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.

Two-A-Day Training - That's Bogus, Right? No - Increased Fat Oxidation in Endurance, 2.4x Higher Max. Volume, 2.6x Higher Time to Exhaustion in Resistance Training Study

Two-A-Day Training - That's Bogus, Right? No - Increased Fat Oxidation in Endurance, 2.4x Higher Max. Volume, 2.6x Higher Time to Exhaustion in Resistance Training Study

AM/PM build muscle citric acid synthase endurance fat oxidation intensity techniques performance RER training training frequency two-a-days workout routines

If you feel totally wasted after every workout, I have bad news for you. In the two-a-day studies at hand the rest between the first and second workout was only 2h! Not exactly much time to recover, but the idea is to "train low" (on glycogen) on the second workout.

It sounds like madness or something for the "enhanced" athletes, but an older scientific study I recently dug out, accidentally, says that "training twice every second day may be superior to daily training" (Hansen. 2005). When I tried to learn more about this topic, though, I had to realize that the evidence is scarce. Similar results have been presented by Yeo et al (2008), though, albeit for trained triathletes and cycling.

In their study, Yeo and colleagues determined the effects of a cycle training program in which selected sessions were performed with low muscle glycogen content on training capacity and subsequent endurance performance, whole body substrate oxidation during submaximal exercise, and several mitochondrial enzymes and signaling proteins with putative roles in promoting training adaptation.

Overtraining can obviously still be an issue | Learn how to check your training status:

Heart Rate Variablity (HRV)

ABEL Sports Test + More

Overtraining & Undereating

Calculate your Energy Intake!

Overtraining W/ Only 25min/day?

Reinvent Your Training!

Now, the interesting thing about Yeo's study and the reason I want to discuss their results first is that the scientists from the School of Medical Sciences at the RMIT University in Victoria, Australia used trained subjects - seven endurance-trained cyclists/triathletes who were used to training daily anyway. During the three week study period, however, the subjects had to stick to one of the following training schedules:

• Daily training (Daily - aka "High") - In this group the subjects alternated between 100-min steady-state aerobic rides (AT) one day, followed by a high-intensity interval training session (HIT; 8x5 min at maximum self-selected effort) the next day.
• Twice every second day training (Two-A-Day - aka "Low") - Subject who had been randomly assigned to this group performed the AT, first, then 1–2 h later, the HIT. 

Forty-eight hours before and after the first and last training sessions, all subjects completed a 60-min steady-state ride (60SS) followed by a 60-min performance trial. Muscle biopsies were taken before and after 60SS, and rates of substrate oxidation were determined throughout this ride and the results were... well, let's say interesting:

Figure 1: Markers of fact glycogen use and fat oxidation during steady state exercise after 3 weeks of training (Yeo. 2008)

As you can see markers of mytochondrial beta oxidation (citrate synthase), as well as the glycogen concentrations and whole body fat oxidation during the 60 minute steady state ride pre-/post-test increased exclusively in the "two-a-day" group. That's a relevant results, even though the increase in cycling performance improved by 10% in both Low and High and the performance during the HIIT trials, which were performed after the aerobic rides, suffered in the LOW, i.e. the "Two-a-Day" arm o the study (see Figure 2, right).

Figure 2: During the training sessions the HIIT performance is initally lower, but even then the increased capacity to oxidize fat and thus ability to spare gluocose pays off in slowly increasing performance markers (no sign. difference anymore) after only 7 HIIT sprints - during a race the fat oxidation boost (right) may be even more important (Yeo. 2008)

Why's that beneficial? Well, while it is not relevant for short bouts of HIIT, the significant increase in fat oxidation during the exercise test (see Figure 2, right) indicates that, the subjects' ability to use fuel as substrate during steady state, as well as longer interval rides increased significantly. The spared glycogen may then, during a longer race, for example, decide victory and defeat when the glycogen depleted every-day trainer cannot keep up with the glycogen sparing two-a-day every other day trainer during a sprint at the end of a race.

