Strength Plateau? Try Daily Changing Loads: In Advanced Trainees, A, B, C-Days W/ 15, 10, 5 Reps at 70, 80, 90% 1RM Boost 6-Week Strength Gains on All Major Lifts by ~40%

Strength Plateau? Try Daily Changing Loads: In Advanced Trainees, A, B, C-Days W/ 15, 10, 5 Reps at 70, 80, 90% 1RM Boost 6-Week Strength Gains on All Major Lifts by ~40%

advanced trainees advanced training techniques build muscle build strength linear periodization periodization training undulating periodization workout

DCL, i.e. using daily changing loards worked for both, men and women.

The object of today's SuppVersity article comes almost from around the corner: a study conducted by Christoph Eifler, a scientist from the Department of Applied Training Science at the German University of Applied Sciences for Prevention and Health Management (DHfPG) in Saarbrücken (Germany) that is supposed to provide "evidence based training recommendations to the 8.55 million recreational athletes [who] perform fitness-related resistance training in German [gyms]" (Eifler. 2016) - advice that's valid for US boys & girls, Frenchmen & -women and even the Brexiters, too ;-)

As the relatively unspectacular abstract says, "[t]he purpose of this investigation was to analyze the short-term effects of different loading schemes in fitness-related resistance training and to identify the most effective loading method for advanced recreational athletes" (Eifler. 2016)... not exactly something other studies hadn't done before, right? Well, I agree, but...

Learn more about training for "gainz" in both strength and size...

What's the Right Training 4 You?

Hypertrophy Blueprints

Fat Loss Support Blueprint

Strength Training Blueprints

Study: Over-training Exists

Recovering from the Athlete's Triad

Not only was the study "designed as a longitudinal field-test study", it also included two hundred healthy mature subjects with at least 12 months experience in resistance training and 4 groups of 50 subjects, each (equal gender distribution), who were randomly assigned to train according to the following four load-schemes for six weeks (see Table 1 for a detailed breakdown):

• constant load (CL) with constant volume of repetitions, 
• increasing load (IL) with decreasing volume of repetitions, 
• decreasing load (DL) with increasing volume of repetitions, 
• daily changing load (DCL), and volume of repetitions 

As Eifel highlights, "[a]ll participants performed a standardized resistance training protocol" which comprised an entire resistance training protocol with 8 resistance training exercises for different muscle groups in a systematic and standardized order.

Table 1: Study design: constant and variable loading parameters | *TS = training session; CL = constant load; IL = increasing load; DL = decreasing load; DCL = daily changing load; 1RM = 1 repetition maximum (Eifel. 2016).

Exercise collocation and exercise order in pretest, posttest, and training period were, as Eifel highlights, chosen to be "representative as possible for a recreational resistance training program at commercial fitness clubs" (Eifel. 2016).

Where's the DEXA scanner? That's exactly the question Eifler probably asked himself when he did this field study... all jokes aside: Germany is a rich country, but we still don't have a DEXA at each gym. This is why "[i]n this investigation, training effects were exclusively quantified by testing strength performance (10RM, 1RM)", even though the author knows that "[m]ost clients of a commercial fitness club perform resistance training for preventive or aesthetic aspects" (Eifler. 2016). Ah,... and before you start complaining, I should remind you of the number and training experience of the subjects: N=200 advanced trainees - that gives the study an almost unique statistical power and high practical relevance for trainees like you and me.

More specifically, both, in testing and training, the following resistance training exercises were performed (in the given order): horizontal leg press, chest press, butterfly, lat pull-down, horizontal row, dumbbell shoulder press, cable triceps push-downs, and dumbbell biceps curls - all done on standard gym equipment from various manufacturers (Gym80, Technogym, Lifefitness, Panatta, Nautilus, Precor, David, Schnell, MedX by Delphex, Cybex, Ergofit, and Matrix) and/or with customary dumbbells.

Figure 1: Cumulated effect sizes (Cohen’s d) in 10RM & 1RM (Eifel. 2016); %-ages = rel. difference to DCL | * p < 0.05 for DCL vs. DL and IL & p < 0.001 for DCL vs. CL; p < 0.001 for the mean difference of DCL vs. others (Eifel. 2016).

