MASS Volume 4, Issue 1 PDF

V O L U ME 4 , ISS U E 1 JANUARY 2 0 2 0
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 N UCK O LS | MIC HAEL ZO URDO S | ERIC T REXL E R

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 earned his M.A. in exercise and sport science from 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, has specializations 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. 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.
Eric Trexler
Eric Trexler is a pro natural bodybuilder and a sports nutrition researcher. Eric has a PhD in Human
Movement Science from UNC Chapel Hill, and has published dozens of peer-reviewed research
papers on various exercise and nutrition strategies for getting bigger, stronger, and leaner. In addition,
Eric has several years of University-level teaching experience, and has been involved in coaching since
2009. Eric is the Director of Education at Stronger By Science.
2
Letter from
the Reviewers
I t’s a new year, a new decade, and a new volume of MASS, and this month’s issue is packed full of
great articles to kick off Volume 4.
Greg’s got three terrific articles this month. In one article, he reviews a study comparing veloci-
ty-based training versus percentage-based training in rugby players. He also reviews a study evaluating
a common training technique known as pre-exhaustion, in which a lifter intentionally fatigues a muscle
with a single-joint exercise before completing a multi-joint exercise with the same muscle. Finally, Greg
covers a topic that is near and dear to his heart, as he reviews a new study comparing fatigability in males
versus females. This was the central topic of his recent thesis research, so he’s got plenty to say about
what these findings mean for your training.
Mike’s also got a couple of excellent reviews of recent training studies. One of Mike’s articles discusses
an often-debated topic: How close to failure should we be training? Mike contextualizes these new find-
ings within the larger body of evidence, and provides some excellent practical takeaways. We all train
through soreness from time to time, but does this affect our ability to master our lifting technique? Mike
reviews a study suggesting that soreness may impair motor learning, and discusses how the findings re-
late to how and when to practice the technical aspects of your lifting.
Finally, the Erics have the nutrition side of things covered this month. Helms reviews a much-needed
study on bodybuilders, which aimed to determine if the highly popular strategy of pre-competition car-
bohydrate loading actually enhances muscle size and appearance. In addition, Trexler covers a couple
new supplement studies. We all know that multi-ingredient pre-workout supplements can get us amped
up before a workout, but Trexler reviews a study investigating if daily use actually yields greater strength
and muscle gains over four weeks of training. While caffeine is a cornerstone of most pre-workouts, some
have suggested that theacrine might be a new and improved alternative to caffeine. In Trexler’s other ar-
ticle, he reviews a recent study comparing theacrine, caffeine, and a combination of both, and discusses
whether or not you should be ditching your caffeine in favor of theacrine.
As always, we’ve got a couple of videos this month to complement the written articles. Mike’s got a
fantastic video about how and when to use “plus sets,” or sets in which you complete as many repetitions
as possible, and Eric Helms has a video on how to transition back to normal life after successfully prepar-
ing for a physique sport competition or losing a substantial amount of weight.
Thank you for joining us as we kick off a new year and a new volume of MASS. Stay tuned for more
great reviews and content, as volume 4 is primed to be our best yet!
Sincerely,
The MASS Team

Eric Helms, Greg Nuckols, Mike Zourdos, and Eric Trexler
3
Table of Contents
6
BY G R EG NUCKOL S
More Velocity-Based Training Data: Still Encouraging, Though a Bit

Less Impressive
We recently reviewed the first longitudinal study on the effects of velocity-based training. The second
study is out now, and its results are quite a bit less impressive, though it still contains a few positives for
velocity-based training.
18
BY M I CHAEL C. ZOUR DOS
Score Another One for Non-Failure Training

These days, everyone has an opinion regarding the necessity of training to failure for maximizing
hypertrophy. This makes it interesting anytime a new study comes out on the topic. This article
breaks down the newest failure versus non-failure study and interprets it in context with the totality
of the literature.
30
BY E RI C HEL MS
Now We Know: Carb Loading Works for Bodybuilding

Until now, there was only a single study with limited validity on the effectiveness of carb loading for
enhancing appearance in non-bodybuilders. Additionally, we had anecdotes and observational and
survey data of bodybuilders. However, this new study is the first valid evidence on carb loading,
showing it increases the appearance and actual size of muscle.
43
BY E R I C T R EXL ER
Four Weeks of Daily Supplementation with a Multi-Ingredient Pre-

Workout Formula Enhances Strength and Muscle Gains
The list of effective supplements is pretty short, but multi-ingredient pre-workout supplements
throw many of them together in a single product. Most studies on pre-workout supplements look
at the acute effects of a single dose, but those don’t tell us if consistent use leads to better results
over time. This study evaluated the effects of supplementing with a pre-workout supplement for
one full month. Read on to find out if the short-term benefits actually translate to more strength and
muscle over time.
58
BY G R EG NUCKOL S
Pre-Exhaustion May Not Be the Ticket to Larger Gains

Pre-exhaustion is a fairly common “advanced technique” promoted to increase muscle growth. The
results of the study reviewed in this issue aren’t overly promising, but the idea may have some merit
when considering the broader body of literature.
4
71
We Out Here Talkin’ About Practice, Man

Practice makes perfect, right? At least that’s what the proverbial “they” tell you. Of course,
practicing a skill is generally good, but how and when you practice could make all the difference.
A new study reveals a situation when practicing more may actually harm your technique.
82
BY E R I C T R EXL ER
Is Theacrine the New Caffeine?

Caffeine is wildly popular, both as a performance enhancer and a general life enhancer. However,
caffeine is not the only adenosine-blocking purine alkaloid on the block; theacrine is structurally similar
and thought to have similar applications. A new study sought to determine if theacrine and caffeine
do indeed have similar effects on performance. Read on to find out if you should be swapping out
your pre-workout caffeine for theacrine instead.
94
BY G R EG NUCKOL S
Females Fatigue Slower than Males Largely Due to Differences in

Blood Flow
It’s fairly common knowledge that female lifters are less fatigable in the gym than male lifters.
However, that relationship is surprisingly nuanced, and it’s primarily driven by a factor most people
don’t immediately suspect: blood flow.
111
VIDEO: All About Plus Sets

Everybody seems to program a set or two per week for as many reps as possible (AMRAP) or also
known as a plus set. These sets have quite a bit of utility, but they also have some drawbacks and are
oftentimes overused. This video covers when to use plus sets and provides strategies to individualize
their usage.
113
BY E RI C HEL MS
VIDEO: Post-Season Nutrition Strategies, Part 1

When anecdotally discussed in the bodybuilding community, the transition back to “normal life”
after a competitive season as a physique athlete is often just as difficult, if not more difficult than the
contest season itself. Why is this? In part 1 of this series we cover the existing strategies to deal with
this period, which of their elements are based in scientific-evidence, and which aren’t.
5
Study Reviewed: Effects of In-Season Velocity- vs. Percentage-Based Training
in Academy Rugby League Players. Orange et al. (2019)
More Velocity-Based Training Data:

Still Encouraging, Though a Bit
Less Impressive
BY G RE G NUC KO LS
We recently reviewed the first longitudinal study on the effects of velocity-

based training. The second study is out now, and its results are quite a bit less
impressive, though it still contains a few positives for velocity-based training.
6
KEY POINTS
1. For seven weeks, in-season junior rugby players performed their squat training
with either fixed percentages of their 1RM (80% and 60%), or at velocities
corresponding to those percentages.
2. Strength gains and performance outcomes were similar between groups.
However, average velocity and power output during training were higher in the
velocity-based group.
3. In this particular study, I think the lack of difference between conditions can be
explained by the low overall difficulty of the training program. When a program
simply isn’t challenging enough, fancy autoregulation schemes can’t magically
make it effective.
W
e’ve discussed velocity-based be it’s 80% of your 1RM today because
training numerous times in you’re fatigued or having an off day. In
MASS, primarily focused on both of those scenarios, aiming for a ve-
its ability to personalize and autoreg- locity target of 0.6m/s would still allow
ulate training loads (one, two, three, you to train with 75% of your 1RM on
four, five, six). For a very quick recap: that day, taking those changes in fitness
As load on the bar increases, average or acute readiness in stride.
concentric rep velocity decreases, and While the theory behind velocity-based
that decrease is remarkably linear. This training is solid, the presently reviewed
allows us to select appropriate training study (1) is just the second study to ex-
loads, while accounting for changes in amine whether those theoretical ben-
strength or daily readiness. If you know, efits actually lead to superior training
for example, that you can move 75% of outcomes over time. The first study had
your 1RM at 0.6 m/s, then you can use promising results (2), while the results
that velocity target to select a training of this study are a little murkier. Over
load that corresponds to 75% of your seven weeks, junior rugby players com-
1RM on a given day. When just using pleted an in-season training program; in
percentages, you’re married to a single one group, squat training was assigned
number that corresponds to 75% of your using percentages, and in another group
max, but with velocity targets, you can it was autoregulated using velocity tar-
accommodate fluctuations in strength. gets. Changes in all performance out-
Maybe 75% of your prior tested 1RM comes, including squat 1RM, were sim-
is now just 70% of your current 1RM ilar in both groups. However, average
because you’ve gotten stronger, or may- velocity and power output during the
7
training sessions were higher in the ve-
locity-based group. A major drawback
of the present study, however, is that AS LOAD ON THE BAR INCREASES,
the training program likely just wasn’t
challenging enough for autoregulation AVERAGE CONCENTRIC REP
to provide an added benefit.
VELOCITY DECREASES, AND THAT
DECREASE IS REMARKABLY
Purpose and Hypotheses
LINEAR. THIS ALLOWS US TO
Purpose
SELECT APPROPRIATE TRAINING
The purpose of the study was to com-
pare the effects on velocity-based train- LOADS, WHILE ACCOUNTING
ing and percentage-based training on
squat, sprint, and jump performance. FOR CHANGES IN STRENGTH
Hypotheses
OR DAILY READINESS.
No hypotheses were directly stated.
10m, and 20m times), the second day
tested 1RM squats, and the third day as-
Subjects and Methods sessed load-velocity relationships. For
the load-velocity assessment, subjects
Subjects completed three reps at 40% of 1RM,
27 young male subjects completed this three reps at 60% of 1RM, two reps at
study. All of the subjects were junior 80% of 1RM, and one rep at 90% of
rugby players on the same team, who 1RM. The subjects used the same loads
had just completed a 12-week preseason at pre- and post-testing.
training block. They all had at least two The subjects were randomized into
years of resistance training experience. two groups. One group followed a per-
centage-based program, while the other
Experimental Design group followed a velocity-based pro-
Before and after a seven-week in-sea- gram. Both groups performed squats
son training program, subjects complet- twice per week, for 4 sets of 5 reps.
ed three days of testing. The first day The percentage-based group used
tested countermovement jump height, 80% of pre-training 1RM on their first
drop jump height, and 30m sprint times strength training day of the week, and
(with equipment to also capture 5m, 60% of pre-training 1RM on their sec-
8
Table 1 Summary of resistance training sessions during the 7-week mesocycle
Exercise Sets x Reps Load
Session 1
Percentage group: 60% 1RM

Velocity group: Load that
Barbell back squat 4x5
corresponds to movement
velocity at 60% 1RM
Nordic lower 4x6 Body weight
Incline dumbbell bench press 3x8 2 RIR
Barbell bent over row 3x8 1 RIR
Front plank 2 x 60s Body weight
Session 2
Percentage group: 80% 1RM

Velocity group: Load that
Barbell back squat 4x5
corresponds to movement
velocity at 80% 1RM
SL barbell Romanian deadlift 4x6 2 RIR
Dumbbell push press 3x6 2 RIR
Pull-ups 3x8 1 RIR
Barbell rollout 2 x 10 2 RIR
1RM = one repetition maximum; PBT = percentage-based training; RIR = repetitions in reserve;
SL = single-leg; VBT = velocity-based training
ond strength training day of the week day of the week. They used individu-
(meaning they used the same loads for alized load-velocity profiles, meaning
the entire seven week training interven- that one subject may have had a first-
tion). The velocity-based group trained rep velocity target of 0.55 m/s on day
with loads corresponding to their veloc- 1, while another subject may have had
ity at 80% of 1RM on the first day of the a first-rep velocity target of 0.4 m/s on
week, and loads corresponding to their day 1, for example. If the subjects in the
velocity at 60% of 1RM on the second load-velocity group exceeded their tar-
9
Figure 1 Sessional mean velocity (A), mean power (B), time under tension (C) and work (D) at
60% and 80% of 1RM in percentage-based training and velocity-based training groups
A B
Effect size: 2.4 ± 1.3 Effect size: 1.8 ± 0.93
1.0 1600
Effect size: 2.0 ± 1.0
Mean velocity (m·s-1)
Mean power (W)

0.8
1200
0.6
800
0.4
400
0.2
0.0 0
60% 1RM 80% 1RM 60% 1RM 80% 1RM
C
D Effect size: 0.04 ± 0.65 Effect size: 0.05 ± 0.63
1.5 1500
Time under tension (s)
1.0 1000
Work (J)
0.5 500
0.0 0
60% 1RM 80% 1RM 60% 1RM 80% 1RM
Data are presented as mean ± SD (C, D) or adjusted mean ± SEE (A, B), along with effect sizes and the corresponding 90%
confidence interval. Effect sizes are Cohen’s D.
get velocity by at least 0.06 m/s, they lifting days. Thus, the athletes’ training
increased load by 5% for the next set, plans were quite involved, and the only
and if they fell below their target veloc- variable that differed was their squat
ity by at least 0.06 m/s, they decreased training. More information about their
load by 5% for the next set. The rest of training program can be seen below.
the training program was identical be- Throughout the training program, the
tween groups. They also trained rugby researchers also monitored the athletes’
skills, did cardio, and did several other perceived wellness, using a five-item
exercises in addition to squats on their questionnaire (muscle soreness, fatigue,
10
Figure 2 Mean perceived wellness scores in percentage-based training and
velocity-based training groups
Percentage-based training Velocity-based training
6
Score
0
Soreness
Fatigue
Stress
Sleep
Mood
Overall
stress, sleep, and mood) where higher er, time under tension, total work, and
scores indicate greater perceived well- barbell load. The lifters in both groups
ness (i.e. a higher score means less sore- were encouraged to lift every rep with
ness and fatigue, not more). All items maximum intended velocity, and neither
were scored using a seven-point Likert group was given velocity feedback.
scale. The questionnaire was adminis-
tered before every resistance training
session. Finally, other variables were Findings
monitored for all of the squat training, Average training loads ended up being
including average velocity, mean pow-
11
Table 2 Weekly in-season training schedule during the 7-week mesocycle
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
General motor
A.M. ability and active Resistance training Resistance training
recovery
Rugby skills and Rugby skills and