Want to learn more? At this point you may be reminded of a previous article of mine with the telling title "8x Increase in "Mitochondria Building" Protein PGC1-Alpha W/ Medium Intensity Exercise in Glycogen Depleted Elite(!) Cyclists: Training Revolution or Recipe for Disaster?". If not, I suggest you head back and read it now!

The obvious question that's probably preying on your minds already is: How on earth does that relate to strength training, bro? Well, let's see... so, in the strength training study by Hansen, et al., the authors actually speculated to observe an effect as it was observed in the study I discuss in the article I referenced in the red box, i.e.  that "training at a low muscle glycogen content [during a second workout on the same day] would enhance training adaptation" (Hansen. 2005). Therefore, the Hansen et al performed a study in which seven healthy untrained men performed knee extensor exercises with one leg trained in a two-a-day fashion (2h rest between the 1h sessions), the other one in everyday. Luckily, the study duration in this study was 10 and not just 3 weeks.

Against that background it is not surprising that the training load increased significantly. Since the latter has little to do with the mitochondria, it is also not that surprising that the increase in maximal workload was identical for the two legs. What may be surprising for those who think that training twice a day would be bogus, however, is that the time until exhaustion and total volume during the post-test was "markedly more increased" in the leg that was trained twice a day, albeit only every other day vs. the one that was trained daily, but only once (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: Relative performance increases from pre- to post-test (left) and glycogen levels before and after exhausting bouts of knee extensor exercises (right) | high = daily training, low = twice a day, but only every other day (Hansen. 2005).

Just like in the previously cited cylcling study by Yea et al, the effect may be attributed to (a) increased resting muscle glycogen and (b) higher activities of the mitochondrial enzyme 3-hydroxyacyl-CoA dehydrogenase and citrate synthase which are both involved in the oxidation of fat in the mitochondria of your muscle.

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

Bottom line: While it should be obvious that (a) further research is necessary and (b) the benefits of two-a-day training will depend on your training goals, the (older) studies presented in this article clearly support what Hansen et al phrase like this: "training twice every second day may be superior to daily training" (Hansen. 2005).

Ok, while the benefits for cyclists are obvious, it will have to be proven that the additional one or two reps or the extra high intensity set you may be able to do due to the improvements in glycogen sparing fatty oxidation will actually increase your muscle gains, but the mere possibility that training twice a day every other day could be better than training everyday, which is something I see people do at the gym regularly, is intriguing, isn't it? Comment!

References:

• Hansen, Anne K., et al. "Skeletal muscle adaptation: training twice every second day vs. training once daily." Journal of Applied Physiology 98.1 (2005): 93-99.
• Yeo, Wee Kian, et al. "Skeletal muscle adaptation and performance responses to once a day versus twice every second day endurance training regimens." Journal of Applied Physiology 105.5 (2008): 1462-1470.

GYM-Science Update: Bands Aid W/ Deadlifts? 16x1 or 4x4 for HIIT? Kettlebell HIIT Workout Better Than HIIT-Cycling?

GYM-Science Update: Bands Aid W/ Deadlifts? 16x1 or 4x4 for HIIT? Kettlebell HIIT Workout Better Than HIIT-Cycling?

bands cycling deadlift high intensity HIIT interval training intervals kettlebells lose fat on short notice performance rest intervals workout routines workouts

Deadlifts w/ bands as they were done in the Galpin study (original photo from Galpin's 2015 study | see below).

Time for a news-quickie with the latest science to use at the gym - either for your workouts or just to impress the bros with your knowledge. I mean, who else reads and understands all the latest papers in the #1 strength and conditional journal on earth? Well, you do... ok, you read my laymen summaries, but your bros don't have to know that, do they?

Ok, that's enough of the pseudo-comedian warm-up, let's deadlift the first scientific paper... oh,yeah: Actually the paper is about deadlifting, deadlifting with resistance bands as it is shown in the photo on the right, where a subject performs the deadlift on a force plate.