Unsurprisingly, significant effects on muscle strength gains (p < 0.001) "could be noted for all resistance training exercises" (Eifel. 2016). What may not be that self-evident, on the other hand, is that Eifel also observed significant inter-group differences for both dependent variables (10RM, 1RM), with daily changing load (DCL, EDIT of which I previously falsely claimed that it was fundamentally different from undulating periodization, as it was assessed in e.g. Foschini. 2010; Monteiro. 2009; Rhea. 2002; Simão. 2012 - it's obviously the same, but with the order of the three workouts being reversed every week) in which the analysis of the effect sizes indicates "significantly higher strength gains (p < 0.001) than CL, IL, and DL.

It is furthermore worth mentioning that a comparison of constant, increased and decreasing load patterns did not yield any statistically significant differences. This is likewise an important result, because it explains why most previous studies indicate that changing the load scheme will not significantly affect the performance outcomes of resistance training protocols. After all, said studies mostly lacked a DCL scheme, i.e. a training program in which the loading patterns changed according to Table 1 on a daily basis (or rather from session to session).

Another alternative to try is classic pyramid training, I suggest that you (re-)read my 2012 article "Up & Down The Rack: Study Compares Strength & Size Gains from Good Old Double-Pyramid and Reverse Loading" which discusses a study that confirms its efficacy and suggests that especially the thighs will benefit.

"No gainz, bro?" I am quite certain that there were muscle gains in all subjects. They were just not evaluated in the study at hand (cf. red box). With that being said, the evidence that "resistance training following DCL is more effective for advanced recreational athletes than CL, IL, or DL" (Eifel. 2016), is conclusive enough to assume a similar advantage will exist for other study outcomes, including your beloved "gainz". After all, this well-powered study leaves no doubt that with DCL, which "is widely unknown in fitness-related resistance training", there's "potential for improving resistance training in commercial fitness clubs" (Eifel. 2016) - and let's be honest: isn't training w/ different reps / intensities sets (increasing load) on each workout and reversing the order of the days every week also more fun than classic linear periodization? Comment!

References:

• Foschini, Denis, et al. "Treatment of obese adolescents: the influence of periodization models and ACE genotype." Obesity 18.4 (2010): 766-772.
• Eifler, C. Short-term effects of different loading schemes in fitness-related resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 30(7): 1880–1889, 2016
• Monteiro, Artur G., et al. "Nonlinear periodization maximizes strength gains in split resistance training routines." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 23.4 (2009): 1321-1326.
• Rhea, Matthew R., et al. "A comparison of linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume and intensity for strength." The Journal of strength & conditioning research 16.2 (2002): 250-255.
• Simão, Roberto, et al. "Comparison between nonlinear and linear periodized resistance training: hypertrophic and strength effects." The Journal of strength & conditioning research 26.5 (2012): 1389-1395.

Accentuated Eccentric, Extra-Ordinary Gains - Benefits are Exuberant Compared to Trained Subjects' Own Split-Routine

Accentuated Eccentric, Extra-Ordinary Gains - Benefits are Exuberant Compared to Trained Subjects' Own Split-Routine

advanced trainees advanced training techniques build muscle build strength eccentric eccentric exercise eccentric training eccentrics intensity techniques performance supra-maximal weights

Single-arm dumbbell curls are unquestionably the exercise people will do most frequently with accentuated eccentrics and supra-maximal loads. Unfortunately, the study at hand used only leg exercises. So no information about arm-development, here..

As a very recent paper in Frontiers in Physiology rightly point out, "it becomes more challenging to induce further neuromuscular [...], as training experience increases adaptation" (Walker. 2016). When you are hitting a plateau, the only promising option, according to the authors is to seek "alternative training methods in order to further increase strength and muscle mass" (ibid.).

One of the classic methods to do just that is to utilize accentuated eccentric loading, i.e. to apply a greater external load during the eccentric phase of the lift as compared to the concentric phase (e.g. doing concentration curls with a supra-maximal weight, using the free arm to lift the weight up and only the working arm to slowly lower it, afterwards).

Are you looking for muscle builders for the year 2016? Find inspiration in these articles:

Are Drop-Sets a Significant Growth Promoter?

1, 2, or 5 sets per Exercise? What's "best" for You?

Pre-Exhaustion Exhausts Your Growth Potential

Full ROM ➯ Full Gains - Form Counts!

Battle the Rope to Get Ripped & Strong

Study Indicates Cut the Volume Make the Gains!