P.M. Team run Match
conditioning conditioning
similar in both groups (80% and 60% ty-based training led to larger strength
of 1RM for the percentage-based group gains in the bench press and larger in-
vs. 79% and 62% in the velocity-based creases in counter-movement jump
group). Mean velocity and mean power height than percentage-based training.
during the training sessions were sig- Strength gains in the squat, deadlift, and
nificantly higher in the velocity-based overhead press didn’t significantly differ
group, and average time under tension between groups, but they all leaned in
tended to be lower. the general direction of velocity-based
Average stress tended to be lower and training as well, meaning total strength
average mood tended to be a bit better in gains were approximately 50% larg-
the velocity-based group as well, though er in the velocity-based training group
those differences weren’t quite signifi- (37.3kg vs. 25.1kg). However, that
cant. In Figure 2, remember that a high- study did have two meaningful draw-
er score indicates less soreness, less fa- backs: 1) the velocity-based group used
tigue, better sleep, etc., so a higher stress group-based velocity thresholds instead
score indicates lower stress. of individual velocity thresholds, and
2) the velocity-based group was given
There were no other significant differ-
instant feedback about their velocity.
ences between groups for any other out-
The first drawback is a problem because
come variable (including gains in squat
load-velocity profiles differ consider-
1RM), nor non-significant differences
ably between individuals (so, for exam-
large enough to be practically meaning-
ple, a 0.5 m/s target may be 78% 1RM
ful.
for one person and 85% for another),
and the second drawback is problematic
because simply being told your veloc-
Interpretation ity while you train can independently
About six months ago, we reviewed improve performance and results (like-
the first longitudinal study examining ly because it can increase effort; 4). I’d
whether velocity-based training im- recommend re-reading that article if you
proves strength gains (2). Just to re- have time or inclination.
cap that study, over six weeks, veloci- The present study (1) fixes some of the
12
Table 3 Mean ± SD at pre- and post-intervention and within-group changes scores
Percentage-based training (n=15) Velocity-based training (n=15)
Pre Post Within-group effect size Pre Post Within-group effect size
Squat 1RM (kg) 136 ± 16.6 145 ± 16.8 0.51 ± 0.15 137 ± 18.5 145 ± 16.6 0.38 ± 0.12
Countermovement
38.0 ± 3.9 39.6 ± 4.3 0.40 ± 0.53 39.2 ± 4.3 41.7 ± 5.5 0.53 ± 0.37
jump (cm)
Sprint time (s)
5m 1.03 ± 0.07 1.07 ± 0.09 -0.69 ± 0.71 1.09 ± 0.08 1.10 ± 0.08 -0.09 ± 0.79
10m 1.77 ± 0.05 1.81 ± 0.09 -0.81 ± 0.81 1.74 ± 0.21 1.84 ± 0.08 -0.41 ± 0.51
20m 3.01 ± 3.10 3.10 ± 0.11 -1.02 ± 0.47 3.09 ± 0.08 3.13 ± 0.13 -0.48 ± 0.79
30m 4.19 ± 0.12 4.29 ± 0.15 -0.78 ± 0.39 4.27 ± 0.12 4.36 ± 0.19 -0.70 ± 0.66
(m•s-1)
40% 1.00 ± 0.06 1.00 ± 0.10 0.00 ± 0.67 0.95 ± 0.10 0.99 ± 0.08 0.38 ± 0.46
60% 0.82 ± 0.06 0.81 ± 0.10 -0.13 ± 0.63 0.78 ± 0.10 0.82 ± 0.08 0.47 ± 0.37
80% 0.61 ± 0.07 0.63 ± 0.07 0.22 ± 0.42 0.58 ± 0.08 0.61 ± 0.08 0.38 ± 0.60
90% 0.49 ± 0.06 0.51 ± 0.08 0.38 ± 0.63 0.46 ± 0.09 0.49 ± 0.10 0.32 ± 0.52
problems of the older study. It used in- same loads every single week. Thus, if
dividualized load-velocity profiles, and velocity-based training had delivered
the researchers didn’t provide instant superior results, it would be hard to
velocity feedback to either group. Ve- make any meaningful conclusions oth-
locity-based training also failed to lead er than “a program with a mechanism
to larger strength gains in the present for progressive loading is better than a
study. So, does that mean the results of program without a mechanism for pro-
the prior study were incorrect, or driven gressive loading.” This gripe doesn’t
by some other factor (such as the veloci- get velocity-based training off the hook,
ty feedback)? That’s one possibility, but though.
there’s more to unpack here. Another thing worth emphasizing is
For starters, I’m not crazy about the that the study used in-season rugby play-
overall training program used in this ers as subjects. We know they played one
study. It would have actually been a game per week, but the authors didn’t
perfectly suitable non-periodized veloc- disclose the amount of playing time
ity-based program (which may be sub- each subject got (they may have just not
optimal, but would still at least have a collected that data). Thus, it’s entirely
mechanism for load progression), but possible that one of the groups had more
the percentage-based program was … players who played a ton of minutes,
iffy, to say the least. The subjects liter- and were thus dealing with more stress
ally did the same sets and reps with the outside of resistance training. It’s hard
13
to know if this influenced the results of
the study, but it’s one confounder that’s
not accounted for. THERE WERE STILL SOME
My actual hunch, though, is that the
subjects in this study simply weren’t POSITIVES FOR VELOCITY-
training hard enough to take advantage BASED TRAINING IN THIS STUDY.
of the benefits of velocity-based train-
ing. We can see from the wellness ques- AVERAGE VELOCITY AND POWER
tionnaires that the subjects were doing
pretty well across the board (none of the OUTPUT DURING THE TRAINING
group means for any of the items on the SESSIONS WERE HIGHER, AND
questionnaire was particularly low). I
also know from training athletes of the SUBJECTIVE ASSESSMENTS OF
same age as those in this study that two
hard days of training, two easy days of STRESS TENDED TO BE LOWER.
training, and one game per week is a
fairly light schedule. Looking at their re-
sistance training program, they only had generally max very often; 3). You don’t
one challenging day of squats per week, want to risk overtraining or injuring ath-
and it still would have been fairly com- letes in the weight room while they’re
fortable (four sets of five reps at 80%); in the middle of a competitive season,
the second day of squats was essentially so in-season resistance training program
just active recovery work. Finally, even are generally designed to be pretty con-
though the velocity-based group did servative in terms of volume.
have a way to increase loads over the Putting athletes on a low-volume
course of the study, we can see that they in-season resistance training program is
didn’t, on average (since their average a smart decision for a strength coach to
intensities ended up being almost exact- make, but it largely negates two of the
ly 80% and 60% of pre-training 1RMs). biggest benefits of velocity-based train-
It looks like the resistance training pro- ing. Velocity-based training gives you
gram was simply meant to be a mainte- objective feedback about when to go
nance program, and on that front, it did up in load without the need to do max
its job. 1RMs even increased slightly in or rep max tests, but that benefit is nul-
both groups, which is really good for an lified when the training isn’t challeng-
in-season training program (though that ing enough to meaningfully improve
may be partially attributable to improved strength. Velocity-based training also
test familiarity; team sport athletes don’t helps by matching training stress with
14
APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
At best, velocity-based training may improve strength gains by helping you better
match training stress with daily readiness. At worst, it may improve training quality a
bit while not meaningfully affecting measurable outcomes when training simply isn’t
challenging enough. It’s absolutely not a make-or-break factor in strength training,
but it may be worth your time if you don’t mind spending some money on a device to
measure velocity, you’re analytically inclined, and you’re uncomfortable with using reps
in reserve (since reps in reserve and velocity accomplish many of the same purposes).
readiness, allowing you to train heavi- effort into each rep, since they knew their
er when you’re fresh and feeling strong, velocity each set actually mattered for
and lighter when you’re more worn regulating training loads. Either inter-
down and fatigued. That’s also some- pretation would be a positive for veloc-
what nullified when your training is ity-based training, however. Personally,
fairly non-challenging, since you should I’m not sold on the difference in stress
always be pretty fresh. being all that meaningful since subjec-
So, in this study, velocity-based train- tive stress was pretty low in both groups,
ing failed to deliver larger strength gains, and since other measures that would be
but it also shouldn’t have really been ex- more directly tied to training difficulty,
pected to deliver larger strength gains. like soreness and fatigue, didn’t differ.
When the overall program isn’t particu- However, you could also disagree with
larly challenging, easy training dictated my interpretation and view that as a pos-
by percentages and easy training dictat- itive for velocity-based training as well.
ed by velocities is still just easy training. Overall, this study isn’t as positive
With that being said, there were still for velocity-based training as the prior
some positives for velocity-based train- study we reviewed in MASS, but the
ing in this study. Average velocity and results do still lean in favor of veloci-
power output during the training sessions ty-based training, in my opinion. The
were higher, and subjective assessments training program wasn’t designed to re-
of stress tended to be lower. One could ally take advantage of the benefits of ve-
argue that these findings, especially the locity-based training, but average train-
session velocity and power data, suggest ing performance was still better. On a
that velocity-based training did still take more challenging training program, that
advantage of small fluctuations in read- should result in superior strength gains,
iness. Another interpretation is that the as we saw in the prior study (2). How-
velocity-based group simply put more ever, this study does show us that using
15
autoregulation can’t compensate for
programming that just isn’t very chal-
lenging to begin with.
Next Steps
I recognize that it may sound like I’m
defending velocity-based training and
coming up with excuses instead of just
recognizing that the results of this study
were pretty uninspiring overall. And I’ll
admit my bias: I am a big believer in
velocity-based training. However, I’m
not the type to move goalposts just to
cling on to a cherished idea. I’d like to
see a study very similar to this one with
the inclusion of one more “hard” train-
ing day. That’s the type of protocol used
in the relative intensity studies we’ve
previously reviewed (one, two) – two
heavier, challenging sessions and one
lighter, easier session. The training in
those studies was challenging enough to
lead to robust strength increases in com-
petitive athletes, even with the inclusion
of conditioning work. Thus, I think it
would also be a good training model to
use for comparing velocity-based and
percentage-based training in an athletic
population.
16
References
1. Orange ST, Metcalfe JW, Robinson A, Applegarth MJ, Liefeith A. Effects of In-Season Ve-
locity- Versus Percentage-Based Training in Academy Rugby League Players. Int J Sports
Physiol Perform. 2019 Oct 30:1-8.
2. Dorrell HF, Smith MF, Gee TI. Comparison of Velocity-Based and Traditional Percent-
age-Based Loading Methods on Maximal Strength and Power Adaptations. J Strength Cond
Res. 2019 Feb 18.
3. Another reason I suspect the increase in 1RM strength was mostly due to test familiarity is
that velocities with submaximal loads didn’t change much either; actual 1RMs increased
more than predicted 1RMs from their load-velocity profiles suggested they should. The pre-
dicted velocity at 1RM was also pretty high, at ~0.4 m/s, which suggests a reasonably low
training status, and thus the ability to improve their squat 1RM simply from having more
experience with 1RM tests. For reference, in powerlifters, mean concentric velocity at 1RM
in the squat is approximately 0.25 m/s, on average.
4. It’s worth noting that the “problem” of subjects knowing their velocity in the prior veloci-
ty-based training study is mainly an internal validity problem (i.e. it adds an additional po-
tentially causative variable beyond the independent effect of velocity-based autoregulation),
but it probably improves ecological validity, since you can have access to rep-by-rep veloci-
ty if you’re doing velocity-based training. You could also have access to rep-by-rep velocity
if you’re measuring velocity but not using velocity to auto-regulate, but most people don’t
do that in practice.
17
Study Reviewed: Is Performing Repetitions to Failure Less Important Than Volume
for Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength? Lacerda et al. (2019)
Score Another One for

Non-Failure Training
BY MIC HAE L C . ZO URD O S
These days, everyone has an opinion regarding the necessity of training to failure
for maximizing hypertrophy. This makes it interesting anytime a new study comes
out on the topic. This article breaks down the newest failure versus non-failure
study and interprets it in context with the totality of the literature.
18
KEY POINTS
1. This study had untrained men perform unilateral leg extensions to failure 2-3 times
per week while the other leg was trained to ~1RIR, on average.
2. Both protocols significantly increased strength, muscle size, and muscular
endurance, but with no difference between failure and non-failure training.
3. However, more individuals tended to see a greater benefit for vastus lateralis
hypertrophy and muscular endurance in the non-failure leg. Further, the non-
failure group reported lower total effort per session. Therefore, non-failure training
produced similar (if not slightly better) results than failure training at a lower
perceived effort.
W
e have covered training to ric strength, quadriceps cross-sectional
failure many times in MASS. area (hypertrophy) via ultrasound, mus-
While it seems clear that train- cular endurance, and electromyographic
ing to failure is not required to maxi- (EMG) activity were the main outcome
mize strength (2) and may even be det- measures. In short, these outcome mea-
rimental (3), there is evidence on both sures increased from pre- to post-study;
sides of the hypertrophy debate (4, 5, 6, however, there were no statistical dif-
7). My opinion regarding the necessity ferences between failure and non-fail-
of training to failure falls in line with ure training. With that said, the authors
Greg’s recent article. In other words, I did conclude that more people tended
believe the existing evidence does not to benefit from non-failure training for
suggest that training to failure for hyper- vastus lateralis hypertrophy and mus-
trophy is necessary. Further, no matter cular endurance. Further, Borg rating of
where your opinion comes down in this perceived exertion (RPE) was reported
debate, I think we should all be look- after each set and the entire session, and
ing for more data. This study (1) had 10 failure training had significantly higher
untrained men perform leg extensions RPE values, meaning the subjects per-
for 3-4 sets at 50-60% of one-repetition ceived they put forth greater effort but
maximum (1RM) for 14 weeks. One leg only achieved similar outcomes with
performed all sets to failure while each failure training. I’m not too surprised at
set ended at ~1-2 repetitions in reserve the lack of difference between protocols
(RIR) on the other leg. Five total train- for hypertrophy and strength; howev-
ing sessions were performed per week, er, based on previous evidence (6, 7), if
and the leg used was alternated between failure training were to have a time to
sessions. Maximal strength, isomet- shine, it would be in untrained individ-
19
Table 1 Subject characteristics
Subjects Age (years) Height (cm) Body mass (kg) Body fat (%) Training status
No training for at least

10 men 23.7 ± 4.9 177 ± 9 80.1 ± 20.1 20.5 ± 8.5
6 months
Subject characteristics from Lacerda et al. 2019 (1)
uals. Therefore, I would chalk this up Protocol Overview

as a win for non-failure training, espe- Leg extensions were trained for 14
cially considering the lower effort in the weeks. Each person performed all sets
non-failure protocol. This article will to failure with one leg, while the other
discuss how these findings fit within the leg trained shy of failure. Half of the
totality of the failure training literature. subjects had their dominant leg assigned
to the failure protocol and vice versa.
Leg extension 1RM, isometric strength,
Purpose and Hypotheses muscular endurance, and cross-sectional
area changes were tested before and af-
Purpose ter the 14 weeks. Average EMG activity
The purpose of this study was to com- over a five-second isometric contraction
pare failure training versus non-failure was assessed during the first and last
training (1-2 RIR) over 14 weeks for sessions of both the failure and non-fail-
strength, hypertrophy, and muscular en- ure protocols.
durance outcomes.
Training Program
Hypotheses The only thing that differed between
The authors hypothesized that changes legs was whether the leg was trained to
in all outcome measures would be simi- failure or not. The number of sets and
lar between groups. percentage of 1RM were identical and
total volume and reps were similar. All
repetitions throughout the protocol were
Subjects and Methods performed with a three-second concen-
tric (up phase) and a three-second ec-
Subjects centric (down phase). In weeks 1 and 2,
10 men between the ages of 18 and 30 all subjects performed 3 sets of leg ex-
who hadn’t trained for at least 6 months tensions at 50% of 1RM. In week 3, and
prior to the study participated. The avail- every 2 weeks thereafter, a 1RM was
able subject details are in Table 1. reassessed and then 60% of each new
1RM was used for the load each work-
out until a new 1RM was assessed. A
20
Table 2 Outcome measures
Performed a few days before (pre-test) and after the 14 weeks of

1RM leg extension strength
training (post-test)
Performed a few days before (pre-test) and after the 14 weeks of

Isometric leg extension strength
training (post-test)
Max reps at 70% of 1RM on the leg extension. Performed 10

Muscular endurance
minutes after the 1RM at pre- and post-test. A tempo of 2:2 was used.
Conducted with an ultrasound at pre- and post-testing. Was

conducted 72 hours following training at post-test to allow any
Cross-sectional area
swelling to reduce. Muscles assessed were quadriceps muscles
(rectus femoris and vastus lateralis).
EMG of the quadriceps was tested just before the 2nd and 35th
training sessions for each leg. Two 5-second isometric contractions
Electromyography (EMG)
were assessed before the start of training and the highest average
EMG of the two contractions was used for analysis.
fourth set was added in week 9. Five to- on the Tuesday non-failure session, 3 sets
tal training sessions were completed each of 10 reps were programmed. If the total
week and the leg trained was alternated reps performed was not evenly divisible
between sessions. Therefore, in week 1, by the number of sets in the non-failure
if the right leg was trained twice and the session, then a rep was added to the first
left leg three times, the opposite was the set and the second set if needed. For ex-
case in week 2. ample, if 32 reps were performed instead
The failure leg performed as many rep- of 30 in the example above, then the next
etitions as possible on each set until an- non-failure training day would be: first
other rep could not be performed; thus, set = 11 reps, second set = 11 reps, third
actual failure occurred every set (i.e. not set = 10 reps. An RIR value and a Borg
just a 10RPE). To program reps for the RPE value were collected after each set.
non-failure leg, the researchers took the
total reps performed over all sets in the Outcome Measures
most recent failure session, divided that The outcome measures were 1RM
by the number of sets, and then distrib- strength, isometric strength, cross-sec-
uted the reps evenly over the sets. For tional area, muscular endurance, and av-
example, if 30 reps were completed over erage EMG activity. The details of these
3 sets on a Monday failure session, then measures are in Table 2.
21
Table 3 Reps performed, RIR and RPE
Reps performed 1st set reps 2nd set reps 3rd/4th set reps
Group 1st set RIR 2nd set RIR 3rd/4th set RIR
entire study performed performed performed
739
Failure 8 (7-9) 0 6 (5-7) 0 5 (4-6) 0
(668-826)
734
Non-failure 6 (6-7) 2 (1-2) 6 (6-7) 1 (0-2) 5 (5-6) 0 (0-1)
(656-816)
Data from Lacerda et al. 2019 (1)

Data are: mean (95% confidence intervals)
RIR = repetitions in reserve
typical error assessment, which is a way

Findings of concluding if an individual respond-
ed better to one protocol or another. In
Reps performed, RIR per set, and Borg Table 4, I have listed the percentage
RPE changes for both failure and non-failure
The number of reps performed over the for each outcome measure (except for
study in failure versus non-failure was EMG) and the number of individuals
similar. The non-failure group trained to that responded better to each protocol.
mostly a 1-2 RIR; however, there was an Although there were no statistical dif-
average of 0 RIR on the fourth set in the ferences between failure and non-fail-
latter weeks. The failure group report- ure, the individual response tended to
ed statistically greater Borg RPE when favor non-failure training, especially for
averaging all sets over an entire session muscular endurance and vastus lateralis
(failure: 19 versus non-failure: 17). The hypertrophy.
average reps performed and RIR per set
are presented in Table 3 along with the
95% confidence intervals for each in pa- Interpretation
rentheses.
The most direct interpretation is that
there were no differences between fail-
Strength, Hypertrophy, Muscular En-
ure and non-failure training for any mea-
durance, and EMG
sure except Borg RPE. In other words,
There were significant increases in the same progress was made, but sub-
1RM strength, isometric strength, mus- jects put forth less effort when training
cular endurance, and muscle cross-sec- shy of failure. That right there should
tional area after both failure and non-fail- be a small win for non-failure training.
ure training. However, there were no However, when looking at the individ-
significant differences between failure ual response rate (right hand column
and non-failure training for any of these in Table 3), we can see that for every
measures. The authors also conducted a measure, more individuals tended to re-
22
Table 4 Percentage changes and individual response rate
Individual response (how

Group Percentage change (%) many responded statistically
better in each group)
1RM Strength
Failure 12.68 ± 12.53 Failure = 1