Read more about exercise-related studies at the SuppVersity

Tri- or Multi-Set Training for Body Recomp.?

Aug '15 Ex.Res. Upd.: Nitrate, Glycogen, and ...

Pre-Exhaustion Exhausts Your Growth Potential

Full ROM ➯ Full Gains - Form Counts!

BFR-Preconditio- ning Useless for Weights?

Study Indicates Cut the Volume Make the Gains!

• Deadlift with bands for power and speed - Galpin et al. (2015) investigated how using bands while deadlifting at different loads, namely 60 and 85% of one's individual 1RM, i.e. the maximal weight you can lift for exactly one perfect rep, would influence the power and velocity at which twelve trained men (age: 24.08 ± 2.35 years, height: 175.94 ± 5.38 cm, mass: 85.58 ± 12.49 kg) with deadlift 1 repetition maxima (1RM) of 188.64 ± 16.13 kg pulled the weight off the floor.
  
  The results of the study show that there were significant peak (yet not relative) power changes irrespective of whether only 15% of the total resistance (group B1) or 35% of the total resistance (group B1) came from the bands (vs. the actual weight).
  

  

  Figure 1: Relative changes in power and bar velocity (compared to training w/out bands = control); * denotes sign. difference to control, ** denotes significant difference to control and light bands (Galpin. 2015)

  The effect became even more pronounced and extended from peak to average power, when the subjects used the heavier (85% 1RM) weights. In this condition using bands lead to greater peak and relative power production and lowered the velocity significantly compared to the control condition in which the subjects lifted at the same total level of resistance, albeit without bands (all values in Figure 1 are relative differences).
  
  For trainees the data in Figure 1 could be highly relevant, because it indicates that heavy bands should be used, when "prescribing the deadlift for speed or power, but not maximal force" (Galpin. 2015). If that's not you, i.e. you're not training for speed and power, but e.g. for size, future long(er)-term studies will have to show whether using bands makes a difference with respect to this study training goal.
• Interval length, can you really pick whichever suits your best? Even though a recent study by Wesley Tucker et al. (2015) shows that the rate of perceived exertion, as well as the mean heart rate of 14 recreationally active and thus not exactly jacked males who participated in their latest study were identical on 4x4 and 16x1 high intensity interval protocols (i.e. 4 intervals à 4 minutes vs. 16 intervals a 1 minute | see Figure 2), seasoned SuppVersity readers will probably remember that previous studies showed highly relevant differences in the long(er) term effects which obviously cannot be measured in an acute phase study like the one at hand.
  

  

  Figure 2: Illustration of the two HIIT protocols, incl. warm-up and cool down on cycle ergometers. White boxes are intervals during which the subjects were supposed to exercise at 90% of their peak heart rate (during the 16x1 protocol this was not achieved by all study participants in the latter intervals, though | Tucker. 2015).

  To be more specific, previous studies on high intensity interval training suggested that athletes who want to increase their VO2 max benefit more from fewer longer intervals, while "Mr. and Mrs. Average" could be better off improving their body composition and metabolic rate with a higher number of short intervals (even as short as 15 seconds in the Tabata protocol). Against that background and in order to explain or contradict the previous findings, it may be worth to consider other study outcomes in Tucker et al. (2015). Study outcomes which did differ. The total energy expenditure, for example, was 19% higher during the 16x1 protocol (p < 0.001) which is in line with the previously referenced recommendation of short intervals for people who are trying to lose weight.
  

  

  Figure 3: VO2, heart rate, and energy expenditure during the two HIIT protocols (watch the units! I converted them to be able to put all data into the same graph | Tucker. 2015).

  The VO2 uptake, as well as the maximal heart rates, which could be of interest for endurance athletes, on the other hand, were higher in the 4x4 protocol - a finding that would likewise support the previously voiced recommendation that (endurance) athletes should torture themselves with long(er) intervals to trigger further adaptations in VO2max and heart rate at a given power output.
  
