffeine doesn’t seem to
aid fat loss longitudinally (7), so I think
it’s safe to put the fat loss and appetite
suppression claims to rest.

Next Steps
When acute resistance training in-
terventions show an impact on repeti-
tions performed, performance recov-
ery, muscle damage, or a biomarker in
the short term, we always recommend
a long-term intervention to truly see if
the acute effects translate into improved
performance or hypertrophy chronically.
Likewise, I would typically recommend
a long-term intervention just to be sure

79
References
1. Panek-Shirley, L.M., et al., Caffeine Transiently Affects Food Intake at Breakfast. J Acad Nutr Diet,
2018.
2. Schubert, M.M., et al., Caffeine, coffee, and appetite control: a review. Int J Food Sci Nutr, 2017.
68(8): p. 901-912.
3. Gavrieli, A., et al., Effect of different amounts of coffee on dietary intake and appetite of nor-
mal-weight and overweight/obese individuals. Obesity (Silver Spring), 2013. 21(6): p. 1127-32.
4. Schubert, M.M., et al., Coffee for morning hunger pangs. An examination of coffee and caffeine on
appetite, gastric emptying, and energy intake. Appetite, 2014. 83: p. 317-26.
5. Tremblay, A., et al., Caffeine reduces spontaneous energy intake in men but not in women. Nutrition
Research, 1988. 8(5): p. 553-558.
6. Gavrieli, A., et al., Caffeinated coffee does not acutely affect energy intake, appetite, or inflammation
but prevents serum cortisol concentrations from falling in healthy men. J Nutr, 2011. 141(4): p. 703-
7.
7. Astrup, A., et al., The effect and safety of an ephedrine/caffeine compound compared to ephedrine,
caffeine and placebo in obese subjects on an energy restricted diet. A double blind trial. Int J Obes
Relat Metab Disord, 1992. 16(4): p. 269-77.

80
 Study Reviewed: Effects of Accentuated Eccentric Loading on Muscle Properties,
Strength, Power, and Speed in Resistance-Trained Rugby Players. Douglas et al. (2018)

Can You Build More Size and

Strength with Overloaded
Eccentrics?
BY G RE G NUC KO LS

You can produce more force eccentrically than concentrically, so it

stands to reason that you’ll get better results by handling heavier
eccentric loads, right? A recent study puts this idea to the test.

81
 KEY POINTS
1. This study tested the effects of accentuated eccentrics (using heavier loads for
the eccentric part of the movement than the concentric) compared to traditional
training (using the same load for the eccentric and concentric phases).
2. During the first four-week block of training, training with accentuated eccentrics
led to larger increases in squat strength and a larger increase in maximum sprint
velocity than traditional training.
3. During the second four-week block of training, accentuated eccentrics didn’t seem
to further improve strength or performance when compared to traditional training.