Non-failure = 2
Non-failure 15.02 ± 12.87 Same = 7
Isometric Strength

Non-failure = 2
Muscular endurance

Non-failure = 4
Cross-sectional area — rectus femoris

Non-failure = 4
Cross-sectional area — vastus lateralis

Non-failure = 4
spond better to non-failure training. To ture paints a somewhat clear picture for
be fair, there is really only a clear differ- strength, which is that there is either no
ence in the individual response rate for difference between failure and non-fail-
vastus lateralis hypertrophy and mus- ure training for maximal strength (2) or
cular endurance (40% responded better a potential benefit to non-failure train-
to non-failure training, while none re- ing (3). For hypertrophy, there is a pretty
sponded meaningfully better to failure hazy picture, so every new piece of in-
training). The totality of existing litera- formation should be carefully evaluated.
23
This study is mostly a wash; however, sets (8-9RPE/1-2RIR) and one set at vo-
based on both the individual response litional failure or really close to it. So,
and the Borg RPE findings, you could in a practical sense, this study says that
chalk this up to a slight win for non-fail- training to failure (or thereabouts) on the
ure. last set with a couple preceding hard sets
So, we may give a slight edge to is just as good if not better than training
non-failure in this study, but how does to failure on every set. That shouldn’t be
this study fall into the entire effective too surprising.
reps paradigm? For clarity, strict pro- The EMG findings suggest that both
ponents of effective reps hold the belief training protocols caused neuromuscu-
that the last five reps of a set are the ones lar adaptations (read more here), since
that really matter for muscle growth EMG activity increased from pre- to
and every rep closer to failure provides post-study at a maximal contraction.
greater adaptation. In other words, these However, although I feel confident that
proponents suggest that for hypertrophy both training protocols elicited neural
training to 0RIR > 1RIR > 2RIR and so adaptations, it should be noted that sur-
forth. In the present study, the non-failure face EMG results (what was used here)
group trained pretty close to failure with could be misleading when assessing
an average of 2RIR on set 1, 1RIR on neural adaptations (8); thus, we cannot
set 2, and 0RIR on set 3. Although there know for sure. It is often said that ad-
was an average of 0RIR on set 3, that ditional motor units are needed when
isn’t quite the same as what the failure training to failure (9); however, the lack
leg did. While some subjects may have of difference in change of EMG activi-
failed on a rep on the third or fourth set ty here suggests that neuromuscular ad-
in non-failure, I think it is more likely aptations were not greater with training
that subjects just reported they couldn’t to failure. I don’t think that metabolite
do another rep after completing the pre- build-up would have been much differ-
scribed number of reps. Whereas, when ent between the protocols in this study
training the failure leg, subjects actually since the proximities to failure weren’t
failed on every single set in the failure that different. However, what I do think
protocol. Nonetheless, I think training to could have been different between pro-
a 10 RPE (0RIR) and not actually fail- tocols was recovery. We have reviewed
ing is more consistent with how people multiple studies in MASS (10 - review,
train to failure in practice, especially on 11 - review), which show that recovery
the compound movements. Therefore, is elongated when training to failure
you could say that the non-failure leg in versus not training to failure. We also
this study had two submaximal but hard know that recovery rates can be highly
24
individual. Therefore, it is likely that first set at ~50-60% of 1RM. Typically,
some individuals did not recover well someone would be able to do a minimum
in the failure protocol, which hindered of 15 reps and perhaps up to 30 reps at
performance in the next failure session. 60% of 1RM. However, to be fair, the
In practice, I’ve long thought that one number of reps that can be done varies
of the best benefits of non-failure train- from exercise to exercise. Further, each
ing is that you can recover more quick- rep in this study was completed with a
ly, which will in turn lead to greater three-second concentric and three-sec-
frequency and potentially volume (pre- ond eccentric, which will severely de-
viously discussed). Total repetitions and crease the amount of reps completed.
volume performed were not different Initially, I thought the number of reps
between protocols in this study, but that was really low; however, after consid-
was because the researchers used the ering the above, I think they are a little
reps performed on the failure sessions to low, but not crazy. The bigger factor to
program the non-failure sessions. Fur- consider when placing these results into
ther, the title of this study reveals that context with the totality of the litera-
the authors believe total volume is im- ture is that the subjects were untrained.
portant for hypertrophy, and I do as well You can essentially do anything (within
(although I would prefer relative vol- reason) as an untrained lifter and make
ume or total sets as the volume metric). progress. However, if there was a situ-
With that in mind, the lower Borg RPE ation in which failure training would
in this study makes it more than reason- beat non-failure training, then I would
able to suggest that when subjects were expect it to be in the untrained based on
performing the non-failure protocol, it previous literature, but that simply did
would have been easier for them to add not happen here. Specifically, Goto et
an additional set and achieve more vol- al (2005) found about double the quad-
ume than the failure protocol. While riceps hypertrophy with failure versus
we’ll get to this in the next steps, I think non-failure training over 12 weeks (6),
the study we really need is one which while Martorelli et al (2017) reported
does not equate volume between failure about double the amount of biceps hy-
and non-failure training. That design pertrophy in untrained women with fail-
would allow us to see if the potentially ure versus non-failure training twice per
practical benefits of non-failure training week for 12 weeks (7). The Goto study
actually come to fruition. had subjects in the non-failure group
At first glance, a puzzling aspect about train to roughly a 2-5RIR, while Mar-
this study, as seen in Table 1, is that torelli had subjects train to roughly a
only eight reps were performed on the 3RIR. On the contrary, a recent study
from Carroll et al tended to show more
25
1. In a group of 10 untrained men, training one leg just shy of failure (~1RIR) on leg
extensions over 14 weeks yielded similar outcomes to training the other leg to
failure.
2. Importantly, when training the non-failure leg, subjects had a lower perception of
effort. Further, on the individual level, subjects tended to get a greater benefit from
non-failure training for vastus lateralis hypertrophy and muscular endurance.
3. At this point, it is at the very least fair to say that the literature is equivocal regarding
training to failure for hypertrophy. However, this study adds a point to the non-failure
column. Further, when considering the consequences of failure, I feel comfortable
recommending non-failure training on the main lifts for the majority of hypertrophy
training.
hypertrophy with non-failure training failure you can still train and maximize
versus failure training in trained individ- adaptations; thus, the effective reps de-
uals (5). Importantly, the Goto and Mar- bate will rage on. I’m a believer that
torelli studies only had subjects train you can probably train at around 5RPE
twice per week. In the current study (5RIR) on the compound lifts and still
from Lacerda (1), subjects got in 35 ses- maximize hypertrophy; however, that is
sions on each leg over 14 weeks, which admittedly just a hypothesis on my part.
is 2.5 sessions per week. Therefore, as Nonetheless, if you think that training to
mentioned above, it’s possible that re- failure is necessary to maximize hyper-
covery could have been suboptimal in trophy, I hope this study encourages you
the failure leg here with a higher fre- to take a step back and reevaluate that
quency. Further, the present study had position, as the existing evidence is any-
the non-failure group train much closer thing but overwhelming to support that
to failure than either the Goto or Mar- assertion. Lastly, it should be stated that
torelli study. the cross-education effect could have
Anytime we cover a training to failure come into play here. The cross-educa-
study, it is always worth pointing out tion effect states that training one limb
that exercise selection matters. In other can improve strength in the other as we
words, training to failure all the time on have previously discussed; therefore, we
a squat or deadlift is likely much more don’t know for certain that the strength
unsustainable compared to doing so on results of this study would be the same
assistance movements. This study also if two groups of people performed the
doesn’t touch on exactly how far from protocols instead of two limbs on the
26
same person (i.e. a within-subjects de-
sign). However, the cross-education ef-
fect does not influence muscle growth,
just strength.
Next Steps
I’d love to see a study that doesn’t
equate for volume between failure and
non-failure training groups. Specifically,
you could have a failure and non-failure
group perform the same number of sets
on Monday. Then on Wednesday, give
the subjects a relative load (i.e. 70% of
1RM) and use an RPE stop. Have the
lifters perform sets of 8 reps until they
exceed an 8RPE. I would hypothesize
that the non-failure group would have
recovered by Wednesday and will per-
form more sets, and over the long-term,
this could lead to greater hypertrophy. Of
course, we always need data comparing
various proximities to failure in trained
lifters to truly examine if and where the
lower limit for effective reps is.
27
References
1. Lacerda LT, Marra-Lopes RO, Diniz RC, Lima FV, Rodrigues SA, Martins-Costa HC, Bem-
ben MG, Chagas MH. Is Performing Repetitions to Failure Less Important Than Volume for
Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength?. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2019
Dec 4.
2. Davies T, Orr R, Halaki M, Hackett D. Effect of training leading to repetition failure on
muscular strength: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports medicine. 2016 Apr
1;46(4):487-502.
3. Carroll KM, Bernards JR, Bazyler CD, Taber CB, Stuart CA, DeWeese BH, Sato K, Stone
MH. Divergent performance outcomes following resistance training using repetition maxi-
mums or relative intensity. International journal of sports physiology and performance. 2019
Jan 1;14(1):46-54.
4. Pareja-Blanco F, Rodríguez-Rosell D, Sánchez-Medina L, Sanchis-Moysi J, Dorado
C, Mora-Custodio R, Yáñez-García JM, Morales-Alamo D, Pérez-Suárez I, Calbet JA,
González-Badillo JJ. Effects of velocity loss during resistance training on athletic perfor-
mance, strength gains and muscle adaptations. Scandinavian journal of medicine & science
in sports. 2017 Jul;27(7):724-35.
5. Carroll KM, Bazyler CD, Bernards JR, Taber CB, Stuart CA, DeWeese BH, Sato K, Stone
MH. Skeletal Muscle Fiber Adaptations Following Resistance Training Using Repetition
Maximums or Relative Intensity. Sports. 2019 Jul;7(7):169.
6. Goto KA, Ishii NA, Kizuka TO, Takamatsu KA. The impact of metabolic stress on hormon-
al responses and muscular adaptations. Medicine and science in sports and exercise. 2005
Jun;37(6):955-63.
7. Martorelli S, Cadore EL, Izquierdo M, Celes R, Martorelli A, Cleto VA, Alvarenga JG, Bot-
taro M. Strength training with repetitions to failure does not provide additional strength
and muscle hypertrophy gains in young women. European journal of translational myology.
2017 Jun 24;27(2).
8. Stock MS, Beck TW, Defreitas JM. Effects of fatigue on motor unit firing rate versus recruit-
ment threshold relationships. Muscle & nerve. 2012 Jan;45(1):100-9.
9. Arabadzhiev TI, Dimitrov VG, Dimitrov GV. The increase in surface EMG could be a mis-
leading measure of neural adaptation during the early gains in strength. European journal of
applied physiology. 2014 Aug 1;114(8):1645-55.
10. Pareja-Blanco F, Rodríguez-Rosell D, Aagaard P, Sánchez-Medina L, Ribas-Serna J, Mo-
ra-Custodio R, Otero-Esquina C, Yáñez-García JM, González-Badillo JJ. Time Course of
Recovery From Resistance Exercise With Different Set Configurations. Journal of strength
and conditioning research. 2018 Jul.
11. Morán-Navarro R, Pérez CE, Mora-Rodríguez R, de la Cruz-Sánchez E, González-Badillo
JJ, Sánchez-Medina L, Pallarés JG. Time course of recovery following resistance training
28
leading or not to failure. European journal of applied physiology. 2017 Dec 1;117(12):2387-
99.
29
Study Reviewed: Carbohydrate Loading Practice in Bodybuilders: Effects on Muscle
Thickness, Photo Silhouette Scores, Mood States and Gastrointestinal Symptoms.
de Moraes et al. (2019)
Now We Know: Carb Loading

Works for Bodybuilding
BY E RI C HE LMS
Until now, there was only a single study with limited validity on the
effectiveness of carb loading for enhancing appearance in non-
bodybuilders. Additionally, we had anecdotes and observational and survey
data of bodybuilders. However, this new study is the first valid evidence on
carb loading, showing it increases the appearance and actual size of muscle.
30
KEY POINTS
1. In this study of bodybuilders, researchers compared competitors who entered a
positive energy balance by consuming 8-12g/kg of carbohydrate the day prior
to and day of competition, with those who ate roughly maintenance calories by
increasing carbohydrates to ~5g/kg.
2. The only prior study on carbohydrate loading for bodybuilding examined lifters
not in stage condition, who hadn’t dieted, during energy maintenance, who
shifted their macronutrients to predominantly carbohydrate. When their muscular
girths were subsequently measured, there were no significant differences to the
control group.
3. The present study is the first truly valid evaluation of bodybuilding carbohydrate
loading. Not only did muscular girths and thicknesses increase only in the
carbohydrate-loading group, but a panel of seven bodybuilding judges rated
their physiques as having improved from baseline on a physique photo silhouette
scale, while no improvement occurred in the group that increased carbohydrate
to a lesser degree.
F
or multiple decades, it’s been appearance of muscle size. Perhaps
common practice among phy- unsurprisingly, there is very little re-
sique competitors to undertake search examining this practice to vali-
some form of carbohydrate loading date the observations of bodybuilders,
as a method of improving appearance and the present study (1) is only the
in close proximity to competition. In- second I’m aware of. In the present
deed, in a recent study I reviewed for study, researchers observed that a co-
MASS in which 81 physique compet- hort of male bodybuilders who aggres-
itors were given a questionnaire about sively loaded carbohydrate increased
their “peaking strategies,” 82.7% of their muscular girths and thicknesses
them reported that they loaded (in- significantly, while a cohort who did
creased) their carbohydrate as a part not aggressively load carbohydrates
of this process. Carbohydrate loading did not experience changes in muscle
is also commonly used among endur- girths or thicknesses. Further, a pan-
ance athletes to increase muscle glyco- el of seven bodybuilding judges rated
gen (the largest store of carbohydrates the carb loaded bodybuilders’ phy-
in humans) prior to races to improve siques as improved relative to base-
performance. However, bodybuilders line using a physique photo silhouette
have adapted this strategy because scale, while no significant improve-
they anecdotally report it increases the ment occurred in the no-load group.
31
Figure 1 Study design
Anthropometric, physical activity,

dietary data and photo silhouettes assessment
Weighing Contest
1 2 3 4
Days
M1 M2
Carbohydrate depletion Carbohydrate load or not
While this may sound like a relatively Hypotheses

straightforward endorsement of carbo- The authors hypothesized that carbo-
hydrate loading, as you might expect, hydrate loading would increase muscle
the devil is in the details. In this review, thickness, subjective silhouette muscu-
I’ll discuss what limitations exist in this larity, lead to mood state disturbances,
research and how other factors such as and cause mild gastrointestinal distress.
mood state and gastrointestinal distress
may also be impacted by carbohydrate
loading. Subjects and Methods
Subjects
Purpose and Research 24 male bodybuilders (age 20-35) par-
Questions ticipated in this study. Specifically, they
had either competed in the 2016 Ama-
Purpose teur South American Arnold Classic or
The purpose of the study was to assess the Brazilian National Championship.
muscle thickness, subjective silhouette To qualify to compete at either event,
muscularity, mood state, and gastroin- competitors must have won their respec-
testinal distress in competitive body- tive weight class in a regional qualifier,
builders following no change in their or won their weight class in either of the
diet, or after performing carbohydrate same events the prior year. Thus, the
loading, and to examine the relation- participants in this study were high-level
ships between these variables. amateur Brazilian bodybuilders. To par-
32
Figure 2 Example of silhouette-style scale
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ticipate, subjects must have been able to why, but perhaps this step was taken
provide a detailed diet report of the four to control for the silhouette evaluation,
days prior to the last of two data col- or because they thought it would make
lections, both of which occurred at the for a fairer comparison for changes in
competition venues, with the pre-test at girths. This isn’t explicitly stated in the
weigh-ins the day prior to the competi- manuscript, but it’s the only explanation
tion, and the post-test 24 hours later on I can come up with for why the standard
competition day. deviation is so low for height, unless it’s
Importantly, no mention of drug testing simply an error in the table. Anyway,
appeared in the manuscript. The authors given these were high level amateurs,
noted that subjects who reported using and given the body fat percentages re-
diuretics or laxatives were excluded; ported in Table 1, it’s safe to assume
thus, some competitors likely disclosed they were in good condition (appropri-
diuretic use, so this was probably not ately lean). Since they had stage weights
a drug tested event. By calculating the of 65-95 kg (or ~145-210 lb) at a height
span of body weights among competi- of 1.73 meters (or 5 foot 8 inches) in an
tors by going two standard deviations untested event, this was likely an assess-
above and below the combined base- ment of competitors across the “natty or
line means for both groups (~80kg), we not” spectrum, from drug free, to low, to
can conclude most competitors weighed relatively moderate use, but likely not at
~65-95kg. All competitors were almost the IFBB Pro League level of usage.
exactly 1.73 meters or 5 foot 8 inches
(see Table 2, there is a standard devia- Design
tion of only one centimeter). This makes At pre-testing the day prior to competi-
me think the authors purposely recruited tion and post-testing the day of competi-
subjects of the same height. I’m not sure tion, height, weight, muscular girths, ul-
33
Table 1
Parameters NC (n=9) CL (n=15)
Age 26.2 ± 4.9 27.3 ± 5.0
Training experience (years) 8.8 ± 2.8 9.2 ± 2.9
Body fat (%) 6.7 ± 0.7 6.6 ± 0.9
Fat mass (g) 8.4 ± 1.2 8.5 ± 1.0
Fat free mass (g) 72.2 ± 5.5 70.8 ± 7.8
M1 M2 M1 M2
Energy intake (kcal/d) 1897.6 ± 240.2 2983.9 ± 125.8* 2034.8 ± 242.0# 3591.7 ± 259.9*†
Energy expenditure (kcal/d) 3156.5 ± 137.0 3151.0 ± 135.0 3121.3 ± 204.0 3151.0 ± 206.8
Energy balance (energy