  Overall, the study at hand will thus not revolutionize your training, but if you haven't read the previous SuppVersity articles, you may still have gotten some new insights into how you may want to adapt your HIIT training in the future.
• Kettlebell or cycle ergometer? Which do you chose for your HIIT sessions? I've written about kettlebell swings as muscle builders before and I've also hinted at the possibility of using the "bells" for your HIIT workouts. Now, a recent study by Williams and Kraemer shows that

  "[kettlebell high intensity interval training aka] KB-HIIT may [even] be more attractive and sustainable than [sprint interval cycling aka] SIC and can be effective in stimulating cardiorespiratory and metabolic responses that could improve health and aerobic performance" (Williams. 2015).

  The purpose of the study was - you probably already guessed it - to determine the effectiveness of a novel exercise protocol we developed for kettlebell high-intensity interval training (KB-HIIT) in comparison to the classic, standard sprint interval cycling (SIC) exercise protocol most people associate with equipment-based HIIT sessions. To this ends, the researchers from the Southeastern Louisiana University had eight "very active" young men (mean age 21.5 years; body fat 18.52 +/-3.04%, fat free mass 67.44 kg of a total weight of 82.95 kg) complete two 12-minute sessions of KB-HIIT and SIC in a counterbalanced fashion.

  

  Figure 4: Overview of the KB-HIIT workout (my illustration).

  "In the KB-HITT session [exercises see Figure 4, mean weight depending on exercise and subject 10-22 kg], 3 circuits of 4 exercises were performed using a Tabata regimen.

  
  

  In the SIC session, three 30-second sprints were performed, with 4 minutes of recovery in between the first 2 sprints and 2.5 minutes of recovery after the last sprint" (Williams. 2015)

  The study's within-subjects' design over multiple time points allowed Williams and Kraemer to compare the oxygen consumption, the respiratory exchange ratio (RER, a marker of the ratio of fat to carbohydrates that is used as fuel during the workout), the tidal volume (TV, the volume of air that is inspired or expired in a single breath during regular breathing), the breathing frequency (f), the subject's minute ventilation (VE), caloric expenditure rate (kcal/min), and their heart rate (HR) on an individual basis between the exercise protocols. In conjunction with the total caloric expenditure which was likewise measured / calculated and compared. The total amount of data the authors collected was thus quite large.
  

  

  Figure 5: Mean total energy expenditure in kcal during the KB and SIC sessions (Williams. 2015)

  Significant inter-group differences were found for VO2, RER, TV and total energy expenditure, with VO2 and total energy expenditure being higher and TV and RER being lower in the KB-HIIT compared with the cycle ergometer HIIT protocol. For f, VE, the energy expenditure per minute and the heart rate, there were no general inter-group differences, but "only" significant group × time interactions. Practically speaking, this means that they changed differently over the course of the whole protocol and are thus maybe relevant for certain athletes, yet not for the general public.
  
  Overall, the William's and Kraemer's study does therefore support the notion that doing kettlebell HIIT workouts is probably at least on par with the classic cycling HIIT sessions. In view of the increased total caloric expenditure and the lower RER, which signifies a significantly higher fat oxidation during the workout, it is even possible that KB-HIIT would be the better choice for dieters than doing HIIT on a cycle ergometer. Since there is no direct link between fat oxidation and/or energy expenditure during workouts and fat loss, however, long(er)-term studies are necessary to find out whether doing KB-HIIT is in fact more than a equivalent and for many of you maybe funnier alternative to doing HIIT on a cycle ergometer. 

Block Periodization - Training revolution or simple trick? This is what we have to ask ourselves in view of the results of a previously discussed study from 2014 | Read the full SV-Classic article here!

Bottom line: That's it for today; so I suggest you take what you learned, pack it in your gymbag and go and impress your bros at the gym ;-) I am just kiddin'... actually I hope that you can really use some of the information in today's installment of the SuppVersity Short News to make your workouts more productive, more enjoyable and/or simply more versatile.