A
ccentuated eccentrics seem like
a slam dunk training idea. On
average, people can produce
about 20-40% more force eccentrically
than concentrically. So, if you use the
same weight for both the eccentric and
concentric phases of a lift, it seems that
you wouldn’t be sufficiently taxing your
muscles during the eccentric phase. If
you stop a set when you’re two reps shy
of concentric failure, you may still be a
dozen reps shy of eccentric failure. With
accentuated eccentrics, you use heavier
loads for the eccentric phase than the
concentric phase, which should help
ensure that your muscles are adequately
challenged through both phases of the
movement. That should lead to larger
strength gains and more muscle growth,
right?
Well … the research is hazy, to say the
least. As previously covered in a guest
article by Caleb Bazyler, the research on
accentuated eccentric training has been
underwhelming. There’s some evidence
that accentuated eccentrics may lead to
larger strength gains, though that’s far
from a unanimous finding, and there’s
no clear evidence that accentuated ec-
centrics increase hypertrophy beyond
what you’d expect from normal train-
ing. However, the body of research on
accentuated eccentric training is small,
and many of the previous studies were
conducted on single-joint exercises.
In the presently reviewed study, trained
rugby players were split into two groups
and undertook a training program split
into two four-week blocks. One group
did all of their squat training with accen-
tuated eccentrics, while the other group
performed traditional squats. The first
block of the training program involved
lighter loads and slow (three-second)
eccentrics, while the second block in-
volved heavier loads and faster (one-sec-
ond) eccentrics. During the first block
of training, the accentuated eccentric
group improved their squat and maximal
sprint velocity more than the tradition-
al group. However, during the second
block of training, strength gains didn’t
82
differ between groups. Neither group
experienced significant or meaningful
quad hypertrophy. Overall, the results
of this study are similar to those of pre-
vious research – possibly larger strength
gains with accentuated eccentrics, with
no difference in hypertrophy.
Purpose and Research
Questions
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to in-
vestigate the effects of accentuated ec-
centric loading and eccentric tempo on
muscle morphology and a variety of per-
formance outcomes in academy rugby
players.
Research Questions
1. Would accentuated eccentric load-
ing lead to larger performance in-
creases and changes in muscle
morphology than normal eccentric
loading?
2. Would slow eccentric tempos lead
to larger performance increases
and changes in muscle morphology
than faster eccentric tempos?
Hypotheses
The authors hypothesized that accen-
tuated eccentric loading would lead to
larger performance increases (in mea-
sures of strength, power, and speed) than
normal eccentric loading. They also hy-
pothesized that slow eccentric tempos
would lead to larger changes in muscle
morphology, while faster eccentric tem-
pos would lead to larger improvements
in measures of power, reactive strength,
and sprint speed.
Subjects and Methods
Subjects
The subjects were 14 young (mean age:
19.4 years), male rugby players. They all
had at least one year of resistance train-
ing experience, and their average 1RM
squat was 1.71 times body mass. The
subjects were randomized to two groups;
both groups carried out the same train-
ing program over 12 weeks, with one
difference. One group performed their
squats and lower body plyometrics with
additional eccentric load, while the oth-
er group performed normal squats (i.e.
the same load was used for both phases
of the lift) and plyometrics without ad-
ditional eccentric load.
Training Program
Both groups lifted three times per
week, performing two strength sessions
and one power session per week. They
also performed one conditioning session
per week, two skill sessions per week,
and played in one rugby match per week.
Everything was the same in both groups
except for the lifting sessions.
83
Table 1 Weekly training schedule

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

Gym Session Gym Session Gym Session Rugby Game

AM
(Strength) (Power) (Strength)
Field Session Field Session
PM Conditioning
(Skills) (Skills)

Table 2 Squat program performed during strength sessions:

Accentuated Training
Traditional Training Group
Group
Tempo Sets x Reps %1RM Relative %1RM Relative
Volume Load Volume Load
Test Week 1
Week 2 3-0-1 3x8 92/68 19 74 18
Slow Week 3 3x7 95/70 17 76 16
Week 4 4x6 98/72 20 79 19
Week 5 2x6 98/72 10 79 10
Test Week 6
Week 7
Week 8 1-0-1 3x5 106/77 14 81 12
Fast Week 9 4x4 108/79 15 83 13
Week 10 5x4 110/81 19 85 17
Week 11 2x4 110/81 8 85 7
Test Week 12

The training program lasted for 12
weeks. The first week, weeks 6 and 7, and
week 12 were used for testing. During
weeks 2-5, the subjects performed sets
of 6-8 reps with an increasing percent-
age of their 1RM and did three-second
eccentrics for all of their squat training.
During weeks 8-11, they performed sets
of 4-5 reps with an increasing percentage
of their 1RM and did one-second eccen-
trics for all of their squat training. Since
eccentric load was 18-25% higher in the
accentuated eccentric group, concentric
load was 4-7% lower so that relative vol-
ume load (sets x reps x %1RM) would
be roughly the same in both groups
(though I’m not entirely sure I see how
relative volume load would be similar; it
looks like it would still be higher in the
accentuated eccentric group, but I may
be misunderstanding how the authors
calculated it).
More details about the training pro-
gram can be seen in Table 1.
To accomplish the accentuated ec-
centric loading, the researchers used a
Smith machine that began applying as-

84
Figure 1 Study Design

Weeks 2-5 Weeks 8-11

Training Phase 1 Training Phase 2

Slow accentuated eccentric Fast accentuated eccentric

training (Intervention) training (Intervention)
Week 1 Week 6 Week 7 Week 12
Pre-Testing Mid-Testing Off Post-Testing
Slow traditional training Fast traditional training
(Control) (Control)
Day 1: Day 1: Day 1:

40m sprint profiling 40m sprint profiling 40m sprint profiling

Cycling test Cycling test Cycling test

Day 2: Day 2: Day 2:

Muscle architecture Muscle architecture Muscle architecture

0.50m drop jump 0.50m drop jump 0.50m drop jump

Back squat 1RM Back squat 1RM Back squat 1RM

sistance once a predetermined depth was 40m sprint times, and maximal velocity,
reached. So, for example, if one session contact time, flight time, step rate, verti-
called for the use of 500lb for eccentrics cal stiffness, and leg stiffness during the
and 400lb for concentrics, the bar would 40m sprint.
be loaded to 500lb. When the athlete The authors reported effect sizes
reached a predetermined depth, the ma- and confidence intervals from pre- to
chine would begin applying 100lb of mid-testing and from mid- to post-test-
assistance, so that the concentric load ing and provided qualitative assessments
would be 400lb. The control group per- of the observed changes, but didn’t do
formed regular squats with free weights. any formal significance testing.