-1258.9 ± 341.6 -193.1 ± 83.2* -1086.5 ± 243.5 440.6 ± 170.0*†
intake-expenditure)
Energy availability (kcal/kg FFM) 22.3 ± 4.0 33 ± 1.8* 24.6 ± 3.0 41 ± 3.1*†
Protein intake
Grams 266.3 ± 51.0 205.8 ± 66.5* 252.4 ± 57.5 46.6 ± 28.4*†
% total energy 51.9 ± 6.5 52.9 ± 6.6 28.8 ± 5.2# 5.2 ± 3.2*†
Carbohydrate intake
Grams / kg body mass 0.9 ± 0.6 5.2 ± 0.9* 1.1 ± 0.4 9.0 ± 0.7*†
% total energy 14.8 ± 8.9 55.7 ± 5.5* 16.8 ± 6.5 80.4 ± 3.7*†
Lipid intake
Grams 70.6 ± 15.9 55.6 ± 12.5* 68.1 ± 15.9 56.8 ± 27.9*
% total energy 32.3 ± 6.6 16.7 ± 8.1* 31.3 ± 8.0 14.4 ± 3.7*
Fiber intake
Grams 12.8 ± 2.0 14.9 ± 2.2 13.2 ± 2.2 15.0 ± 1.9
Values are expressed as mean and standard deviation

* = significant difference vs. M1; # = Significant difference vs. NC at M1; † = Significant difference vs. NC at M2
trasound measures of muscle thickness, assessed mood state. Finally, research-

and skinfold body composition assess- ers analyzed the participants’ food dia-
ments were performed. Additionally, ries from the four days of eating leading
photos were taken of the bodybuilders at up to post-testing. The anthropometric
both testing occasions which were used and nutritional data were combined with
to assess silhouette muscularity (more the physical activity data to estimate en-
on this later). The competitors also com- ergy intake, expenditure, balance, and
pleted physical activity questionnaires, availability (see Table 1). The 24 body-
a questionnaire that rated their gastroin- builders were stratified into those who
testinal distress, and a questionnaire that performed a carbohydrate load after
34
Table 2 Anthropometric characteristics of bodybuilders before (M1) and after (M2) weighing
NC (n=9) CL (n=15)
M1 M2 M1 M2
Anthropometric parameter
Height (m) 1.73 ± 0.01 1.73 ± 0.01 1.73 ± 0.01 1.73 ± 0.01
Weight (kg) 80.5 ± 5.6 80.3 ± 7.4 79.2 ± 7.2 81.5 ± 5.3*
BMI (kg/m2) 27.1 ± 1.8 27.0 ± 1.9 26.7 ± 2.5 27.2 ± 2.5*
Muscle thickness
50.9 ± 2.8 50.8 ± 2.7 51.0 ± 2.0 52.6 ± 2.1*
Triceps brachii (mm) 52.7 ± 2.9 52.3 ± 3.0 52.9 ± 2.6 54.7 ± 2.7*
Circumferences
Chest “expired” (cm) 112.5 ± 5.8 112.0 ± 6.2 110.0 ± 5.9 112.3 ± 6.0*
Waist (cm) 77.5 ± 3.9 78.0 ± 3.8 79.2 ± 3.7 79.2 ± 3.7
Hip (cm) 100.4 ± 3.0 100.5 ± 2.9 100.7 ± 1.8 101.4 ± 1.8*
Thigh (cm) 64.9 ± 4.2 64.8 ± 4.1 63.5 ± 3.2 64.1 ± 3.1*
Arm (cm) 42.6 ± 1.5 42.7 ± 1.3 41.9 ± 1.6 42.4 ± 1.7*
Calves (cm) 40.4 ± 1.4 40.2 ± 1.4 40.6 ± 2.1 41.1 ± 2.0*
Forearm (cm) 32.7 ± 1.9 32.5 ± 1.6 32.7 ± 2.7 33.5 ± 2.8*
Silhouette (scores) 4.5 ± 0.9 4.6 ± 0.8 4.5 ± 1.2 5.1 ± 1.0*

BMI = body mass index; * = significant difference vs. M1
weighing in the day prior to the compe- article on energy availability here), not
tition (n = 9), and those who did not per- be in an estimated negative energy bal-
form a carbohydrate load (n = 15). ance, and have a carbohydrate intake
less than 5g/kg/day in the last three days
Group Determination before weigh ins and between 8-12g/kg/
The authors did not assign participants day after weighing in up to contest day.
to a specific strategy or group. Rather, Those in the no-loading group did actual-
they categorized the participants based ly increase their energy and carbohydrate
on whether or not their self-selected strat- intakes (see Table 1) but were consum-
egy was considered a carbohydrate load. ing significantly less energy and carbo-
To qualify as performing a carbohydrate hydrate than the carbohydrate-loading
load, the following criteria had to be met: group (I’ll discuss the implications of
energy availability greater than 25 kcal/ this further in the interpretation).
LBM/day (for review, see my previous Importantly, the diet data from the days
35
Table 3 Mood states of bodybuilders before (M1) and after (M2) weighing
M1 M2
Scores BRUMS NC CL NC CL
Tension 2.9 ± 2.1 3.2 ± 2.3 2.9 ± 2.2 3.1 ± 2.4
Depression 1.9 ± 1.0 1.8 ± 0.9 1.9 ± 1.1 1.8 ± 1.2
Anger 2.1 ± 2.0 2.2 ± 1.6 2.0 ± 1.7 2.1 ± 1.8
Vigor 5.5 ± 3.7 5.1 ± 4.1 5.9 ± 4.2 5.6 ± 4.0
Fatigue 4.5 ± 3.6 5.1 ± 3.2 4.3 ± 3.0 4.9 ± 4.1
Confusion 2.2 ± 1.8 2.4 ± 2.0 2.4 ± 2.1 2.6 ± 2.0
Total disturbance mood 105.2 ± 13.0 109.6 ± 15.7 107.6 ± 14.1 108.9 ± 16.6
prior to the post-test were considered the and anthropometric data were collected
“carbohydrate depletion phase” (see Fig- and analyzed in a more-or-less standard
ure 1); however, this is not to say that all manner, the novel aspect of this study
competitors performed a purposeful de- was how the photographs of the subjects
pletion (although some likely did). Rather, at pre- and post-testing were assessed.
all competitors in both groups consumed The authors showed these photos to sev-
a relatively low (all less than 2g/kg) car- en accredited judges from the federation,
bohydrate intake and were in an estimat- who were blind to the nutritional strate-
ed energy deficit during this period (see gies of the competitors, and then asked
Table 2). Thus, all participants either “di- the judges to rate the pictures on a spe-
eted through” these days, or consumed cific 1-7 physique silhouette photo scale
lower carbohydrate and energy purpose- developed by Castro and colleagues (2)
fully as a part of their peaking strategy. In which was previously used to assess
aggregate, this means this study was ac- body image. Figure 2 is a representation
tually a comparison of two groups, both of this scale for MASS, but the link pro-
of which were in an energy deficit while vided for the Castro and colleagues paper
consuming a low carbohydrate diet, and is to their open access article where you
both of which then increased calories and can view the original scale. The inclusion
carbohydrates, but were differentiated of this specific metric, and the way it was
primarily by how much they increased assessed, is an important aspect of this
carbohydrate (and energy). study that enhances our ability to inter-
pret and apply the findings (more on this
Analysis later).
While the dietary, questionnaire-based,
36
Table 4 Gastrointestinal symptoms of bodybuilders before (M1) and after (M2) weighing
M1 M2
Gastrointestinal symptoms
NC CL NC CL
Abdominal pain 1.44 ± 0.68 1.40 ± 0.49 1.44 ± 0.50 1.53 ± 0.61
Nausea 1.11 ± 0.31 1.07 ± 0.25 1.11 ± 0.31 1.33 ± 0.59
Vomiting 1.00 ± 0.00 1.00 ± 0.00 1.00 ± 0.00 1.00 ± 0.00
Bloating 1.00 ± 0.00 1.11 ± 0.31 1.07 ± 0.25 1.40 ± 0.61
Regurgitation 1.00 ± 0.00 1.11 ± 0.31 1.00 ± 0.00 1.20 ± 0.40
Loss of appetite 1.00 ± 0.00 1.11 ± 0.31 1.00 ± 0.00 1.13 ± 0.34
Flatulence 1.11 ± 0.31 1.33 ± 0.67 1.13 ± 0.34 1.67 ± 0.60
Abdominal rumbling 1.11 ± 0.31 1.22 ± 0.42 1.20 ± 0.40 1.47 ± 0.50
Belching 1.00 ± 0.00 1.22 ± 0.42 1.00 ± 0.00 1.27 ± 0.44
Heartburn 1.00 ± 0.00 1.22 ± 0.42 1.00 ± 0.00 1.47 ± 0.62
Constipation 2.00 ± 0.67 1.89 ± 0.57 2.13 ± 0.81 1.53 ± 0.72*
Diarrhea 1.11 ± 0.31 1.22 ± 0.42 1.13 ± 0.34 1.93 ± 0.37*†
Total scores 13.88 ± 0.28 14.9 ± 0.22 14.21 ± 0.31* 16.93 ± 0.24*

* = Significant difference vs M1; † = Significant difference vs. NC at M2
to just incidental, trace protein from the

Findings carbohydrate sources they consumed, as
From a tactical standpoint, the strate- their protein dropped to less than 20% of
gies of the competitors in the two groups their normal intake and they consumed
differed in a number of ways. While almost twice the carbohydrates of the
both groups increased their total energy no-load group on average (see Table 1).
and carbohydrate intake when compar- As a result of these dietary differences,
ing pre- and post-testing values within all muscle girth measurements signifi-
groups, the carbohydrate-loading group cantly increased in the loading group,
increased their calories to a greater de- but not in the no-load group. The only
gree, had a positive (higher) energy bal- girth that remained unchanged in the
ance, and had greater energy availability loading group was the waist measure-
than the no-load group. Further, while ment. Further, ultrasound muscle thick-
both groups decreased protein and fat ness measures of the biceps and triceps
as they increased carbohydrate, the de- and total bodyweight (and subsequent-
crease in protein and increase in carbo- ly BMI) significantly increased in the
hydrate was much more pronounced in carbohydrate-loading group, but not in
the loading group. Their protein dropped
37
the no-load group. Finally, the pre- and MASS as well (here). I would advise
post-testing pictures of the athletes in briefly checking out this prior work if
both groups were shown to seven fed- you are in the dark regarding the gener-
eration judges, who rated them accord- al theory and practices of bodybuilding
ing to the photo silhouette scale (Figure peaking before reading further to ensure
2), rating the no-load group similarly at you understand the concepts I’ll discuss.
both pre- and post-testing, but rating the I think it’s incredibly cool that a study
carbohydrate-loading group significant- of carbohydrate loading for bodybuild-
ly higher at the post-test. ing was conducted at all. But, believe it
Mood states did not significantly or not, this wasn’t the first! There was
change from pre- to post-testing, with- actually a 1992 study conducted by Ba-
in or between groups (Table 3). Finally, lon and colleagues that examined the ef-
both groups experienced greater overall fect of carbohydrate loading on muscle
gastrointestinal distress on competition girths in men in an attempt to validate
day compared to their score at weigh- or refute the practices of bodybuilders
ins; however, the carbohydrate-loading (4). In contrast to the present study, no
group experienced a decrease in con- significant increase in muscle girths was
stipation relative to their baseline score found as a result of carbohydrate loading.
and a significantly greater increase in di- However, in this study, the researchers
arrhea compared to their baseline score, did not replicate the state bodybuilders
and when compared to the no-load group were in at the time of carb loading. The
(Table 4). average body fat percentage of the sub-
jects was 10%. This is 2-3% higher than
even male bodybuilders competing “off
Interpretation their game” and 3-4% higher than the
As I mentioned in the introduction, participants in the present study. Anoth-
physique athletes have practiced forms er difference between the present study
of carbohydrate loading as a part of and the work by Balon was that Balon’s
their final week peaking strategy for carb load wasn’t done at the end of a
decades. This isn’t the first time we’ve contest preparation period that induced
discussed peaking in MASS; I provided glycogen depletion. Rather, Balon used
recommendations in video form here, a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet of
reviewed a survey of UK natural body- equal calories to maintenance for the
builders’ peaking strategies by Chappell “depletion period,” which isn’t nearly as
and colleagues (3), and the lead author depleting as a low calorie and low car-
Dr. Andrew Chappell provided his re- bohydrate energy deficit, more represen-
sponse and thoughts on my review for tative of the diet bodybuilders consume
38
coming into peak week. As a final note,
a lack of change in muscle girths doesn’t
necessarily mean that there wasn’t a vi- THUS, JUDGES WOULD
sual change. A strength of the present
study was that in addition to thicknesses HAVE ONLY BEEN ABLE TO
and circumferences, bodybuilding judg-
es that were blinded as to whether or not COMMUNICATE WHETHER
a carb load had been performed scored A PHYSIQUE GOT BIGGER,
the participants’ pictures.
For years, I pointed out the limita- NOT WHETHER THIS
tions of the Balon study and cautioned
readers not to dismiss carbohydrate
OCCURRED AT THE COST OF
loading solely based on its findings. In LOST MUSCULAR DETAIL.
turn, I pointed to observational studies
of bodybuilders in the final days prior
to their competition who performed car-
bohydrate loading. In one such study by ery limitation of the 1992 Balon study,
Bamman and colleagues (5), an increase and subsequently the researchers ob-
in biceps thickness was observed the served different results. While an iso-
day prior to the competition. At the end caloric switch from a low carb diet to a
of contest preparation, muscle growth is high carb diet in non-dieted lifters might
very unlikely to be occurring. Thus, I ar- not produce a change in muscle size,
gued that the observed increase in thick- an increase in calories – coming from
ness could possibly be a result of carbo- a very large increase in carbohydrate –
hydrate loading. I didn’t simply take this apparently does improve muscle girths,
position based on the scientific data. An thicknesses, and the appearance of mus-
observational study like the one by Bam- cularity to bodybuilding judges when
man shouldn’t carry more weight than undertaken by competitive bodybuilders
a controlled trial like the one conduct- prior to getting on stage.
ed by Balon. Rather, I took this position Now that I’ve sung praises for the
because of my anecdotal experience as present study because it addressed the
a competitor and coach. In the field, I’d limitations of the prior research on car-
seen time and time again that carbohy- bohydrate loading, it’s also important to
drate loading seemed to positively im- address the new limitations of this study.
pact the appearance of muscularity. For one, I was disappointed they didn’t
What I think is really exciting is that present the raw skinfold changes pre-to-
the present study directly addressed ev- post. The balance to be achieved when
39
Simply put, more aggressive carbohydrate loading following a low carbohydrate
period in a dieted state increases muscular thickness, girths, and the appearance
of size, while a less aggressive carbohydrate load results in no measurable change.
We don’t know much more than that from the scientific data yet, but this certainly
lends credence to the practice. Regarding how this might impact coaches and
athletes: To really move the needle for the appearance of muscle size, a moderate
carb load probably won’t cut it. Finally, an aggressive carb load may come with
gastrointestinal distress, but this may be mitigated by making increases in energy
and carbohydrate (and sodium) over more than a single day, using foods you’re
used to consuming, and introducing fewer foods you are unfamiliar with.
carbohydrate loading, in practice, is to cate whether a physique got bigger, not

load enough so that you “fill out” and whether this occurred at the cost of lost
appear more muscular without “spilling muscular detail.
over” and losing detail. Carbohydrate As a final note, it’s worth pointing out
loading increases the amount of water that gastrointestinal distress increased in
retained in the body, and this is a good both groups overall. This could simply
thing if that water is retained within the be the stress and jitters of competition
muscle. However, if the process is too day, but the diarrhea score specifically
aggressive, or if there is not enough got worse compared to baseline only
time given for carbohydrate transit and among the carb-load group and was also
storage, bodybuilders report that “blur- significantly higher than the no-load
riness” occurs, and athletes lose some group. Given the huge changes in their
degree of definition. Had the authors diet – reducing protein to one fifth, al-
reported changes in skinfold thickness- most a ten-fold increase in carbohydrate,
es, this might have picked up on wheth- and an ~80% increase in total calories –
er any additional subcutaneous water this is perhaps not surprising. Both the
retention occurred. Unfortunately, this quantity and types of foods changed a
also couldn’t have been picked up from lot after a long, stressful diet; the authors
the physique silhouette photo assess- note that a “fry up” was used by many
ment. If you view Figure 2, you can see of the participants in the carb-loading
that the level of muscular definition is group, consisting of egg and meat sand-
relatively constant between rating score wiches, milk shakes, and chips, contrib-
images, while the overall muscularity uting to ~28% of their loading calories.
increases as the score rises. Thus, judges This increase in diarrhea also coincided
would have only been able to communi- with a decrease in constipation, which
40
of course can’t occur at the same time analysis. While the groups had distinct
but might be a nice reprieve from being intakes of carbohydrate, they fell along a
backed up … so I guess you could call spectrum to some degree from ~4-10g/kg
that a silver lining? overall (roughly ~4-6g/kg in the no-load
group, and ~8-10g/kg in the load group,
respectively). A regression may tell us at
Next Steps what point along the observed spectrum
As I mentioned, I would love to see this the differences in outcomes manifest.
study repeated with some slight chang- Bodybuilders are unlikely to be open to
es to give us a more complete picture following a standardized peaking strat-
of how carbohydrate loading impacts a egy for competition, meaning future re-
physique competitor’s look. In addition search on this topic will likely be done
to reporting raw skinfold changes and in a similar way, with subjects assigned
the silhouette scores (or in lieu of them), to groups based on what they did on
I think it would be great to have the judg- their own, rather than being assigned a
es give subjective Likert scores on a few protocol. Thus, in the future when these
aspects of physique assessment. For ex- studies are performed, it would be great
ample, they could rate the before and af- to see regression analyses employed to
ter pictures on muscular size, definition, help us better apply the findings.
and proportionality and give an overall
score to tease out the nuances of how
carbohydrate loading impacts aspects
of appearance. Also, I would love to see
this same design applied to other aspects
of peaking: manipulating sodium, ma-
nipulating water, or using more or less
aggressive pump-ups, both in isolation
and in combination. This would most
likely need to be a series of studies that
build upon one another due to the logis-
tical difficulties of this type of research,
but over time, I do think this could give
us more objective answers about peak-
ing.
As a final note – and tip-of-the-hat to
Greg for pointing this out in review –
this analysis is well suited for regression
41
References
1. de Moraes WM, de Almeida FN, dos Santos LE, Cavalcante KD, Santos HO, Navalta JW,
Prestes J. Carbohydrate Loading Practice in Bodybuilders: Effects on Muscle Thickness, Photo
Silhouette Scores, Mood States and Gastrointestinal Symptoms. Journal of Sports Science and
Medicine. 2019 Dec 1;18(4):772-9.
2. Castro AP, Damasceno VD, Miranda JA, Lima JR, Vianna JM. Photo silhouettes for as-
sessment of body image of bodybuilders. Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Esporte. 2011
Aug;17(4):250-3.
3. Chappell AJ, Simper TN. Nutritional Peak Week and Competition Day Strategies of Competitive
Natural Bodybuilders. Sports. 2018 Dec;6(4).
4. Balon TW, Horowitz JF, Fitzsimmons KM. Effects of carbohydrate loading and weight-lifting on
muscle girth. International Journal of Sport Nutrition. 1992 Dec;2(4):328.
5. Bamman MM, Hunter GR, Newton LE, Roney RK, Khaled MA. Changes in body composi-
tion, diet, and strength of bodybuilders during the 12 weeks prior to competition. The Journal of
Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness. 1993 Dec;33(4):383.
42
Study Reviewed: Effect of Bang® Pre-Workout Master Blaster® Combined With Four Weeks of
Resistance Training on Lean Body Mass, Maximal Strength, Microrna Expression, and Serum Igf-1
in Men: A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial. Schwarz et al. (2019)
Four Weeks of Daily Supplementation with