Personally, I will probably give the KB-HIIT workout a try,... and that even though I expect it to be much harder than cycling which is something I am already used to. But hey, isn't that what training is all about? You have to challenge your body - even if that means conquering your weaker self.

I mean, we all know that as soon as you are staying within the cozy comfort zone of doing the same exercises with the same weights workout after workout your progress will stall; and unless you are one of those people who hit the gym to be able to talk to their athletic friends, that's certainly nothing you should aim for | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Galpin, AJ, Malyszek, KK, Davis, KA, Record, SM, Brown, LE, Coburn, JW, Harmon, RA, Steele, JM, and Manolovitz, AD. Acute effects of elastic bands on kinetic characteristics during the deadlift at moderate and heavy loads. J Strength Cond Res 29(12): 3271–3278, 2015
• Tucker, WJ, Sawyer, BJ, Jarrett, CL, Bhammar, DM, and Gaesser, GA. Physiological responses to high-intensity interval exercise differing in interval duration. J Strength Cond Res 29(12): 3326–3335, 2015
• Williams, BM and Kraemer, RR. Comparison of cardiorespiratory and metabolic responses in kettlebell high-intensity interval training versus sprint interval cycling. J Strength Cond Res 29(12): 3317–3325, 2015

Training "On Cycle", Done Right - Women See Much Better Results When Periodization is in Line W/ Menstrual Cycle

Training "On Cycle", Done Right - Women See Much Better Results When Periodization is in Line W/ Menstrual Cycle

build muscle build strength female health menstrual cycle periodization training plan training programming woman women women strength workout programming workout routines

Yes, I could have exploited the ambiguity and called this article "Training 'On Cycle', Done Right - Women See Much Better Results When Periodization is in Line W/ Their Period", but let's be honest: This is a science website and that's neither scientific, nor actually funny, is it?

As a man, I have to admit to be at best well-read, yet not experienced in all things "menstrual cycle". So, while I do only know from the (very different things) I've heard from (ex-)girl friends about how they feel during the different phases, I do know that the hormonal differences in the luteal phase, with high levels of progesterone and estrogen, and the follicular phase with low progesterone and eventually increasing estrogen levels are pronounced enough to cause much more than just mood disturbances.

For many trainers, however, the estrous cycle is still a closed book. "Can you train, or not!?" Especially male trainers are not just insensitive when they ask their protégées this question, they may also be missing out on a chance to maximize their clients' training progress. That's at least what a recent 4-months study from the Umea University in Sweden (Wikström-Frisén. 2015) suggests.

Learn more about the (often ;-) small but significant difference at the SuppVersity

1g PRO per 2g CHO + Circuit T. for Women?

Is the Optimal Exercise Order Sex-Specific?

1-3mg Melatonin Shed Fat W/Out Diet & Exercise

Not Bulky! Lifting Will Make Toned & Strong.

How to Really Train Like a Woman

Sex-Differences in Fat Oxidation - Reviewed

According to Wikström-Frisén and colleagues, "high frequency periodized leg resistance training during the first two weeks of the menstrual cycle is more beneficial to optimize training, than the last two weeks" (ibid. 2015). Now, "beneficial" is obviously a very loosely defined term. When I am telling you, though, that power, strength and lean body mass gains all benefited from the right timing of the workouts (in the first two weeks of the estrous cycle), I will hopefully have every women's and every trainers' attention (even though, I guess I will lose even more of the male bros, now).

Figure 1: Relative changes in lean mass (DXA data), measures power and strength (torque) in 59 trained women in response two weeks of frequent leg-training in the first or second two weeks of their estrous cycle (Wikström-Frisén. 2015).

While all the aforementioned increases in the women who trained in the first two weeks of their estrous cycle were statistically significant (for all, but the quad torque test | +4.4% the statistical significance also survived the Benferroni corrections), the women in the group for whom the periodization scheme had a focus on the second two weeks of their menstrual cycle, saw no significant changes in lean mass and power and a significant reduction in quad strength (see Figure 1). Since the latter lost its statistical power, after Benferroni corrections, though, one could say that the changes the Swedish researchers observed in the 2nd weeks group were practically meaningless.