Measures You can see a graphical representation

of the study in Figure 1.
For our purposes, the most important
measure taken was back squat 1RM. The
squat 1RMs were performed with free Findings
weights and not in the custom Smith
machine. The researchers also measured The group performing accentuated
vastus lateralis (a quad muscle) thick- eccentrics gained more strength in the
ness, fascicle length, and fascicle angle squat during the first four weeks (lower
using ultrasound. loads and slow eccentrics) than the tra-
ditional group, but both groups failed to
Other measures included power out- increase their squats during the second
put and cadence during a maximal cy- four weeks (higher loads and faster ec-
cling task, contact time, flight time, re- centrics). Maximum sprinting velocity,
active strength, and leg stiffness during ground contact time during sprints, step
a drop jump task, 10m, 20m, 30m, and rate, and vertical stiffness during sprints

85
 Figure 2 The standardized Cohen difference for subjects completing slow accentuated eccentrics (n=7) vs.
subjects completing slow traditional training (n=7)

Slow traditional Slow accentuated

training eccentrics Qualitative description
(Control) (Intervention) of differences

Squat 1RM Likely positive

Strength and
Cycling peak power Unclear
power variables
Cycling optimal cadence Likely negative

Reactive Strength Index Unclear

0.50m drop jump
Contact time Unclear
variables
Flight time Possibly negative

10m Unclear
40m sprint 20m Unclear
variables
40m Possibly positive

Max sprint speed Likely positive

Maximum velocity Contact time Likely positive

sprint variables Step rate Likely positive

Vertical stiffness Likely positive

-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Standardized Cohen differences (Effect Size)

Differences are for the change in selected performance variables. Negative values indicate a larger effect with traditional resistance training (TRT), and
positive values indicate a larger effect with accentuated eccentric loading (AEL). Qualitative inferences indicate a positive or negative effect of AEL vs. TRT.
Error bars indicate uncertainty in the true mean changes with 90% confidence intervals. The shaded area represents the smallest worthwhile change.

also tended to improve more in the ac-

centuated eccentric group than the tradi- Interpretation
tional group during the first four weeks. There was a lot going on in this study
During the second four weeks, peak since it was essentially two studies in
power during the cycling test tended to one (since the first half and the second
increase more in the traditional group, half included different eccentric tempos)
while ground contact time during drop and since it included so many outcome
jumps tended to decrease more for the measures. However, the outcomes ended
accentuated eccentrics group. up being pretty straightforward, if a bit
Muscle thickness didn’t meaningfully counterintuitive.
change in either group. However, fascicle To start with, the accentuated eccen-
length may have increased from pre- to tric group had pretty sizeable squat in-
mid-testing in the accentuated eccentric creases during the first block of training
group (ES = 0.61) and decreased back (slow eccentrics and lower loads), while
toward its initial length from mid- to the traditional group actually regressed
post-testing (ES = -0.49). slightly. The authors reported strength as

86
 Figure 3 The standardized Cohen difference for subjects completing fast accentuated eccentrics (n=6) vs.
subjects completing fast traditional training (n=7)

Slow traditional Slow accentuated Qualitative description

training eccentrics of differences
(Control) (Intervention)

Squat 1RM Unclear

Strength and
Cycling peak power Likely negative
power variables
Cycling optimal cadence Unclear

Reactive Strength Index Unclear

0.50m drop jump
Contact time Likely positive
variables
Flight time Unclear

10m Unclear
40m sprint 20m Unclear
variables
40m Unclear

Max sprint speed Unclear

Maximum velocity Contact time Unclear

sprint variables Step rate Unclear

Vertical stiffness Unclear

-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Standardized Cohen differences (Effect Size)

Differences are for the change in selected performance variables. Negative values indicate a larger effect with traditional resistance training (TRT),
and positive values indicate a larger effect with accentuated eccentric loading (AEL). Qualitative inferences indicate a positive or negative effect of
AEL vs. TRT. Error bars indicate uncertainty in the true mean changes with 90% confidence intervals. The shaded area represents the smallest
worthwhile change.