a Multi-Ingredient Pre-Workout Formula
Enhances Strength and Muscle Gains
BY E RI C T RE X LE R
The list of effective supplements is pretty short, but multi-ingredient pre-workout

supplements throw many of them together in a single product. Most studies on pre-
workout supplements look at the acute effects of a single dose, but those don’t tell us
if consistent use leads to better results over time. This study evaluated the effects of
supplementing with a pre-workout supplement for one full month. Read on to find out
if the short-term benefits actually translate to more strength and muscle over time.
43
KEY POINTS
1. The current study (1) sought to determine if daily supplementation with a multi-
ingredient pre-workout supplement (Bang® Pre-Workout Master Blaster®)
enhanced strength and muscle gains in response to four weeks of resistance
training.
2. Compared to placebo, the supplement induced larger increases in lean body mass
(3.15kg versus 0.89kg) and squat 1RM (23.9kg versus 14.2kg). Larger increases
in bench press 1RM were also observed (10.5kg versus 4.6kg), but this difference
was not statistically significant. Supplementation did not alter insulin-like growth
factor-1 (IGF-1) levels, microRNA expression, or blood pressure values, and all
clinical blood biomarkers stayed within normal ranges.
3. Well-formulated multi-ingredient pre-workout supplements appear to enhance
acute performance and facilitate favorable training adaptations. It’s likely that
the acute effects are predominantly driven by caffeine, with the chronic effects
predominantly driven by creatine. Pre-workout supplements are convenient and
efficacious, but it’s hard to determine if they’re necessarily more effective than
consistently supplementing with creatine and caffeine alone.
S
upplement stores are lined from ceived energy level following consump-
wall to wall with countless dietary tion, it’s easy to see why pre-workout
supplements, but surprisingly few supplements are among the most com-
of them have large enough effects on lift- monly used supplements for recreational
ing performance or resistance training and competitive lifters.
adaptations to get excited about. Creatine Authors of the current study (1) had
is certainly in a class of its own as the sole previously published a separate study (2)
top-tier resistance training supplement, evaluating the acute effects of a pre-work-
but there are a number of second-tier out supplement (Bang® Pre-Workout
supplements that have promising poten- Master Blaster®) on strength and power
tial for some lifters, such as caffeine, ci- performance 30 minutes after ingestion.
trulline, beta-alanine, and betaine, among While it’s valuable to assess the acute
others. Multi-ingredient pre-workout response, it doesn’t necessarily tell us if
supplements tend to throw a huge list of supplementation will increase strength or
ingredients together into one big blend, muscle gains if the supplement is consis-
hoping to maximize the likelihood that at tently used for multiple weeks. Notably,
least some of the ingredients will contrib- many of the ingredients in multi-ingredi-
ute to improved training outcomes. Giv- ent pre-workout formulas require chron-
en the long list of potentially ergogenic ic use to induce ergogenic effects, so it’s
ingredients and a reliable boost in per-
44
Table 1 Participant characteristics by group
Group
Treatment Placebo
Number 8 8
Age (years) 22.5 ± 2.9 22.5 ± 3.1
Height (cm) 181.7 ± 9.2 175.3 ± 8.1
Training experience (years) 2.94 ± 2.44 3.19 ± 2.96
possible that the effects of acute studies cle mass and strength gains in response
are largely driven by caffeine alone. The to four weeks of resistance training. The
current study (1) evaluated the effects of secondary purpose was to determine if the
daily supplementation with a multi-ingre- supplement influenced resting serum con-
dient pre-workout formula, in conjunc- centrations of IGF-1, or the expression of
tion with a four-week resistance training a number of microRNAs (miR-126, miR-
program. The primary results indicated 23b, miR-16, miR-23a, and miR-15a)
no benefit for fat loss, but statistically within participants’ muscle tissue.
significant improvements in strength and
muscle gains in comparison to a placebo Hypotheses
treatment. This article discusses which The authors hypothesized that supple-
ingredients likely contributed to the ob- mentation would lead to greater increases
served findings, and what these results in lean mass, strength, IGF-1 levels, and
may mean for your pre-workout supple- microRNA expression in comparison to a
mentation habits. placebo.
Purpose and Hypotheses Subjects and Methods

Purpose Subjects
The authors sought to determine if chron- 16 recreationally trained men complet-
ic supplementation with a multi-ingredient ed the current study; their characteristics
pre-workout supplement increases mus- are presented in Table 1.
45
Table 2 Supplement ingredients and dosages
Supplement Facts
Serving size: 1 pack (26.1g)
Amount per serving % Daily value
Calories 4
Total Carbohydrate 1.0g 0%*
Hydroxypropyl distarch phosphate 990mg **
Highly branched cyclic dextrin 10mg **
Branched-chain amino acids 7500mg **
L-Leucine 3000mg **
L-Isoleucine 3000mg **
L-Valine 1500mg **
L-Citrulline malate 2:1 6000mg **
Creatine monohydrate 5000mg **
Betaine anhydrous 2500mg **
Beta-alanine 2400mg **
350mg **
Creatyl-L-Leucine [Super Creatine™] 250mg **
* = percent daily values are based on a 2,000 calorie diet

** = daily value not established
Supplement facts for the multi-ingredient pre-workout supplement used in the current study.
As the authors noted, the estimated energy value for the supplement is 34 Calories per serving,
rather than 4
Notably, there was a great deal of vari- riod, during which they consumed a
ability within the sample when it came pre-workout supplement or a placebo
to training experience. In each group, daily. Throughout the study, participants
there were three subjects with less than completed a structured, supervised, pro-
one year of resistance training experi- gressive resistance training program
ence, but at least one subject with 7-8 four days per week, with two upper-body
years of experience. sessions and two lower-body sessions.
On workout days, the supplement (or
Methods placebo) was consumed 30 minutes pri-
Participants were tested before and or to exercise; on rest days, the supple-
after a four-week supplementation pe- ment (or placebo) was consumed in the
46
Figure 1 Body composition changes in Schwarz et al (1)
A 1200
Time point B 40
Pre
Total body mass (kg)
Post
100
Fat mass (kg)

100 30
90
80 20
70
60 10
PLA PWO PLA PWO
Group Group
C D 70
Body fat percentage (%)
35
Lean body mass (kg)
65
30
60
25 55
50
20
45
PLA PWO PLA PWO
Group Group
Data are presented as mean ± SD

Values for (A) total mass, (B) fat mass, (C) body-fat percentage, and (D) lean body mass before and after supplementation
PLA = placebo; PWO = pre-workout supplement; * = significant change from pre to post;
# = greater change for PWO in comparison to PLA
morning. The contents of the pre-work- sure, blood IGF-1 levels, a wide range
out supplement are listed in Table 2. of blood biomarkers, and the expression
Outcomes of interest included body of five microRNAs in skeletal muscle
composition (measured via DXA), (miR-23a, miR-23b, miR-126, miR-16,
bench and squat one-repetition maxi- miR-15a). Squat form was standardized
mum (1RM), heart rate and blood pres- by using a box and a Smith machine,
47
while bench press was performed with a Figure 2 Squat and bench press 1RM changes in Schwarz et al (1)
barbell. The final supplement dose was
consumed the day before post-testing to
ensure that the acute effects of caffeine
(and possibly other ingredients) would A 250 Time point
Pre
not influence outcomes.
Squat 1-RM (kg)

Post
200
Resistance training is known to alter

the expression of several microRNAs,
150
which are small, non-coding RNA mol- 100
ecules that can alter gene expression.

Interestingly, expression of the specific
50
PLA PWO
microRNAs assessed in the current study Group
(miR-23a, miR-23b, miR-126, miR-16,

miR-15a) were previously shown to B 130
perfectly discriminate between power-
Bench 1-RM (kg)

110
lifters and untrained controls (3). This
observation has led some researchers 90
to speculate that they may play an im- 70
portant role in adaptations to resistance

exercise, so the authors of the current 50
PLA PWO
study were interested in seeing if these Group

microRNAs were altered by training or Data are presented as mean ± SD.
supplementation.
Values for (A) squat and (B) bench press one-repetition maximum (1RM) before and after
supplementation.
PLA = placebo, PWO = pre-workout supplement; * = significant change from pre to post;
#= greater change for PWO in comparison to PLA
Findings different heart rate and diastolic blood