What about women on oral contraception? The scientists recruited 32 young women on oral contraceptives and 27 women who didn't use oral contraceptives and a re-analysis of the data in Figure 1 didn't show significant inter-group differences between the two groups. In other words, the data in Figure 1 and thus the main findings are relevant for "all" resistance training young women, irrespective of whether they're taking contraceptives, or not. The only difference is that you go by the contraceptive (CC), instead of the estrous cycle and place the high frequency training period in the first, not the last two weeks of the CC cycle.

"Meaningless changes", however, are not meaningless results. In fact, the exact opposite is the case. These results tell trainers and female trainees, alike, that abandoning their protégées / their own

• regular non-periodized training, i.e. three leg training workouts per week that consisted of leg presses and leg curls (3x sets @ 8-10RM, 1-2 minutes rest between sets; progressive increase of weight by 2-10% whenever the subjects could perform 3x10 reps with a given weight) 

for 4-months and switching to a periodized 2-week high- vs. 2-week low-frequency training, where they would perform the same 48 workouts in either

• high-frequency first cycles, i.e. 5 workouts per week in the first two weeks, 1 workout per week for the last two weeks of each menstrual / contraceptive cycle, or
• high-frequency last cycles, i.e. 1 workout per week in the first two weeks, 4 workouts per week for the last two weeks of each menstrual / contraceptive cycle,

would have beneficial effects on their progress only if they increase the frequency during the early phase of the cycle. 

Figure 2: Comparison of the relative changes in the periodization group (high frequency in the first two weeks of the menstrual / CC cycle) vs. control group (three workouts per week for 4 months | Wikström-Frisén. 2015).

Ok, if you compare the periodization group to the control group which kept the regular "three workouts per week"-frequency (see Figure 2, green bars) was maintained, the "advantages" of periodizing "correctly" are not as pronounced as they are in comparison to doing it the "wrong" way. Even though, only the hamstrings appear to benefit to a large extent from periodization, though, benefits exist.

What's even more important, though, is the simple, but really important revelation (or for the few of you who have read about this before e.g. in Reis et al. (1995) "confirmation") that a woman's menstrual and similarly her contraceptive cycle must be aligned to her training schedule. Obviously, the implications will have to be further explored in future studies. Studies, of which I hope, that they will be using smarter periodization schemes which acknowledge that training only once a week is simply not enough... ;-)

SuppVersity Classic: Train Like a Woman: Common Misconceptions About Training & Eating for A Cover-Model Physique - An Interview With Sports Nutritionist & Strength Coach Orit Tsaitli | learn more

Bottom line: Before I try to put things into perspective, I should mention that the participants of the study who were recruited at local gyms, were not jut healthy, non-smokers and had regular menses, they were also experienced trainees. All of them had been doing leg presses and leg-curls for several months - in fact, on average for 3.5 years. Against that background, even non-statistical significant inter-group differences as they were observed between the periodization (5 per week, 1 per week) and the control group (3 per week) may be practically relevant, because they may help experienced trainees to break through plateaus.

With that being said, I personally think of this study as one study in a series of studies that will hopefully elucidate how women can adapt their training regimen to the repetitive changes in the hormonal milieu of their bodies.

If we are honest with ourselves, the fact that Wikström-Frisén's results come as a surprise to most of us is only further evidence of how wantonly exercise scientists and trainers, alike, have hitherto neglected the peculiarities of the female physiology and endocrinology | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Reis, E., U. Frick, and D. Schmidtbleicher. "Frequency variations of strength training sessions triggered by the phases of the menstrual cycle." International journal of sports medicine 16.8 (1995): 545-550.
• Wikström-Frisén, L., C. J. Boraxbekk, and K. Henriksson-Larsén. "Effects on power, strength and lean body mass of menstrual/oral contraceptive cycle based resistance training." The Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness (2015).