In the twin-control group design study, Walker et al. conducted with thirty-three healthy young men had the subjects with 2-7 years of training experience either...

• switched to an accentuated eccentric load-training (AEL),
• continued on the classic split-training routine they were doing, anyway (CON), or
• followed a traditional concentric-eccentric isoinertial training program (TRAD).

While the subjects in the CON group were not supervised and didn't have the same strict dietary control, subjects in the AEL and TRAD groups received the same strick ksupervision and were subjects to the same dietary conditions - the real control group is thus not the CON, but the TRAD group, "because subjects are exposed to the same study conditions as the experimental group. The AEL group performed the same training as TRAD but used greater loading during the eccentric phase, as described in detail below" (Walker. 2016). Speaking of which:

TRAD and AEL engaged in two 5-week training periods where training was performed twice a week(Monday and Thursday or Tuesday and Friday, to allow at least 48 h recovery between training sessions). Training consisted of three sets of 6-RM (session 1) and 10-RM (session 2) bilateral leg press and unilateral knee extension and flexion exercises. [...] TRAD performed the exercises with the same load for both concentric and eccentric phases, while AEL performed the exercises with 40% greater load during the eccentric phase compared to the concentric phase (i.e. eccentric load = concentric load + 40%) [...] In order for each training session to include a true RM, both TRAD and AEL used loads that elicited concentric failure in at least 1 out of 3 sets with the investigator assisting the subject to complete the set. 

Figure 2: Illustration of how weight-releasers were used to add add. load on eccentrics  (Walker. 2016).

Custom weight-releasers were used to add the additional eccentric load to the leg press exercise (Figure 1, left) while weight plates were manually added and removed by the training supervisor(s) with the use of a custom-built pin for the knee extension exercise (Figure 1, right). Both groups performed the concentric and eccentric phases of the lift with a 2:2 s tempo (i.e. 4 s in total), which was monitored by the investigator" (Walker. 2016).

Immediately after each training session TRAD and AEL subjects were given a standardized recovery drink containing 23 g of whey protein (8.47 g leucine and 5.08 g isoleucine per 100 g), 3 g of carbohydrate and 1.6 g of fat (Total+, Vital Strength, PowerFoods International Pty Ltd, Marrickville, New South Wales, Australia) to maximize the initial protein synthesis response to training and standardize post-exercise nutrition between groups.

Figure 2: Overview of changes in performance markers (absolute, left; rel. right | Walker. 2016).

In spite of the identical nutrition and supplementation regimen and the highly similar workout protocols, the maximum isometric torque of the subjects in the AEL group increased significantly more in the accentuated eccentric load group than control (18±10% vs. 1±5%, p<0.01) over whole 10 week study - this benefit was accompanied by, or maybe even facilitated by an increase in voluntary activation (3.5±5%, p<0.05) the scientists analyzed by the means of EMG electrodes.

Figure 3: Changes in volunatary activation level (%) in the three study groups (Walker. 2016).

The study also shows that the eccentric (AEL) regimen lead to sign. increases of the isokinetic eccentric torque (10±9%, p<0.05), while the TRAD group saw only increases concentric torque - increases that were albeit smaller (9±6%; p<0.01 vs. 10±9%; p<0.01; difference 1±7%; p<0.05) than those of the AEL group. And even the knee extension repetition-to-failure improved in the accentuated eccentric load group only (28%, p<0.05). Against that background it is a bit surprising that the authors found "similar increases in muscle mass occurred in both intervention groups" (Walker. 2016).

While there was no difference between the size gains in the TRAD and AEL groups, meaning that eccentric training did not promote muscle gains, both forms of training were vastly superior to the subjects' individual routines (CON).

Bottom line: "In summary, accentuated eccentric load training led to greater increases in maximum force production, work capacity and muscle activation, but not muscle hypertrophy, in strength-trained individuals" (Walker. 2016).

The above is the indisputable conclusion to an interesting study which also shows that either changing your training or stop training like a bro (i.e. according to your own often over-crowded split routine, like subjects in CON) will yield gains in strength and size you'd never seen if you continued on the same stamped out paths you've been pursuing for years. Compared to the effect of this change the add. benefits of eccentric loading are small | Comment!

References:

• Walker, Simon, et al. "Greater strength gains after training with accentuated eccentric than traditional isoinertial loading loads in already strength-trained men." Frontiers in Physiology 7 (2016): 149.