Throughout the study, both groups pressure values; higher values were
consumed similar amounts of carbo- observed in the supplement group, but
hydrate, fat, protein, and total calories, these differences were present before
and these amounts did not significant- supplementation began, and were not
ly vary from the beginning to the end significantly influenced by supplemen-
of the study. Resting systolic blood tation. Fat mass and body-fat percent-
pressure decreased from pre-testing age were not altered by supplemen-
to post-testing, but this reduction over tation, but the supplement group had
time was not significantly impacted by significantly greater increases in lean
supplementation. The groups (supple- body mass and total body mass than the
ment versus placebo) had significantly placebo group (Figure 1).
48
Squat 1RM increased significantly in
response to training for both groups, but Interpretation
the increase was significantly greater in In the current study, a multi-ingredi-
the supplement group than the placebo ent pre-workout supplement resulted
group (Figure 2). The p-value for this in pretty solid increases in strength and
interaction effect was 0.04, with a par- muscle gains over four weeks of resis-
tial eta squared (a type of effect size) tance training. Furthermore, the dozens
value of 0.27. Similarly, bench press of blood biomarkers assessed stayed
1RM increased significantly for both within normal ranges, which provides
groups; while the increase observed for some evidence to support the safety of
the supplement group was not signifi- this supplement, at least short term. The
cantly greater than the placebo group, superficial interpretation would be that
it was certainly leaning in that direc- the product featured in this study seems
tion (Figure 2). The bench press inter- to work pretty well. However, we’ll
action p-value was 0.08, with a partial need to dig deeper to come away with
eta squared value of 0.20; these values reasonably generalizable conclusions.
failed to reach the magical threshold of The primary issue with this entire body
p = 0.05, but they weren’t far off from of research relates to the shotgun ap-
the squat results. proach taken by these pre-workout for-
There were a couple dozen blood mulations; a lot of companies throw just
biomarkers measured in the current about every potentially ergogenic ingre-
study, with varying degrees of clini- dient they can think of into the mix and
cal relevance. While some statistical- hope for the best. This is great for in-
ly significant results were reported, all creasing the likelihood that the product
values (pre and post, for both groups) will have favorable effects, but makes it
were within normal ranges. Resting hard to determine which ingredient(s)
IGF-1 levels were not affected by sup- are actually driving the effects.
plementation and did not significantly At first glance, it may seem that the
change throughout the course of the observed increases in lean body mass
study. Two microRNAs significantly (+3.15kg) are unusually high, but this
increased from pre-testing to post-test- is a totally plausible magnitude of gain
ing (miR23-a and miR23-b), but this given the context and the ingredients
change was not influenced by supple- of the test product. The supplement in
mentation, and the other three microR- this experiment contained 5g of creatine
NAs remained unchanged throughout monohydrate and 2.5g of betaine, both
the study. of which are osmolytic. This means
that, even in the complete absence of
49
hypertrophy, a month of supplementa- increased lean mass to a significantly
tion should lead to an increase in lean greater degree than a placebo, while cre-
body mass. With repeated supplementa- atine alone was not significantly greater
tion, storage of creatine and betaine in than placebo (7).
lean tissues increases, and their osmo- A meta-analysis by Chilibeck et al (6)
lytic properties cause them to draw wa- evaluated the effects of creatine and re-
ter into the tissues where they are stored. sistance training on lean mass; while the
Creatine loading alone, in the absence of results of the current study (+3.15kg of
muscle hypertrophy, typically results in lean mass) would be on the higher end of
a weight gain of 1-2kg (4), and a 2013 the spectrum if it were part of Chilibeck
study by Cholewa et al (5) reported that et al’s analysis, they wouldn’t constitute
2.5g/day of betaine resulted in a 2.4kg the largest reported change (+3.3kg).
gain of lean mass after six weeks of re- The current study may find itself on the
sistance training. Plus, even if the sup- higher end of this spectrum due to the
plement were totally worthless, we’d use of relatively younger subjects (mean
still anticipate a gain of roughly 1kg age 22.5 years) than the studies included
from the training program alone. The in the meta-analysis (mean age over 50
placebo group gained 0.89kg in the cur- years), the use of a relatively effective
rent study, so the actual gain attributable training program, or the potential con-
to supplementation is only an additional tributions from other ingredients in the
2.26kg. Aside from the effects of cre- supplement. In comparison to other stud-
atine and betaine on fluid retention, it ies evaluating fairly similar pre-work-
is quite likely that creatine drives actual out supplements, these changes in lean
hypertrophy (6), and there is some (but body mass (5.9%) are fairly similar to
far less) research indicating that betaine those reported by Shelmadine et al (8)
does as well (5). Furthermore, it’s pos- and Spillane et al (9), who reported in-
sible that other ingredients have addi- creases of 4.8% and 3.7% using similar
tive or synergistic effects on lean mass four-week protocols. While the results
accretion (note: while “additive” refers of the current study are a bit larger in
to a combined effect that is equal to the magnitude, this could be related to its
sum of the two individual effects, “syn- inclusion of higher doses of creatine and
ergistic” refers to a scenario in which betaine.
the two ingredients potentiate each oth-
To this point, we’ve focused on supple-
ers’ effects, such that the combined effect
ments that are believed to enhance train-
is greater than the sum of the two inde-
ing adaptations via chronic consumption
pendent effects). For example, one study
over the course of weeks. However, the
found that the combination of creatine
product evaluated in this study has been
(10.5g/day) and beta-alanine (3.2g/day)
50
shown to have acute performance bene- L-citrulline and glutathione over eight
fits following ingestion of a single dose weeks of training, but the citrulline dose
(2). This brings us to another question was quite low (2g/day), and the training
that we aren’t fully equipped to answer program didn’t seem to induce very siz-
at this moment: If pre-workout supple- able training adaptations in any of the
ments acutely enhance performance, groups (12). It seems to be generally true
how much does this contribute to chron- that volume is a key driver of hypertro-
ic training adaptations? That is, if a sin- phy, but do a couple extra reps here and
gle dose gives us a few extra repetitions there really translate to noticeable mus-
before we reach failure, does this mean- cle gains, especially when most trainees
ingfully affect the amount of strength or finish most of their training sets shy of
muscle mass we gain over several weeks failure? At this point, it’s hard to say.
of training? I don’t want to be repetitious, but we
We certainly have evidence showing face similar challenges when interpret-
that caffeine acutely enhances resistance ing the performance outcomes in the
exercise performance (10). However, current study. For squat 1RM, there was
as covered by Greg in a fairly recent a significant difference between groups,
MASS article, it appears that the perfor- with a larger increase observed in the
mance effects of caffeine may diminish pre-workout group (+23.9kg) than the
(to some extent, at least) with repeated placebo group (+14.2kg). For bench
use. At this point, we still don’t have press 1RM, the groups were not sig-
direct evidence to determine if daily nificantly different, but the pre-work-
pre-workout caffeine supplementation out group increased their bench press
actually improves strength or muscle by roughly twice as much as the pla-
mass gains over time. The story is pret- cebo group. I mentioned the partial eta
ty similar for citrulline malate. Before I squared values earlier in the Findings
joined the MASS team, Greg reviewed section, but most MASS readers are
a meta-analysis I published about the probably more familiar with using Co-
acute effects of citrulline malate supple- hen’s d as an effect size metric, which
mentation (11). This body of literature is represents the difference between two
still in its early stages of formation, but means, divided by the pooled standard
the preliminary evidence suggests that deviation. Exact squat and bench press
citrulline can acutely enhance strength values weren’t reported numerically,
endurance. However, whether or not this but I calculated some rough estimates of
translates to enhanced training adapta- Cohen’s d values based on Figure 2 and
tions over time is still unknown. One the values that were directly reported. It
study attempted to assess the effects of looks like the supplement’s effect size
51
on squat 1RM was around d = 0.31, and blood pressure variables were not sig-
the bench press effect size was around nificantly impacted by supplementation,
d = 0.25. Similarly, a meta-analysis by and the numerous blood biomarkers that
Branch estimated that creatine increased were assessed remained within normal
1RM (in general) by an effect size of ranges for both groups. These findings
about d = 0.32, which represented an support the idea that supplementation
11.2% increase from baseline, on aver- with this pre-workout is likely to be safe,
age (13). As such, the performance im- at least in the short term (four weeks).
provements in the current study are pret- The authors found that two of the five
ty consistent with the effects of creatine measured microRNAs increased from
interventions, in the absence of the other pre-testing to post-testing, but this was
potentially ergogenic ingredients. Fur- not influenced by supplementation. I
thermore, the current findings are con- don’t want my lack of focus on microR-
sistent with previous studies using sim- NA findings to be interpreted as down-
ilar products and training protocols. In playing their importance for resistance
the current study, bench press increased training, as emerging evidence seems to
by 10.7% for the supplement group, indicate that they may play an important
whereas it increased by 8.8% and 12.6% role in modulating training adaptations.
in the pre-workout supplement studies However, the current study found that
by Shelmadine et al (8) and Spillane et these were not altered by supplementa-
al (9). Squat increased by 16.1% for the tion, so a deep dive into microRNA is
supplement group, whereas leg press in- beyond the scope of this particular ar-
creased by 18.4% and 21.3% in the stud- ticle. It should be noted that, as Mike
ies by Shelmadine et al (8) and Spillane pointed out to me, there are a number
et al (9). It is fair to note that all three of other influential microRNAs that the
of these studies were funded by the sup- researchers did not choose to measure
plement company selling each product in this study. As such, it’s possible that
studied, but that’s pretty standard in the microRNAs other than the select group
supplement research world, and all con- measured could have played a role in
flicts of interest appear to be transpar- the observed effects on performance
ently reported. Given the transparency and body composition, but we can’t be
and the plausibility of the results, this certain. In addition, supplementation
funding consideration doesn’t concern had no effect on resting IGF-1 levels.
me. So, these secondary outcomes suggest
Finally, I should briefly address the that the study’s pre-workout product
other variables that were assessed in is apparently safe and beneficially im-
the current study. Resting heart rate and pacts training adaptations, but its effects
do not appear to be driven by effects
52
on IGF-1 or this particular selection of fect sizes for previous studies investi-
skeletal muscle microRNAs. gating the effects of creatine. It’s safe to
say that performance improvements are
Conclusions likely, but it’s quite difficult to conclu-
When I evaluate the acute effects of sively assert that the effects are substan-
a multi-ingredient pre-workout supple- tially better than creatine alone.
ment, I ask myself, “Does this appear I don’t want to get too far off track
to outperform caffeine alone?” When I here, but a common concern among lift-
evaluate chronic effects, I ask myself, ers is that caffeine may negate the per-
“Does this appear to outperform cre- formance benefits of creatine. This is
atine alone?” a valid concern, as a few papers have
The product in this study was previ- found that ergogenic doses of caffeine
ously tested for its acute effects on per- (~5mg/kg) seemed to blunt the perfor-
formance (2). It significantly improved mance effects of creatine loading, and
vertical jump and leg extension strength there are no papers directly refuting
endurance, with effect sizes of 0.19 and these findings. If this is an area that in-
0.82. This vertical jump effect size is terests you, I published a review paper
pretty similar to the pooled effect size on the topic in 2015 (17), and I dis-
representing the acute effects of caffeine cussed it here as well. In short, the two
(14) on vertical jump (ES = 0.17). A me- most plausible theories are that (1) cre-
ta-analysis by Warren et al (15) evaluat- atine and caffeine have opposing effects
ed the acute effects of caffeine on mus- on muscle relaxation time, thus leading
cular endurance; the pooled effect size to blunted effects when combined, or
was 0.275, but the effect sizes of indi- (2) high-dose caffeine causes stomach
vidual studies ranged from -0.32 to 0.91. discomfort during creatine loading, and
A more recent meta-analysis (16) on the it’s hard to perform well with an upset
same topic reported a higher pooled ef- stomach. As more and more data come
fect size of 0.38, with some individual out, I increasingly find theory #2 to be
studies reporting effect sizes over 1.0. the most likely, and the results of the
So, it’s safe to say that well-formulated current study provide some very indi-
pre-workout supplements can enhance rect evidence to increase our skepticism
performance, but it’s difficult to conclu- about theory #1. At the very least, this
sively assert that such effects are sub- study alleviates the concerns of people
stantially larger than the independent ef- who worried that this potential interac-
fects of caffeine. Similarly, the strength tion between creatine and caffeine was
and muscle gains reported in the current rendering their pre-workout supplement
study are within the typical range of ef- useless.
53
Daily ingestion of a well-formulated, multi-ingredient pre-workout supplement
enhances strength and muscle gains in response to four weeks of resistance
training. It’s difficult to determine exactly which ingredients are responsible for the
favorable outcomes, but it seems reasonable to conclude that creatine is a major
contributor, with some secondary or tertiary contributions from other ingredients.
If you’re in the market for a pre-workout and you aren’t already taking creatine, it’s
worth verifying that the product contains adequate amounts of creatine (3-5g) and
caffeine (3-6mg/kg body mass), in addition to some of the secondary ingredients
like citrulline malate (6-8g) and betaine (≥2.5g). Beta-alanine is typically dosed at
4-7g/day, but it’s rare to see doses above 3-4g in pre-workouts due to the intense
tingling sensation observed with higher doses. Multi-ingredient supplements are
certainly a convenient delivery system for creatine and caffeine, but it’s uncertain if
these multi-ingredient formulas are substantially more effective than daily intake of
creatine and caffeine alone.
It’s very possible that ingredients like but it’s possible that such supplements
citrulline malate contribute to acute per- could include some extraneous ingredi-
formance effects, and that ingredients ents that increase cost without increas-
like beta-alanine and betaine contribute ing efficacy.
to the chronic training adaptations. It’s
also possible that the enhanced training
volume afforded by the acute effects Next Steps
of caffeine and citrulline malate has a Right now, I’d say there’s a pretty big
positive impact on training adaptations gap in this area of research. We have
as well. At this point, there simply isn’t evidence to suggest the following: 1)
enough evidence to quantify the relative acute caffeine intake enhances perfor-
contribution of each ingredient. It seems mance; 2) acute pre-workout intake en-
reasonably safe to say that the vast ma- hances performance, likely due to its
jority of benefits from a pre-workout caffeine content; 3) chronic ingestion
supplement are attributable to the acute of creatine enhances resistance train-
effects of caffeine and the chronic effects ing adaptations; 4) chronic ingestion of
of creatine, with the possibility of some pre-workout supplements enhances re-
modest contributions from some of the sistance training adaptations, possibly
secondary and tertiary ingredients. So, due to their creatine content (and, to a
a well-formulated multi-ingredient sup- lesser extent, other ingredients like be-
plement represents a convenient delivery taine and beta-alanine).
system for some ergogenic ingredients,
54
A number of questions remain. For ex- nient means of obtaining caffeine and
ample, do the acute performance bene- creatine, but not a cost-effective one.
fits of caffeine actually add up over time
and contribute to more favorable training
adaptations? The same question could
be asked of citrulline malate. Similarly,
would the theoretical increase in train-
ing volume afforded by beta-alanine ac-
tually summate to yield better long-term
training outcomes? Are the combined
effects of the ingredients in multi-ingre-
dient pre-workout supplements additive,
synergistic, or redundant in nature?
To answer these questions, we need
to start with a few basic lines of ques-
tioning. We need to figure out if daily,
pre-workout caffeine supplementation
leads to cumulative gains over time, and
we need to do the same for citrulline
malate or other nitric-oxide boosting
ingredients. It’d be great to see studies
that directly compare the acute effects
of a multi-ingredient pre-workout sup-
plement to caffeine alone, and directly
compare the chronic effects to creatine
alone. From there, the next task will be
determining if specific ingredient com-
binations are actually synergistic, or
simply additive. If the short-term ben-
efits of pre-workouts are exclusively
dictated by caffeine, and the long-term
adaptations are exclusively dictated by
creatine, then many pre-workout sup-
plements would contain a number of
ingredients that fail to add meaningful
benefits. If that were true, pre-workout
supplements would represent a conve-
55
References
1. Schwarz NA, McKinley-Barnard SK, Blahnik ZJ. Effect of Bang® Pre-Workout Master
Blaster® combined with four weeks of resistance training on lean body mass, maximal
strength, mircoRNA expression, and serum IGF-1 in men: a randomized, double-blind, pla-
cebo-controlled trial. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2019 Nov 19;16(1):54.
2. Schwarz NA, McKinley-Barnard SK. Acute Oral Ingestion of a Multi-ingredient Prework-
out Supplement Increases Exercise Performance and Alters Postexercise Hormone Respons-
es: A Randomized Crossover, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Trial. J Diet Suppl. 2018
Oct 4;1–16.
3. D’Souza RF, Bjørnsen T, Zeng N, Aasen KMM, Raastad T, Cameron-Smith D, et al. Mi-
croRNAs in Muscle: Characterizing the Powerlifter Phenotype. Front Physiol. 2017;8:383.
4. Buford TW, Kreider RB, Stout JR, Greenwood M, Campbell B, Spano M, et al. International
Society of Sports Nutrition position stand: creatine supplementation and exercise. J Int Soc
Sports Nutr. 2007 Aug 30;4:6.
5. Cholewa JM, Wyszczelska-Rokiel M, Glowacki R, Jakubowski H, Matthews T, Wood R, et
al. Effects of betaine on body composition, performance, and homocysteine thiolactone. J Int
Soc Sports Nutr. 2013 Aug 22;10:39.
6. Chilibeck PD, Kaviani M, Candow DG, Zello GA. Effect of creatine supplementation during
resistance training on lean tissue mass and muscular strength in older adults: a meta-analy-
sis. Open Access J Sports Med. 2017 Nov 2;8:213–26.
7. Hoffman J, Ratamess N, Kang J, Mangine G, Faigenbaum A, Stout J. Effect of creatine and
beta-alanine supplementation on performance and endocrine responses in strength/power
athletes. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2006 Aug;16(4):430–46.
8. Shelmadine B, Cooke M, Buford T, Hudson G, Redd L, Leutholtz B, et al. Effects of 28 days
of resistance exercise and consuming a commercially available pre-workout supplement,
NO-Shotgun(R), on body composition, muscle strength and mass, markers of satellite cell
activation, and clinical safety markers in males. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2009 Aug 5;6:16.
9. Spillane M, Schwarz N, Leddy S, Correa T, Minter M, Longoria V, et al. Effects of 28 days
of resistance exercise while consuming commercially available pre- and post-workout sup-
plements, NO-Shotgun® and NO-Synthesize® on body composition, muscle strength and
mass, markers of protein synthesis, and clinical safety markers in males. Nutr Metab. 2011
Nov 3;8:78.
10. Grgic J, Grgic I, Pickering C, Schoenfeld BJ, Bishop DJ, Pedisic Z. Wake up and smell the
coffee: caffeine supplementation and exercise performance-an umbrella review of 21 pub-
lished meta-analyses. Br J Sports Med. 2019 Mar 29;
11. Trexler ET, Persky AM, Ryan ED, Schwartz TA, Stoner L, Smith-Ryan AE. Acute Effects of
Citrulline Supplementation on High-Intensity Strength and Power Performance: A System-
56
atic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Med Auckl NZ. 2019 May;49(5):707–18.
12. Hwang P, Morales Marroquín FE, Gann J, Andre T, McKinley-Barnard S, Kim C, et al.
Eight weeks of resistance training in conjunction with glutathione and L-Citrulline supple-
mentation increases lean mass and has no adverse effects on blood clinical safety markers in
resistance-trained males. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2018 Jun 27;15(1):30.
13. Branch JD. Effect of creatine supplementation on body composition and performance: a
meta-analysis. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2003 Jun;13(2):198–226.
14. Grgic J, Trexler ET, Lazinica B, Pedisic Z. Effects of caffeine intake on muscle strength and
power: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2018;15:11.
15. Warren GL, Park ND, Maresca RD, McKibans KI, Millard-Stafford ML. Effect of caffeine
ingestion on muscular strength and endurance: a meta-analysis. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010
Jul;42(7):1375–87.
16. Polito MD, Souza DB, Casonatto J, Farinatti P. Acute effect of caffeine consumption on iso-
tonic muscular strength and endurance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Sports.
2016 Jun 1;31(3):119–28.
17. Trexler ET, Smith-Ryan AE. Creatine and Caffeine: Considerations for Concurrent Supple-
mentation. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2015 Dec;25(6):607–23.
57
Study Reviewed: Effects of Pre-Exhaustion Versus Traditional Resistance
Training on Training Volume, Maximal Strength, and Quadriceps
Hypertrophy. Trindade et al. (2019)
Pre-Exhaustion May Not Be the

Ticket to Larger Gains
BY G RE G NUC KO LS
Pre-exhaustion is a fairly common “advanced technique” promoted to

increase muscle growth. The results of the study reviewed in this issue aren’t
overly promising, but the idea may have some merit when considering the
broader body of literature.
58
KEY POINTS
1. Pre-exhaustion classically involves fatiguing a muscle with a single-joint exercise
before performing a multi-joint exercise that primarily trains the same muscle.
2. In the present study, subjects either just performed leg press or performed one
high-rep set of knee extensions before their leg press sets.
3. Both groups experienced similar hypertrophy and strength gains after nine weeks
of training.
4. When looking at the rest of the literature directly or indirectly addressing the
concept of pre-exhaustion, it appears that there may be times that pre-exhaustion
can be beneficial, but the details of implementation matter.
P re-exhaustion is a popular “ad-

vanced technique” for hypertro-
phy training. It typically involves
either performed three sets of leg press
to failure, or three sets of leg press to
failure with one set of light knee exten-
training a specific muscle group prior sions immediately preceding the first
to training a multi-joint exercise that set. Quad and glute hypertrophy were
targets that muscle group. For exam- similar in both groups, as were strength
ple, performing flyes before training gains in both leg press and knee exten-
bench press would be an example of sions. When we look at other research,
pre-exhaustion. The thinking behind the overall picture is slightly more en-
this technique is that performance in a couraging, though the efficacy of pre-ex-
compound exercise may be limited by haustion likely depends heavily on con-
muscle groups other than the one you’re text and application.
trying to target, and thus you may end up
not stimulating the target muscle group
sufficiently. If you pre-exhaust the target Purpose and Hypotheses
muscle group, it’s then guaranteed to be
the limiter during subsequent compound Purpose
exercises, thus theoretically achieving The purpose of this study was to com-
maximal stimulation for muscle growth. pare the effects of traditional training
In spite of its popularity, research ex- and training with pre-exhaustion on
amining pre-exhaustion (and compa- strength, body composition, and muscle
rable approaches) is murky, to say the hypertrophy.
least. In the present study (1), subjects
59
Hypotheses sets of 12-15 submaximal leg presses.
The authors hypothesized that train- During the second week, subjects tested
ing with pre-exhaustion would increase their leg press 1RM either two or three
strength gains and hypertrophy relative times (it’s not totally clear in the text).
to traditional training, while the two ap- During the third week, subjects tested
proaches would have similar effects on their knee extension 1RM either two or
body composition. three times (it’s not totally clear in the
text). The subjects also performed 1RM
tests every two or three weeks (it’s not
Subjects and Methods totally clear in the text) during the sub-
sequent training period in order to ad-
Subjects just training loads. They performed final
1RM tests after the training period as
31 men aged 18-40 with some pri-
well. Multiple muscle thickness mea-
or training experience completed this
surements (one point on the glutes, and
study. To quote directly from the study:
two points on the rectus femoris, vastus
“The inclusion criteria were as follows:
lateralis, and vastus medialis), a DEXA
a minimum of 1-year of uninterrupted
to assess body composition, and a three-
experience with [resistance training] in-
day nutrition assessment were per-
cluding the [resistance training] exercis-
formed pre- and post-training as well.
es of knee extension and 45° leg press
A nutrition assessment was also per-
(but not in the 6 months previous to the
formed during the middle of the train-
study )....” Thus, I’m not entirely sure if
ing program. Subjects were counseled
the subjects were just required to have
to consume at least 1.4g of protein per
not done knee extensions or leg press in
kilogram of body mass if they weren’t
the six months prior to the study, or to
already.
have not done any resistance training in
the six months prior to the study. I think The training intervention lasted for
it’s the latter (meaning these were de- nine weeks. Subjects were split into
trained, but not untrained, subjects), but two groups (counterbalanced based on
I’m not certain. leg press 1RM): a traditional group and
a pre-exhaustion group. Both groups
Experimental Design trained twice per week, performing three
sets of leg press to failure with 75% of
The study began with three weeks of
their most recent 1RM, with one minute
familiarization and 1RM testing. During
of rest between sets. The pre-exhaustion
the first week, subjects completed three
group also performed one set of knee
sessions consisting of one set of 12-15
extensions to failure with 20% of 1RM
submaximal knee extensions, and three
60
Figure 1 Percent changes in muscle thickness
90%
80%
Change in thickness (%)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Gluteus Rectus femoris Rectus femoris Vastus lateralis Vastus lateralis Vastus medialis Vastus medialis
Maximus (proximal) (distal) (proximal) (distal) (proximal) (distal)
Pre-exhaustion Traditional
immediately before their first set of leg sider the fact that only the pre-exhaustion
press. Both groups also performed one group was actually performing knee ex-
submaximal set of 10-12 reps on bench tensions as part of their training program.
press, dumbbell press, pull-downs, seat- It is worth noting that total volume load
ed rows, trunk flexion, and trunk exten- (sets × reps × weight) was significantly
sion during each training session. higher for the traditional group during
the last half of the program, presumably
because the pre-exhaustion knee exten-
Findings sion set significantly compromised sub-
There were no significant differences sequent leg press performance.
between training groups for any of the
variables analyzed. The only difference
that was maybe practically meaningful Interpretation
and simply thwarted by the small sample Last month I wrote about compound
size was gains in knee extension 1RM (17 sets, which I wasn’t previously famil-
± 11% in the pre-exhaustion group vs. 11 iar with. This month we’re looking at
± 4% in the traditional group), but that’s pre-exhaustion, which is a concept I’m
also not very impressive when you con-
61
much more acquainted with. In fact, it’s Figure 2 One repetition-maximum for 45° leg press (A) and leg extension (B)
one of the first ways I learned to train.
When I first started lifting at the local
A
YMCA, an old bodybuilder took me un- ES = 0.88 ES = 0.85 ES = 0.05
der his wing to show me the ropes. He 600

swore by pre-exhaustion. Before bench-
Leg press 1RM (kg)

500
ing, we’d always do flyes and triceps ex-
tensions. Before squatting, we’d always 400
do knee extensions and some form of 300

direct hamstring work. He swore it was
200
better for muscle growth, and would also
help keep your joints healthy. He was still 100
pretty jacked and could squat through a 0

full range of motion in his 70s, so it anec- Pre Exhaustion Traditional training Control
dotally seemed to work for him, but what

B PRE POST
does the science say?
ES = 2.24 ES = 0.85 ES = 0.08
Well, there’s no research (that I’m aware 200
Leg extension 1RM (kg)
of) related to the joint health contention,

but we can at least partially evaluate the 150
claims about muscle growth.