Nine Short Workouts (AM+PM) p. Week Yield Extra Strength, Size and Performance Gains Compared to Volume Matched 3-Day Split, All Differences are Non-Significant, Though

Nine Short Workouts (AM+PM) p. Week Yield Extra Strength, Size and Performance Gains Compared to Volume Matched 3-Day Split, All Differences are Non-Significant, Though

AM/PM bodybuilding build muscle exercise science fitness fitness model frequency high volume lose fat performance training science training volume workout frequency workout routines

15 min in the AM, 15 in the PM = Win? For many of you that may sound laughable, but according to a recent study from the University of Copenhagen it is at least as effective as three "mammoth" workouts-sessions per week.

What kind of trainee are you? Do you hit the gym thrice a week, spend two hours there and crawl out of the gymdoors totally exhausted? Yeah... Well that means you're not the fitness model guy, who trains twice a day for 15-20 minutes only and swears that this is the only way to do it?

After all these questions you're probably asking yourself if the answers you gave in your mind were good or bad for ya? Right? Well, eventually, both forms of training can be equally effective. If we take a closer look at the non-significant study outcomes in a recent paper by scientists from the University of Copenhagen (Kilen. 2015), though body composition and strength may in fact benefit more if you train more frequently - even if the total workout volume is the same.

No single workout routine works forever. Periodize to make continuous progress!

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!

Workout volume? Yes, that's the number of sets and reps. So, let's say you do three 45-minute training sessions weekly, including 1 strength on Monday, 1 high intensity cardiovascular (HIIT) session on Wednesday, and 1 muscle endurance session on Thursday, then those 3x45 minutes + warm-up exercise are your total workout volume.

In case that's what you're doing on a regular basis, you're training just like those of the 21 study subjects (10 men, 11 women; 25 +/- 3 years) with some previous training experience who were randomly assigned to the "classical" training program in the previously mentioned study by Kilen, et al. (2015). If you're rather the fitness model type, you may recognize your own training in what the other subjects did, i.e. a "micro training" program with a total of nine 15-minute training sessions weekly that were divided equally between strength training, high-intensity cardiovascular training, and muscle endurance training and performed in the AM and PM from Monday to Friday (there was no PM training on Friday, though, and cardio and strength were rotated | see caption of Table 1).

Table 1: Description of the two different training regimen (Kilen. 2015) | *To minimize the potential negative effect of concurrent cardio + strength training, MI performed 2 days of strength (Mon and + Tue) and 1 day of cardio training (Wed) in odd weeks, and 1 day of strength (Mon) and 2 days of cardio training (Tue + Wed) in even weeks.

Unlike the training frequency and rest between workouts, the strength training, HIIT and muscular endurance training sessions, themselves, were identical in both groups:

• Strength training consisted of leg exercises (deadlifts, lunges, step-ups, and 1 leg squats), with 1–2 warm-up sets and 2–3 target sets of 8RM, and upper-body exercises (pullups, dips, weighted push-ups, and 1 arm rows), with 1–2 warm-up sets and 2–3 target sets of 5RM. For progression, the exercises were adjusted using extra loading (sandbags in 1-kg steps) if the subjects were able to accomplish more repetitions than prescribed. If the subjects were not able to perform the number of repetitions prescribed, they performed as many as they could in proper form and finished the set conducting only the eccentric phase of the exercise. 
• High-intensity cardiovascular training (HIIT) consisted of running for 2 and 4 minutes at an average speed of 15.1 and 14.5 km/h, respectively, which elicited ;90% maximal heart rate during exercise. Micro training performed two 4-minute run intervals in the morning with 3 minutes of rest in between and four 2-minute run intervals in the afternoon with 1 minute of rest in between. Classical training performed three 4-minute and six 2-minute run intervals in the same training session with the same rest as MI in between. The training volume was evaluated and the only significant difference was running distance during 2-minute and 4-minute intervals, where MI ran significantly further than CL in each interval. 
• Muscle endurance training consisted of three 5-minute exercise sessions involving 5 different exercises performed continuously for 30 seconds with 30-second rest periods. Micro training conducted 3 sessions; the first was “easy,” the second “hard,” and the third “very hard.” Classical training conducted 9 sessions in the same order, starting over with “easy” on the fourth and seventh sessions. The exercises were weighted lunges (with a 20-kg sandbag); push-ups; shuttle runs; abdominal exercises ([a] regular sit-ups from a supine position with knees bent at 908, fists in contact with the ears and the lumbar arch supported by a folded towel, and [b] diagonal sit-ups from a horizontal supine position, outstretched hand to opposite raised foot, alternating); and back exercises ([a] back extensions on an incline bench and [b] kettlebell swings in a standing position). 