a multiple of body mass so we don’t know four weeks of training when loads were
exactly how many kilos the accentuated higher and eccentric duration decreased
eccentric group put on their squats, but from three seconds to one second.
the average increase was 0.09 times body I think there’s a pretty straightfor-
mass (1.77 to 1.86 times body mass), ward explanation for the larger strength
and the average participant was 97kg, gains in the accentuated eccentric group
so the average increase was probably during the first block of training. They
somewhere around 9kg (~19lb). That’s were handling 92-98% of their 1RM for
not too shabby for a month of training eccentrics, while the traditional group
when you already squat almost double didn’t touch any weights exceeding 79%
bodyweight. On the flip side, the aver- of their 1RM, so intensity was consider-
age squat in the traditional group actu- ably higher in the accentuated eccentric
ally regressed by about 0.03 times body group. However, I do think it’s odd that
mass (probably ~3kg). Furthermore, neither group made progress during the
neither group progressed in the second second four-week block. In theory, you’d

87
expect larger strength gains in both
groups during the second block since
the intensity was higher. For the accen-
tuated eccentric group, progress may
have stalled due to overreaching – han-
dling 100%+ of your max for reps twice
per week isn’t a walk in the park – but
I was still surprised that the traditional
group failed to progress. The addition-
al conditioning work and rugby games
may have impeded strength gains in
both groups.
It’s a bit interesting to me that the
accentuated eccentric group improved
their squat at all. The 1RM testing was
performed with free weights, while all
of the squat training for the accentuat-
ed eccentric group was performed in a
custom Smith machine. It wouldn’t have
surprised me if isolated measures of leg
strength improved more (perhaps peak
knee extension torque, if that would
have been measured in this study), but
I am surprised that free weight squat
strength improved, given that these
were trained lifters. This may indicate
that specificity doesn’t matter quite as
much as many people believe for lifters
who’ve already learned a motor pattern,
at least in the short run.
I’m also trying to make sense of the
increase in maximal sprint speed in
the accentuated eccentric group when
using slow eccentrics. Narrowly, this
makes sense mechanistically due to the
increase in fascicle length (increased
fascicle length should increase max-
ACCENTUATED ECCENTRICS
PROBABLY DON’T INCREASE
HYPERTROPHY BEYOND
WHAT YOU’RE EXPECT FROM
TRADITIONAL TRAINING.
imal shortening velocity). However,
I’m unaware of a mechanistic reason
why the specific combination of slow
eccentrics and overloaded eccentrics
would increase fascicle length in the
first place. Simply performing slow ec-
centrics didn’t seem to be sufficient (as
the traditional group didn’t experience
an increase in fascicle length when
performing slow eccentrics), and sim-
ply overloading the eccentrics doesn’t
seem to be sufficient (as the accentuat-
ed eccentric group actually had a slight
decrease in fascicle length during the
second four weeks of training). Maybe
there’s a clear mechanistic reason why
slow, overloaded eccentrics would in-
crease fascicle length, and thus sprint
speed, but I’m not aware of it. Fur-
thermore, eccentric training has been
shown to increase tendon stiffness (2),
which may also partially explain the in-
crease in sprint velocity in the accentu-
ated eccentric group. However, that still
doesn’t explain why an increase in sprint
88