100
The results of the present study, at least,
aren’t very inspiring. Doing one extra set
50
to failure with 20% of 1RM (which will
be incredibly unpleasant) and not hav-
ing anything extra to show for it? That
0
Pre Exhaustion Traditional training Control
doesn’t sound like effective training to
me. Pre = pre pre-exhaustion; Post = Post pre-exhaustion; ES = effect size
* = p < 0.05 for pre-intervention; † = p < 0.05 for PreEx and TRT after adjustment
However, it’s worth breaking this down,

thinking about it conceptually, and ask-
ing ourselves two questions: To answer the first question, we have
three studies to consider. The first is the
1. Does the timing between the pre-fa-
present study (1). Pre-fatiguing a mus-
tiguing and “normal” training mat-
cle immediately prior to “normal” train-
ter?
ing failed to improve results. The sec-
2. Does previously fatiguing a mus- ond is a 2015 study by Aguiar et al (2).
cle before training either heavier or The Aguiar study was very similar to
with another exercise have the ca- the present study: one light set, followed
pacity to affect training outcomes?
62
Table 1 Mean percentage of change and effect size (ES) of body composition
Pre Post Change (%) ES
Body mass (kg)
Pre-exhaustion 79.8 ± 13.8 80.3 ± 14.1 0.6 ± 1.9 0.04 (trivial)
Traditional 81.7 ± 13.8 82.5 ± 14.1 1.0 ± 2.2 0.06 (trivial)
Control 84.8 ± 14.0 85.1 ± 13.2 0.4 ± 1.9 0.02 (trivial)
Lean Mass (kg)
Traditional 59.0 ± 6.5 60.6 ± 6.6* 2.7 ± 2.6 0.24 (trivial)
Control 61.5 ± 6.8 61.7 ± 6.7 0.4 ± 2.2 0.03 (trivial)
Fat mass (%)
Pre-exhaustion 24.3 ± 7.1 23.7 ± 6.8 -2.2 ± 5.5 0.09 (trivial)
Traditional 28.0 ± 7.7 26.8 ± 7.1* -3.8 ± 4.6 0.16 (trivial)
Control 27.9 ± 5.3 28.0 ± 5.3 0.1 ± 4.3 0.00 (trivial)
Thigh mass (kg)
Traditional 26.7 ± 5.2 27.0 ± 4.8 1.4 ± 4.0 0.06 (trivial)
Control 28.1 ± 4.8 27.7 ± 4.4 -1.1 ± 3.8 0.07 (trivial)
Thigh lean mass (kg)
Pre-exhaustion 19.4 ± 3.3 19.9 ± 3.5* 2.5 ± 3.7 0.15 (trivial)
Traditional 19.4 ± 2.4 20.0 ± 2.3* 2.9 ± 3.9 0.22 (trivial)
Control 20.5 ± 2.8 20.3 ± 2.8 -0.7 ± 3.5 0.06 (trivial)
Thigh fat mass (%)
Pre-exhaustion 21.9 ± 5.2 21.5 ± 4.9 -1.7 ± 4.4 0.09 (trivial)
Traditional 25.3 ± 7.0 24.2 ± 6.3* -3.7 ± 4.4 0.15 (trivial)
Control 25.6 ± 4.5 25.3 ± 4.2 -1.0 ± 4.7 0.06 (trivial)
BMD (kg)
Traditional 1.32 ± 0.13 1.30 ± 0.12 -0.9 ± 1.8 0.10 (trivial)
Control 1.30 ± 0.10 1.30 ± 0.10 -0.5 ± 1.6 0.06 (trivial)
Values are mean ± SD

BMD = bone mineral density; * = p < 0.05 for pre-intervention
by three heavier sets, versus just doing muscle growth (quad CSA increased by
three heavier sets. The two key differ- 20.8% vs. 11.8% in the traditional group)
ences were that the Aguiar study used and strength gains (knee extension 1RM
knee extensions for all of the training in increased by 44.2% vs. 26.6% in the
both groups, and that the pre-exhaustion traditional group). It is worth noting
group rested for 30 seconds between that the three heavier sets in that study
their light set and their first heavy set. In were not taken to failure, however. Both
that study, pre-exhaustion increased both groups did 3 sets of 12 reps at 75% 1RM
63
Figure 3 Mean values of total training volume (kg)
25000
Traditional
Total training volume (kg)
Pre-exhaustion
20000
15000
10000
5000
W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9
Values calculated by load x repetitions x sets

W = week; * = significant difference compared with the pre-exhaustion group (p < 0.05)
each session (with training loads adjust- bench press, followed by two minutes
ed based on 1RM tests that occurred ev- of rest, followed by knee extensions im-
ery 15 days). The third study to consider mediately before leg press). The second
comes from Fisher et al (3). In this study, group performed the exercises in the or-
three groups were compared. All three der listed, but they rested for one minute
groups performed the same set of exer- between each exercise. The third group
cises for one set apiece (pec flyes, chest also rested for one minute between ex-
press, knee extensions, leg press, pull- ercises, but they performed all of the
overs, and pull-downs). One group per- multi-joint exercises first, followed by
formed these exercises in the order list- the single-joint exercises, in this order:
ed, with no rest between the single-joint chest press, leg press, pull-downs, pec
exercise for one muscle and the corre- flyes, knee extensions, and pull-overs.
sponding multi-joint exercise for the Hypertrophy wasn’t directly assessed,
same muscle, followed by two minutes but strength was assessed by perform-
of rest before the next single-joint exer- ing a rep max test with the same loads
cise (i.e. flyes, followed immediately by pre- and post-training for the multi-joint
64
Figure 4 Mean strength changes and 95% confidence intervals for each group and exercise
1200
Total volume (load [kg] x repetitions)
1000
800
600 Pre-exhaustion with no rest

Pre-exhaustion with 60s of rest
Multi-joint before single-joint
400
200
0
Chest press Chest press Pull-down
Exercises
Strength changes from Fisher et al (2014)
exercises. Strength gains didn’t signifi- training outcomes?) already seems to be

cantly differ between groups, but they a qualified “yes,” as long as you rest be-
did tend to be the largest in group 2 (sin- tween the pre-exhausting exercise and
gle-joint followed by multi-joint, with your subsequent sets. However, there’s
60 seconds of rest between sets), as can more research to consider. While it’s
be seen in the figure below. So, I think not typically termed “pre-exhaustion”
we can conclude that if you choose to in the literature, research investigating
pre-exhaust a muscle, results will likely different exercise orders (single-joint
be superior if you rest for a while (at least before multi-joint training, or vice ver-
30-60 seconds) between the pre-exhaust sa) is relevant here, since it’s conceptu-
set and the subsequent sets, rather than ally similar. Here, there are four addi-
performing the pre-exhaust set immedi- tional studies to consider. Three of the
ately before the next set. four used the same basic experimental
The answer to the second question design: one group performing bench
(does previously fatiguing a muscle be- press and lat pull-downs before triceps
fore training either heavier or with an- and biceps curls, and one group per-
other exercise have the capacity to affect forming triceps and biceps curls before
65
exercises in the group doing single-joint
exercises first, as one would expect. The
I THINK PRE-EXHAUSTION third study by Spineti and colleagues
(6) failed to find significant differences
APPROACHES THAT DON’T for any muscle or exercise, though there
seemed to be nominally larger strength
JUST COMPLETELY TRASH gains in the bench press for the group
doing multi-joint training first, and in
SUBSEQUENT PERFORMANCE the biceps curl and triceps extension
in the group doing single-joint training
ARE LIKELY TO BE MORE first. Finally, Mike reviewed a study in
EFFECTIVE THAT PRE- MASS looking at the effects of training
single-joint or multi-joint exercises first.
EXHAUSTION APPROACHES This study included lower body train-
ing, and only examined hypertrophy. It
THAT DO SEVERELY HINDER didn’t find significant benefits for either
exercise order. Overall, I’d say these
THE REST OF YOUR WORKOUT. studies muddy the water a bit, at least
regarding hypertrophy (since that’s what
people are primarily interested in when
bench press and lat pull-downs. In the they discuss pre-exhaustion). One study
first study by Simão et al (4), strength did find that pre-exhausting the triceps
gains were similar between groups for before doing bench press led to more tri-
all exercises, but the group performing ceps growth than doing triceps training
single-joint exercises first (i.e. “pre-ex- after bench training, but the same study
hausting” those muscles before multi- failed to find a similar effect for the bi-
joint exercises) significantly increased ceps, and two more studies failed to find
triceps thickness, whereas there was no such an effect in either muscle. One ad-
mean change whatsoever in the group ditional study also found no significant
performing multi-joint exercises first. effect of exercise order on lower body
The second study tossed shoulder press hypertrophy.
into the mix (performed as the third ex- So, what can we make of all of this?
ercise in both groups) and only evaluated Well, for starters, I think the basic
strength gains (5). It found that strength principle of prioritizing the exercises or
gains were larger in the multi-joint ex- muscle groups you care about the most is
ercises in the group doing multi-joint a good starting point. If you really want
exercises first, and in the single-joint to prioritize triceps growth, I’m not pos-
66
itive that training triceps before bench
press will net you larger gains (assuming
you’re going to do both bench press and ULTIMATELY, I THINK THE
direct triceps training in the same work-
out regardless), but all of the research UTILITY OF PRE-EXHAUSTION
suggests that the effect will be neutral
at worst. Second, I think pre-exhaustion DEPENDS ON THE COMPOUND
approaches that don’t just completely
trash subsequent performance are like- MOVEMENTS YOU BASE YOUR
ly to be more effective that pre-exhaus-
tion approaches that do severely hinder
TRAINING AROUND AND MAY
the rest of your workout. I’m primarily BOIL DOWN TO ONE QUESTION:
thinking about timing. If you do some
triceps extensions a minute before you ARE YOUR COMPOUND
bench press, and doing so requires that
you go 5% lighter, or you get two few- EXERCISES DOING A GOOD JOB
er reps per set, you’re probably okay. If
you do a set of knee extensions to fail- OF TRAINING THE MUSCLES
ure with 20% 1RM immediately before
your first set of leg press, and your train-
YOU CARE ABOUT THE MOST?
ing performance decreases by approxi-
mately 30-35% (as happened in the cur-
rent study), the pre-exhaustion probably grip) is likely suboptimal for triceps
isn’t helping you out, and may do more growth since the triceps aren’t trained
harm than good. through a full range of motion. If we as-
sume that exercises performed earlier in
Ultimately, I think the utility of a workout are more effective for hyper-
pre-exhaustion depends on the com- trophy and strength, you may be leaving
pound movements you base your train- some triceps growth on the table, since
ing around and may boil down to one you’re doing a suboptimal exercise for
question: are your compound exercises triceps when you’re fresh, and relegat-
doing a good job of training the muscles ing triceps work to a point in your work-
you care about the most? For example, out when you’re already more fatigued.
let’s say you really want to grow your Thus, moving your triceps work before
triceps, and you start every pressing day your bench press training may be effec-
with bench press, with direct triceps tive. However, using an example from
training occurring later in the workout. the previously examined studies, we
Bench press (with a moderate-to-wide know that pull-downs and pull-ups are
67
The jury is still out on pre-exhaustion training. If you give it a shot, make sure you rest
for some meaningful period of time (at least 30 seconds) between your pre-exhaustion
set and your first set of compound exercise. Ultimately, pre-exhaustion training may be
most beneficial when using compound exercises that don’t do a great job of targeting
the muscle group(s) you’re most interested in growing. In most circumstances, the
simple principle of prioritizing the exercises you care about the most should carry
more weight than simply relying on pre-exhaustion as a standalone training technique.
pretty darn effective for biceps growth ric for monitoring training and predict-
(7; as long as they’re not performed with ing outcomes, and this study partially
a super wide grip, in all likelihood), so illustrates why. Volume load was higher
doing curls before pull-downs or pull- in the traditional group throughout the
ups may not net you extra biceps hy- study, and nearly 50% higher during the
pertrophy. But, if we tweaked these two last half of the training program, yet hy-
scenarios, and instead started the press- pertrophy and strength gains were sim-
ing workout with close-grip bench and ilar. Volume load does a decent job of
the pulling workout with rows (which predicting the energy cost of resistance
aren’t very effective for biceps growth), training (because it’s a decent proxy for
it may then be the case that you wouldn’t total work performed), but not much
need to do triceps extensions first in the else.
pressing workout to maximize triceps
growth, while you may need to do curls
first in the pulling workout to maximize Next Steps
biceps growth. If that’s the case, it begs I’d like to see if my hunch is correct
a simple question: would you be better about pre-exhaustion primarily working
off pre-exhausting muscles with sin- when the compound exercise doesn’t
gle-joint exercises before your multi- sufficiently target the desired muscle
joint training, or would you be better off group. Such a study could have four
simply choosing better multi-joint exer- groups: one group would do (in order)
cises to start your workout with? I’m not triceps extensions, wide-grip bench
sure what the answer is, so I’ll just leave press, curls, and rows; one group would
that question dangling for you to ponder. do wide-grip bench press, triceps ex-
I just have one final thought on this tensions, rows, and curls; one group
study before we wrap up: Volume load would do triceps extensions, close-grip
(sets x reps x load) is a really bad met- bench, curls, and underhand-grip pull-
68
downs; and one group would do close-
grip bench, triceps extensions, under-
hand-grip pull-downs, and curls. If my
hypothesis is correct, doing single-joint
training first would yield more biceps
and triceps hypertrophy in the groups
doing wide-grip bench and rows, but not
in the groups doing close-grip bench and
underhand-grip pull-downs. This study
would actually help answer two ques-
tions at once: I suspect that both groups
doing close-grip bench would experi-
ence more triceps hypertrophy than the
groups doing wide-grip bench, and that
both groups doing pull-downs would
experience more biceps growth than the
groups doing rows, but that’s never ac-
tually been investigated.
69
References
1. Trindade TB, Prestes J, Neto LO, Medeiros RMV, Tibana RA, de Sousa NMF, Santana EE,
Cabral BGAT, Stone WJ, Dantas PMS. Effects of Pre-exhaustion Versus Traditional Resis-
tance Training on Training Volume, Maximal Strength, and Quadriceps Hypertrophy. Front
Physiol. 2019 Nov 19;10:1424.
2. Aguiar AF, Buzzachera CF, Pereira RM, Sanches VC, Januário RB, da Silva RA, Rabelo
LM, de Oliveira Gil AW. A single set of exhaustive exercise before resistance training im-
proves muscular performance in young men. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2015 Jul;115(7):1589-99.
3. Fisher JP, Carlson L, Steele J, Smith D. The effects of pre-exhaustion, exercise order, and
rest intervals in a full-body resistance training intervention. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2014
Nov;39(11):1265-70.
4. Simão R, Spineti J, de Salles BF, Oliveira LF, Matta T, Miranda F, Miranda H, Costa PB.
Influence of exercise order on maximum strength and muscle thickness in untrained men. J
Sports Sci Med. 2010 Mar 1;9(1):1-7.
5. Dias I, de Salles BF, Novaes J, Costa PB, Simão R. Influence of exercise order on maximum
strength in untrained young men. J Sci Med Sport. 2010 Jan;13(1):65-9.
6. Spineti J, de Salles BF, Rhea MR, Lavigne D, Matta T, Miranda F, Fernandes L, Simão R. In-
fluence of exercise order on maximum strength and muscle volume in nonlinear periodized
resistance training. J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Nov;24(11):2962-9.
7. Gentil P, Soares S, Bottaro M. Single vs. Multi-Joint Resistance Exercises: Effects on Muscle
Strength and Hypertrophy. Asian J Sports Med. 2015 Jun;6(2):e24057.
70
Study Reviewed: Does Exercise-Induced Muscle Damage Impair
Subsequent Motor Skill Learning? Leite et al. (2019)
We Out Here Talkin’

About Practice, Man
Practice makes perfect, right? At least that’s what the proverbial

