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.

Mix Things Up ⇨ Up Your Gains: Altering Loading Schemes in Every Session Accelerates the Strength Gains in 6-Week Study Involving 200 Experienced (5 Years+) Trainees

Mix Things Up ⇨ Up Your Gains: Altering Loading Schemes in Every Session Accelerates the Strength Gains in 6-Week Study Involving 200 Experienced (5 Years+) Trainees

experienced trainees gain strength performance periodization training experience undulating periodization veterans workout routines workouts

Looking for a new routine for your new-years gym resolution? This SuppVersity article offers suggestions that will pay off in form of strength gains. 

For the rookie, everything works. If you have more than five years of series training experience under your belt, however, you will be progressing much slower - often frustratingly slow(er)... This is why the results of a a soon-to-be-published study in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research are particularly interesting. In contrast to your average resistance training study, the subjects of this study belonged to previously described group of experienced trainees. With a mean training experience of more than 5 years, the initially more than 300 volunteers were thus significantly more representative of the average SuppVersity reader than the "recreationally trained" subject who goes for a jog once a month.

The method used int he study is an alternative to classic periodization schemes.

30% More on the Big Three: Squat, DL, BP!

Block Periodization Done Right

Linear vs. Undulating Periodizationt

12% Body Fat in 12 Weeks W/ Periodizatoin

Detraining + Periodization - How to?

Tapering 101 - Learn How It's Done!

What was likewise remarkable about the study at hand is the number of participants. Ok, after 67 dropouts, there were only 200 subjects left when the author, Christoph Eifler from the Department of Applied Training Science at the German University of Applied Sciences for Prevention and Health Management (DHfPG) in Saarbrücken, Germany, kicked out another 33 subjects to get identical sample sizes and a homogenous gender distribution in all study groups. N=200, however, is still far from what the average resistance training study has to offer.

Table 1: Study design: constant and variable loading parameters (Eifler. 2015).

Overall, this means we have N=50 participants in each of the 4 samples in which the subjects trained as shown in Table 1:

• CL - constant load and constant volume of repetitions over 6 weeks.
• IL - increases in load and decreasing volume of repetitions made every 2 weeks.
• DL - decreases in load and increasing volume of repetitions made every 2 weeks.
• DCL - daily changing load and volume of repetitions.

The total number of repetitions were identical between samples. In addition, both within- and between-set rest was standardized between samples, to isolate the variables of interest (i.e. intensity and volume).

What's the mechanism? While we cannot tell for sure what triggered the increased strength gains in the study at hand, the author's suggestion that "[i]t is possible, that the ongoing alteration between training intensity and training volume prevents habituation effects, at least in short-term resistance training periods" (Eifler. 2015) constitutes a very convincing hypothesis, also in view of the fact that we may assume that "this loading scheme [DCL] places greater stress on the neuromuscular system, so greater strength gains are the result" (ibid.). Supporting evidence for this hypothesis comes from Rhea et al. (2002) who reported as early as in 2002 that DCL-like loading periodization-schemes support a greater adaption of the neuromuscular system.

To asses the effect of the different approaches to "periodize" the subjects' workout regimen, the author used a standardized 10-RM- and 1-RM-test that was performed before and at the end of the 6-week intervention:

"Both 10-RM-testing and 1-RM-testing were designed with the following procedure: 5 minute general warm-up with an intensity of 60% of the theoretical maximum heart rate; one warm-up set with 50% of the load in the first test set; performance of 3 at most test sets to quantify RM (trial and error principle) by 3 minutes rest interval between test sets. Pre- and post-testing occurred at the same time of day to eliminate the potential influence circadian rhythm on strength. The documentation of the test results followed standardized test protocols. At each date of testing, all participants were interviewed about their current state of motivation and their form of the day. Moreover, the temporal gap between the last resistance training session and the presence of muscle soreness and muscle stiffness were recorded" (Eifler. 2015).

Familiarization sessions were unnecessary as subjects had recent experience with all exercises, i.e. horizontal leg presses, chest presses, butterfly, lat pulldowns, horizontal rows, dumbbell shoulder press, cable triceps pushdowns, and dumbbell biceps curls, they had to perform in the given order and over the full range of motion (ROM) in each of their workouts.

Figure 1: Effect sizes of the 6-week training intervention with different loading schemes (Eifler. 2015); * denotes significant differences compared to all other groups - in short: only the DCL workout made a significant difference.

Even though using trained and highly motivated subjects obviously has its advantages, the author adds for consideration there may be selection effects caused by voluntary participation or Hawthorne effects (Macefield. 2007). More specifically, the volunteers in the study at hand were probably (just like you ;-) more likely to comply to changes in behavior and to put maximal physical effort in testing and training. In addition, even though the subjects were told to refrain from additional physical activity and to maintain their regular diets, not all confounding variables, such as differences in nutritional intakes, prior sleep, or interferences caused by other fitness club customers, could be eliminated in this field test study.

Figure 2: Relative strength increases in the four study groups (Eifler. 2015); due to the large inter-individual differences, evidenced by the long error bars, the DCL advantage was not statistically significant.

As Eifler rightly points out, though, "the probability of occurrence of these confounding variables, selection effects or Hawthorne effects, is equal in all samples" (Eifler. 2015), which is why they should average out when you compare the inter-group effect sizes and relative strength increases based on the pre vs. post 1-RM and 10-RM strength test (see Figures 1 & 2).

Overall, there's thus little reason to doubt the results of the study at hand. Results that clearly suggest an advantage of the daily changing load regimen when it comes to maximizing strength increases in trained individuals over the course of a six-week period - and that in spite of the fact that Eifler failed to detect statistically significant effects for the relative strength increases due to the large inter-personal differences (see Figure 2).

This is not the first SuppVersity article discussing evidence in favor of "changing up things more frequently". Back in 2012 I already discussed Spinetti's linear vs. undulating periodization studies w/ similar benefits on the subjects' strength gains.

So what's the verdict, then? Just as the author says, while DCL is widely known, the fact that it is rarely practiced may have average and extraordinary gymrats miss out on a "potential for improving resistance training in commercial fitness clubs" (Eifler. 2015). After all, there's little doubt that the data from the study at hand "indicates that resistance training following DCL is more effective for advanced recreational athletes than" (ibid.) more conventional loading patters, i.e. CL, IL, DL.

Whether the benefits are due to a novelty effect that would be lost over long(er) training periods and whether the same or similar benefits could be achieved in untrained subjects will have to be determined in future research, for the time being however, daily changing load (DCL) and volume of repetitions appears to be worth adding to your list of things to try in the gym in 2016 | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Eifler, Christoph. "Short-term effects of different loading schemes in fitness-related resistance training." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research (2015).
• Macefield, Ritch. "Usability studies and the Hawthorne Effect." Journal of Usability Studies 2.3 (2007): 145-154.
• 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.