ACCENTUATED ECCENTRICS
MAY ENHANCE STRENGTH
GAINS, BUT THAT THE
LITERATURE IS STILL TOO
MURKY TO MAKE A CLEAR
RECOMMENDATION.
velocity was observed when using slow
eccentrics but not faster eccentrics.
For more reading on accentuated ec-
centrics, you should check out the con-
cept review Caleb Bazyler wrote a few
months ago. The main takeaways for
hypertrophy and strength were that ac-
centuated eccentrics probably don’t in-
crease hypertrophy beyond what you’re
expect from traditional training, and
that accentuated eccentrics may enhance
strength gains, but that the literature is
still too murky to make a clear recom-
mendation. This study largely supports
those takeaways, as there were no hy-
pertrophy differences between groups
in this study, and strength gains were
only larger in the accentuated eccentric
group during the first half of this study
when loads were relatively low.
Overall, I still think accentuated ec-
centrics are an interesting concept that
warrants further investigation, as a cou-
ple of aspects of this study left a bit to
be desired. For example, if the accentu-
ated eccentric group trained on a Smith
machine, the traditional group should
have also trained on a Smith machine,
and testing should have been per-
formed using a Smith machine. That
may have revealed an even larger differ-
ence in strength gains that was masked
by group differences in specificity. Fur-
thermore, both groups were also doing
a lot of conditioning work and playing
in rugby matches, which likely blunted
strength gains in both groups.
However, at this point, the biggest
problem with accentuated eccentric
training is feasibility. For many exercis-
es, accentuated eccentrics either require
specialized equipment, or a spotter you
really trust. If there was clear evidence
that accentuated eccentrics led to larger
gains, it may be worth getting a special-
ized Smith machine or training a spot-
ter to assist you in just the right way.
However, as it is, it doesn’t seem that
the additional money or effort would
net you much of a payoff. There are ex-
ercises where accentuated eccentrics are
easy and feasible (i.e. for machine leg
curls or leg presses, you can lower the
weight with one leg, and use your oth-
er leg to assist a bit on the concentric),
but they’re generally exercises primarily
performed for hypertrophy (for which
accentuated eccentrics don’t seem to be
beneficial), not for strength.
89
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
1. For the time being, I still don’t feel confident recommending accentuated eccentrics,
both because the research is pretty hazy and because accentuated eccentrics
are generally just less practical than normal reps. However, if you want to give
them a shot, they currently seem to be more promising (tentatively) for strength
development than for hypertrophy.

Next Steps last two reps. I’d hypothesize that hy-

pertrophy would be similar in all three
This may not be the most scientific groups, but if going to failure or past
research topic, but the most common failure actually led to greater hypertro-
application of accentuated eccentrics in phy, that could have large implications
the “real world” is the “bro spot” – af- for day-to-day training.
ter you reach the point of failure, you
keep lowering the weight yourself, and
your spotter assists you in grinding out
an additional rep or two. I also think a
study designed to test the effects of “bro
spotting” could help flesh out the effects
of training to failure. When you think
about it, concentric failure is a some-
what arbitrary endpoint; if you’re us-
ing 80% of your max, concentric failure
means your capacity to produce concen-
tric force has decreased by 20%, whereas
concentric failure when training at 60%
of your max implies that capacity to pro-
duce force has decreased by 40%. In both
cases, you’re “training to failure,” but the
intraset fatigue implied by that endpoint
differs. I’d be interested in seeing a study
where one group stops all sets two reps
shy of failure, one group trains to con-
centric failure, and one group trains two
reps past failure with a “bro spot” on the

90
References
1. Douglas J, Pearson S, Ross A, McGuigan M. Effects of Accentuated Eccentric Loading on Muscle
Properties, Strength, Power, and Speed in Resistance-Trained Rugby Players. J Strength Cond Res.
2018 Aug 15. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002772.
2. Malliaras P, Kamal B, Nowell A, Farley T, Dhamu H, Simpson V, Morrissey D, Langberg H, Maf-
fulli N, Reeves ND. Patellar tendon adaptation in relation to load-intensity and contraction type. J
Biomech. 2013 Jul 26;46(11):1893-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.04.022.
3. The rest of the studies investigating the effects of accentuated eccentric training on strength gains
(one, two, three, four, five, six) are discussed individually in Caleb’s concept review.

91
 VIDEO: Strategies to Improve
Neuromuscular Efficiency
BY MIC HAE L C . ZO URD O S

Rate of force development can be a limiting factor of max strength, but

specifics of training this process are rarely explained. This video provides
practical strategies to improve your neuromuscular efficiency.
Click to watch Michael's presentation.

92
References
1. Zourdos MC, Klemp A, Dolan C, Quiles JM, Schau KA, Jo E, Helms E, Esgro B, Duncan S, Me-
rino SG, Blanco R. Novel resistance training–specific rating of perceived exertion scale measuring
repetitions in reserve. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2016 Jan 1;30(1):267-75.
2. Zourdos MC, Dolan C, Quiles JM, Klemp A, Jo E, Loenneke JP, Blanco R, Whitehurst M. Efficacy
of daily one-repetition maximum training in well-trained powerlifters and weightlifters: a case se-
ries. Nutrición Hospitalaria. 2016;33(2).
3. Peltonen H, Walker S, Hackney AC, Avela J, Häkkinen K. Increased rate of force development
during periodized maximum strength and power training is highly individual. European journal of
applied physiology. 2018 May 1;118(5):1033-42.
4. Del Vecchio A, Negro F, Falla D, Bazzucchi I, Farina D, Felici F. Higher muscle fiber conduction
velocity and early rate of torque development in chronically strength trained individuals. Journal of
Applied Physiology. 2018.
5. Methenitis S, Karandreas N, Spengos K, Zaras N, Stasinaki AN, Terzis G. Muscle Fiber Conduc-
tion Velocity, Muscle Fiber Composition, and Power Performance. Medicine and science in sports
and exercise. 2016 Sep;48(9):1761-71.