As Kilen et al. point out, "[a]ll training sessions were supervised by scientific staff, and subject attendance" as well as "[h]eart rate [...] during high-intensity cardiovascular training and muscle endurance training for the last 5 weeks of the training intervention" (Kilen. 2015) were recorded.

Figure 1: Relative pre- vs. post changes in all measures performance markers (calculated based on Kilen. 2015).

After the 8-weeks on the respective training regiment, a comparison of the pre- vs. post-training data yielded the following results:

• Increases in shuttle run performance were observed in both group, albeit with a higher significance as far as the pre- vs. post-difference is concerned in the classical training (CL) vs. micro training (MI) group (MI: 1,373 +/- 133 m vs. 1,498 +/- 126 m, p < 0.05; CL: 1,074 6 213 m vs. 1,451 6 202 m, p , 0.001).
• Significant improvements in peak oxygen uptake (3,744 6 +/- 615 mL/min vs. 3,963 +/- 753 mL/min | p < 0.05), maximal voluntary isometric (MVC) force of the knee extensors (646 +/- 135 N vs. 659 +/- 209 N | p < 0.001), MVC of the finger flexors (408 +/- 109 N vs. 441 +/- 131 N, p < 0.05), and the maximal number of lunges performed in 2 minutes (65 +/- 3 vs. 73 +/- 2, p , 0.001), however, were seen only in the micro = high frequency training group.

The question you may be asking yourselves now is: Why does the headline say that there were no significant differences? Well, the lack of statistical significance of the improvements in the classical training group does not suffice for a statistically significant between difference to the micro training group. Statistical significant inter-group differences did not exist either before or after the study. The scientists conclusion that

"similar training adaptations can be obtained with short, frequent exercise sessions or longer, less frequent sessions where the total volume of weekly training performed is the same" (Kilen. 2015)

is thus absolutely correct. The fact that statistical significance for the aforementioned study outcomes was achieved in the micro, yet not in the classical training group does still suggest that the high(er) frequency training regimen may have an adaptive edge... albeit in terms of study outcomes not everyone will deem practically relevant.

Figure 2: Neither the in-group nor the inter-group changes in body composition did reach statistical significance (calculated base on Kilen. 2015). At least in my humble opinion, though, they are still interesting.

Speaking of what people will deem relevant: We haven't addressed the changes in body composition yet. Why's that? Well, if we go by statistical significance, there were none. If we go by %-ages, though, the increase in lean and decrease in fat mass in the micro training, as well as the opposite trends in the classical training group add to the non-significant evidence that it may make sense to train more frequent and that - when all is said and done - total volume may eventually not be the only thing that matters... I mean, if you look at the data in Figure 2 it would - in defiance of the statistical insignificance of the changes - still seem as if the previously mentioned fitness model was right: For him or her, for whom improves body composition are the primary goal, his / her frequent AM/PM training regimen does in fact appear to be the training model of choice | Comment!

References:

• Kilen, Anders, et al. "Adaptations to Short, Frequent Sessions of Endurance and Strength Training Are Similar to Longer, Less Frequent Exercise Sessions When the Total Volume Is the Same." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 29 (2015): S46-S51.