93
 VIDEO: Muscle Group
Specialization Cycles
BY E RI C HE LMS

While volume should only be increased if plateaued and if all other variables
are optimal, there may come a time when higher volumes for hypertrophy
are necessary. One way to increase volume without digging too deep of a
recovery hole is the use of muscle group specialization cycles.
Click to watch Eric's presentation.

94
References
1. Ralston, G.W., et al., The Effect of Weekly Set Volume on Strength Gain: A Meta-Analysis. Sports
Med, 2017. 47(12): p. 2585-2601.
2. Schoenfeld, B.J., et al., Strength and hypertrophy adaptations between low- versus high-load resis-
tance training: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res, 2017.
3. Schoenfeld, B.J., D. Ogborn, and J.W. Krieger, Effects of Resistance Training Frequency on Mea-
sures of Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Med, 2016. 46(11):
p. 1689-1697.
4. Schoenfeld, B.J., D. Ogborn, and J.W. Krieger, Dose-response relationship between weekly resis-
tance training volume and increases in muscle mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sports
Sci, 2017. 35(11): p. 1073-1082.
5. Schoenfeld, B.J., et al., Resistance Training Volume Enhances Muscle Hypertrophy. Med Sci Sports
Exerc, 2018.
6. Montero, D. and C. Lundby, Refuting the myth of non-response to exercise training: ‘non-respond-
ers’ do respond to higher dose of training. The Journal of Physiology, 2017. 595(11): p. 3377-3387.
7. Baz-Valle, E., M. Fontes-Villalba, and J. Santos-Concejero, Total Number of Sets as a Training Vol-
ume Quantification Method for Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review. J Strength Cond Res,
2018.
8. Lasevicius, T., et al., Effects of different intensities of resistance training with equated volume load
on muscle strength and hypertrophy. Eur J Sport Sci, 2018. 18(6): p. 772-780.

95
 Just Missed the Cut
Every month, we consider hundreds of new papers, and they can’t all be
included in MASS. Therefore, we’re happy to share a few pieces of research
that just missed the cut. It’s our hope that with the knowledge gained from
reading MASS, along with our interpreting research guide, you’ll be able to
tackle these on your own.

• Ranchordas et al. Antioxidants for preventing and reducing muscle

soreness after exercise: a Cochrane systematic review
• Bermon et al. Serum androgen levels are positively correlated with athletic
performance and competition results in elite female athletes
• Cavarretta et al. The acute effects of resistance exercise on affect,
anxiety, and mood – practical implications for designing resistance
training programs
• Lundberg et al. Analgesic and anti‐inflammatory drugs in sports:
Implications for exercise performance and training adaptations
• Soares et al. Different Load Distributions Affect Acute Neuromuscular
Responses and Muscle Thickness in Resistance-Trained Men
• Beals et al. Altered anabolic signaling and reduced stimulation of
myofibrillar protein synthesis after feeding and resistance exercise in
people with obesity
• Mazzolari. Exercise dose and individual response of healthy adults: is it
time to re‐evaluate exercise responsiveness and training
• Lee et al. A cellular mechanism of muscle memory facilitates mitochondrial
remodelling following resistance training
• Comfort et al. An Investigation Into the Effects of Excluding the Catch
Phase of the Power Clean on Force-Time Characteristics During Isometric
and Dynamic Tasks: An Intervention Study
• Sharp et al. The Effects of Beef, Chicken, or Whey Protein After Workout
on Body Composition and Muscle Performance
• Aguiar et al. Acute metabolic responses following different resistance
exercise protocols

96
• Eckard et al. The Relationship Between Training Load and Injury in Athletes: A
Systematic Review
• Sumiaki et al. Neuromuscular Adaptations to Work-matched Maximal Eccentric
versus Concentric Training
• Teixeira et al. Leucine Metabolites Do Not Enhance Training-induced
Performance or Muscle Thickness
• Tinsley et al. Fat-free Mass Characteristics of Muscular Physique Athletes

97
 Thanks for
reading MASS.
The next issue will be released to
subscribers on November 1.

Graphics by Katherine Whitfield, and layout design by Lyndsey Nuckols.

98