“they” tell you. Of course, practicing a skill is generally good, but
how and when you practice could make all the difference. A new
study reveals a situation when practicing more may actually harm your
technique.
71
KEY POINTS
1. This study examined whether motor learning is impaired if muscle damage is high
when practicing a skill.
2. A group of individuals practiced a specific dart throwing task for three consecutive
days following a damaging resistance training session, while another group
practiced the dart throwing without performing the training session.
3. Practicing dart throwing when muscle damage was high did not improve dart
throwing performance. However, the group that practiced dart throwing without
muscle damage present did improve performance. This article discusses why
these results were found and when to perform practice sessions on your lifts to
allow for technique improvement.
S
o your technique isn’t perfect? (control group). Subjects had their dart
Fine, but whose is? Sure, the squat, throwing accuracy and variability tested
bench press, deadlift, clean and after the third day of dart throwing prac-
jerk, and snatch train your muscles, but tice (post-test) and then again after three
they should also be thought of as skills more days of no practice (retention test).
similar to shooting a free throw or swing- The individuals in the control group im-
ing a golf club. Therefore, if you’re proved accuracy and variability from
working on making a technical change, the pre-test to the retention test, and
then it makes sense to practice more dart throwing performance at the reten-
(although some disagree). However, if tion test was significantly better than the
you’ve tried squatting when you have a muscle damage group. The muscle dam-
lot of soreness, you might have realized age group did not improve dart throwing
that your technique is altered from the performance over time. So, you don’t
norm. So, even though more practice is get better at throwing darts in the days
usually better, is it really a good idea to after lifting weights, but do these find-
practice a skill when you are in such a ings translate to practicing squat, bench
fatigued state? To answer a similar ques- press, or deadlift technique when sig-
tion, Leite et al (1) split 30 men into 2 nificant muscle damage is present? This
groups. 15 men practiced a specific dart article will investigate how motor learn-
throwing task for three days following ing occurs on specific tasks, and when
a damaging resistance training session it may be appropriate to perform stand-
(muscle damage group), while the other alone technique practice sessions on the
15 men simply threw darts without do- skilled lifts.
ing the initial resistance training session
72
raise, while the control group just sat
Purpose and Hypotheses quietly for 20 minutes to account for the
time of the training session. On visits 4,
Purpose 5, and 6 (24, 48, and 72 hours after vis-
The purpose of this study was to ex- it 3), subjects performed a motor learn-
amine if practicing a skill when muscle ing session (i.e. practiced dart throw-
damage is high impairs motor learning. ing) and had indirect markers of muscle
damage tested. On visit 7, 96 hours af-
Hypotheses ter training or quiet-sitting, subjects had
No hypothesis was given. muscle damage assessed, performed a
final motor learning session, and then
performed an immediate dart throwing
Subjects and Methods post-test (the same test as on day 3). The
final day, visit 8, occurred 3 days after
Subjects visit 7 (6 days after the training session
30 male college students who were or quiet sitting). On visit 8, subjects had
active but hadn’t lifted in at least six muscle damage assessed and then per-
months participated. The average age formed the dart throwing test for the fi-
was 19.3 ± 1.8 years old and the average nal time, which is known as a retention
body mass was 76.8 ± 16.2 kg. test. This entire protocol can be seen as
a flow chart in Figure 1.
Study Protocol
Indirect Muscle Damage Markers
The 30 subjects were split evenly into
a muscle damage group and a control Subjects had maximal isometric shoul-
group. All subjects came to the lab eight der flexion tested. The isometric test oc-
times. In visits 1 and 2, which were curred with subjects standing against a
48-72 hours apart, subjects tested and wall and holding their arms out in front
then retested their 10RM on a palms up of them just below parallel to the ground
(hand supinated) dumbbell front raise. with their palms up. The subjects’ hands
For the record, I don’t know why they held onto a fixed bar in which they max-
chose such an exercise. One week lat- imally pulled up on for four seconds.
er, subjects had their baseline muscle Perceived recovery status was rated by
damage levels and dart throwing accu- the subjects on a 6 (“no recovery”) to
racy tested (pre-test). Following the dart 20 (“full recovery”) scale, and shoulder
throwing test in visit 3, the muscle dam- soreness was rated on a 0-100 mm visu-
age group performed 10 sets to failure al analog scale.
with a 10RM load on the dumbbell front
73
Dart Throwing Practice Sessions
These practice sessions were designed Figure 1 Study procedures
to be “motor learning” sessions. Sub-

jects stood 3 meters away and threw to
1st Visit
a 20cm X 40cm target that was placed

· Familiarization
· 10RM test
on the floor (i.e. not on the wall in front

of them). There was a “bullseye” stripe
2nd Visit
10mm thick that split the middle of the

· 10RM test
target horizontally. Then, there were 40 Group randomization
horizontal “scoring stripes” every 5mm

above and below the bullseye strip. Control group Muscle damage group
Each stripe below the bullseye counted n = 15 n = 15
as a score of -1, while each stripe above

the bullseye counted as a score of +1. 3rd visit 3rd visit
In each practice session, 5 sets of 30 · Dart throwing pre-test

· Muscle damage markers
· Dart throwing pre-test
throws with 1 minute between sets were

· 20 min of rest · EIMD protocol
completed (150 total throws). 4th, 5th, and 6th visit 4th, 5th, and 6th visit
· Muscle damage markers · Muscle damage markers
Dart Throwing Testing Sessions

· Motor learning session · Motor learning session
Subjects performed 10 throws at all 7th visit 7th visit
testing sessions (pre, post, and reten- · Muscle damage markers

· Motor learning session
· Motor learning session
tion). The accuracy of throws was deter-

· Dart throwing post-test · Dat throwing post-test
mined by the raw score using the scor- 8th visit 8th visit
ing stripes. Researchers also calculated · Muscle damage markers · Muscle damage markers
performance variability by calculating

· Dart throwing retention test · Dart throwing retention test
the standard deviation of the error with-

in each 10 throws.
soreness was elevated and perceived re-
covery was worse compared to pre-test
Findings through 72 hours in the damage group.
Isometric strength was still decreased
Muscle Damage compared to pre-test at the retention test
As expected, no markers of muscle (six days after exercise) in the damage
damage changed at any time point in group (Table 1).
the control group, but all measures in-
Throwing Accuracy
dicated significant muscle damage in
the muscle damage group. Specifically, Dart throwing accuracy improved in
74
Table 1 Time course of recovery for each metric
Group Pre-test 24h 48h 72h Post-test (96h) Retention test (168h)
CON 130.4 ± 25.3 130.2 ± 24.4 127.3 ± 25.6 131.8 ± 27.8 126.9 ± 31.7 127.8 ± 28.0
Isometric strength (N)
MD 141.0 ± 38.8 108.2 ± 40.1* 110.5 ± 36.3* 115.7 ± 41.4* 118.8 ± 38.8* 126.4 ± 44.5*
CON 18 ± 2 18 ± 3 18 ± 3 19 ± 2 18 ± 3 19 ± 2
Perceived recovery
MD 18 ± 2 11 ± 3*# 13 ± 3*# 15 ± 3*# 17 ± 2 18 ± 2
CON 7 ± 11 10 ± 17 6 ± 15 7 ± 11 8 ± 12 9 ± 14
Soreness (mm)
MD 14 ± 15 35 ± 23*# 27 ± 22*# 23 ± 24# 19 ± 23 16 ± 19
From Leite et al. (1)

* = Significantly different from pre-test; # = Significantly different from Con; MD = Muscle Damage Group; Con = Control Group
the control group at the retention test

compared to both pre- and post-test. Interpretation
Throwing accuracy did not improve in In brief, these results say that motor
the muscle damage group, and the mus- learning is impaired when muscle dam-
cle damage group was less accurate than age is high. However, I did not choose to
the control group at both the post-test and review this study just for these results;
retention test (Figure 2A). Further, the rather, I thought it would be a good op-
variability in dart throwing performance portunity to discuss the motor learning
decreased from pre-test to retention test process. Therefore, this interpretation
in the control group, increased from post- will generally discuss the motor learning
test to retention test in the muscle damage process and if the current results can be
group, and was significantly lower in the translated to practice on the compound
control group versus the damage group at movements (i.e. squat, bench press, and
the retention test (Figure 2B). deadlift).
Lastly, the researchers analyzed if there While the squat, bench press, and
were differences in the first 10 throws of deadlift of course train the musculature,
each session. They found that when an- they should also be viewed as skills for
alyzing the first 10 throws of the 4 prac- those interested in 1RM strength. There-
tice sessions, the control group reduced fore, like any sport skill or precise task,
the amount of absolute errors from the practice is necessary to achieve techni-
first session to the fourth session. Fur- cal mastery (or as close to it as possi-
ther, the accuracy in the first 10 throws of ble). So, let’s say you tend to break at
session 4 was better in the control group the knees a bit too much when you ini-
compared to the muscle damage group, tiate the squat and want to transition to
and the accuracy tended to be worse from breaking at the knees and hips simulta-
practice session 1 to 4 during the initial neously. Getting in practice sessions in
throws in the damage group. addition to hard training sessions may
be useful to change your motor patterns
75
Figure 2 Absolute score and variability changes
A B
Control
32 32
Muscle damage
Average absolute scoring error
Average variable scoring error

30 30
28 28
26 26
24 24
22 22
20 20
Pre-test Post-test Retention test Pre-test Post-test Retention test
From Leite et al. (1)

* = Significantly different from pre-test; @ = Significantly different from post-test; # = Significantly different from control group
so that the new movement becomes in- tive phase of motor learning, the brain’s
grained over time. In other words, your cognitive loop is heavily involved as the
goal is to make a permanent change, not new skill is vision-focused. Once some-
a temporary change in your technique. one moves toward the autonomous stage,
The theory of motor learning has three the brain’s motor loop takes over and
phases: 1) cognitive, 2) associative, and the skill becomes motor-focused (2). In
3) autonomous (2). These phases fit with other words, the regions of the brain that
lifting quite well. The cognitive phase control the movement as motor learning
is hearing what you need to do, such as occurs consolidate the memories and
“break at your hips and knees simultane- store them in our procedural memory
ously.” In the associative phase, practice (3). Practically, what the results of the
continues and becomes easier so that the current study (1) show is that commit-
skill is performed correctly more consisting motor skill changes to procedural
tently. Finally, the skill becomes almost memory is difficult when high amounts
automatic (autonomous phase). During of muscle damage are present. Specifi-
each phase, different brain structures cally, the ability to transfer memories
play prominent roles in changing a mo- to long-term memory (i.e. consolidate
tor pattern. The description of the neural memory) and retrieve them is impaired
circuitry involved in these phases can be when practicing in the damaged state
complex and perhaps a little outside of (3). This should make sense when we
our scope. In general, during the cogni- consider that there was a high degree of
76
dart throwing variability in the retention
test in the muscle damage group.
So, when making a technique change, YOUR GOAL IS TO MAKE A
do these results suggest that it’s a bad
idea to get in extra practice sessions in PERMANENT CHANGE, NOT
the days following a hard training ses-
sion? If we assume that the results from A TEMPORARY CHANGE
the reviewed study directly translate to
motor learning on the main lifts (which
IN YOUR TECHNIQUE.
we cannot know for sure), then yes, you
shouldn’t practice squatting the day after
a damaging training session. Therefore, is high, then you wouldn’t actually be
when making drastic changes to your practicing the skill daily, so it’s possible
technique, it may be a good idea to cut a few months of the extra practice sets
a day of true training frequency, in the are warranted.
short term, to make room for a practice Not too long ago we reviewed a study
session. Another option is to practice that showed that training a squat at only
your technique with extra warm-up sets 10% of 1RM the day after a hard ses-
prior to the day’s working sets. After a sion can improve recovery (4). So, what
few weeks or months, you may reach about training in a damaged state for
the autonomous phase and could then recovery purposes? If you have already
cut out the extra practice. Time courses achieved a high level of skill and are not
of skill improvement may vary, so you currently working on a technical over-
could still be transitioning into the au- haul, then training in a damaged state
tonomous phase for much longer, but for recovery is probably fine. However,
some data have shown that 10-20 min- this is a good spot to point out that al-
utes of daily practice on finger tapping though training light can improve acute
tasks have led to a 100% performance recovery, it doesn’t mean that it’s a good
improvement in the amount of tapping idea to always do it over the long term. It
sequences that people got correct over would be interesting to see if technique
30 seconds in only 3 weeks (3). We can- actually became worse over time in a
not know if the same time frame would group that trained a compound move-
translate at all to a compound lifting ment for recovery when muscle damage
movement, but based on this, motor is high versus a group that just rested or
learning on the lifts likely occurs. How- performed another recovery modality. If
ever, if you are training hard and want to technique did decline, then another re-
avoid practicing when muscle damage covery modality should be considered
77
(i.e. blocked practice) group did not.
Ultimately, what both the results of the
PRACTICE ABSOLUTELY current study from Leite and those from
Naimo show is that when ingraining a
MATTERS, BUT PRACTICE new motor skill, you’ll probably realize
the best results following a few days off.
QUALITY AND QUANTITY In the immediate time frame, a skill can
be memorized, but over the long term,
ARE BOTH IMPORTANT. one must keep relearning the skill to
consolidate the memory and ultimately
make the skill autonomous.
in place of light training, but I wouldn’t In a seemingly contrary article, Greg
necessarily expect that outcome, it’s just wrote in the very first issue of MASS
worth mentioning. that intentionally performing incorrect
Interestingly, in the control group, both technique could lead to greater learning
the absolute dart throwing score and the in the long run (6). It is well-established
throwing variability were best at the re- that initial motor skill learning can oc-
tention test, which occurred three days cur without leading to a performance
after the last practice session. This same change (7). So, why then did the current-
phenomenon happens consistently in ly reviewed study show that performing
contextual interference studies. Contex- a skill in times of muscle damage, and
tual interference or random practice is presumably incorrectly, harmed long-
when a non-fatiguing skill is practiced in term performance? I think there is a
between sets of the skill you are training. difference between intentionally doing
For example, Naimo et al had untrained something wrong when you have full
lifters bench press for four weeks. One control over your dynamic movements
group of lifters threw darts in between versus trying to do something correctly
sets of bench press (high contextual in- but failing to do so due to muscle dam-
terference), and another group simply age. The latter was the case in this study,
sat down in between sets (low contextu- thus the motor patterns were learned
al interference). The researchers found how they were practiced. If you inten-
no difference in technique improvement tionally do something incorrectly, then
after four weeks (5). However, at a re- you are still in control, and you are not
tention test one week later, subjects in necessarily committing the incorrect
the high contextual interference group motor pattern to memory. It’s also worth
improved their bench press technique, mentioning that in the previous study
whereas the low contextual interference Greg reviewed, well-trained weightlift-
78
1. Practicing a skill when muscle damage is high impairs motor learning.
2. It remains to be seen if the results of the dart throwing in the present study
directly translate to lifting performance. If so, then it would be advisable to avoid
practicing your squat or deadlift with the goal of making a technique change in
the few days following a hard training session.
3. Ultimately, it’s not just how much you practice, but how you practice. There is
merit to various types of practice, but what seems important from this study is that
whether you are performing a movement correctly or incorrectly, the movement
pattern should be intentional to commit the correct skill to long-term memory.
ers were used versus untrained subjects of training experience and will recover
in the present study. Therefore, it’s also more quickly than the subjects in this
possible that while advanced trainees study. If you’re looking to get in extra
could benefit from more advanced mo- practice days, just avoid large amounts
tor learning techniques (i.e. intentional- of volume and very damaging exercises
ly performing a skill incorrectly), begin- (i.e. exercises like RDLs and flyes) the
ners should simply focus on practicing day before you practice.
the correct skill. One other factor to con-
sider is that muscle damage negatively
alters joint proprioception (8), which Next Steps
suggests that the brain could be getting In summary, practice absolutely mat-
incorrect feedback from structures such ters, but practice quality and quanti-
as the muscle spindles under conditions ty are both important. When making a
of muscle damage. Muscle spindles, to technique change, it’s probably a good
provide just one example, tell the brain idea to avoid practicing your motor
the length of the muscle and are respon- patterns when a lot of muscle damage
sible for the stretch reflex; therefore, is present. As for next steps, a replica-
practicing a compound movement when tion of this study that replaces the dart
muscle damage is high could make it dif- throwing practice sessions with lifting
ficult to correct errors by not getting the technique would suffice. If that study
appropriate proprioceptive information. shows similar results to this study, then
One final note is that this study created a a long-term study with one group per-
lot of damage by having untrained indi- forming practice sessions of lifting tech-
viduals perform 10 sets of 10 on an exer- nique on off days versus a control group
cise. Most reading this have a good deal
79
(i.e. no lifting on off days) would be the
next follow-up to test the recovery con-
cept discussed above.
80
References
1. Leite CM, da Silva Profeta VL, Chaves SF, Benine RP, Bottaro M, Ferreira-Júnior JB. Does
exercise-induced muscle damage impair subsequent motor skill learning? Human movement
science. 2019 Oct 1;67:102504
2. Marinelli L, Quartarone A, Hallett M, Frazzitta G, Ghilardi MF. The many facets of motor
learning and their relevance for Parkinson’s disease. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2017 Jul
1;128(7):1127-41.
3. Karni A, Meyer G, Rey-Hipolito C, Jezzard P, Adams MM, Turner R, Ungerleider LG. The
acquisition of skilled motor performance: fast and slow experience-driven changes in prima-
ry motor cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 1998 Feb 3;95(3):861-8.
4. Bartolomei S, Totti V, Griggio F, Malerba C, Ciacci S, Semprini G, Di RM. Upper-Body
Resistance Exercise Reduces Time to Recover After a High-Volume Bench Press Protocol in
Resistance-Trained Men. Journal of strength and conditioning research. 2019 Mar.
5. Naimo MA, Zourdos MC, Wilson JM, Kim JS, Ward EG, Eccles DW, Panton LB. Contex-
tual interference effects on the acquisition of skill and strength of the bench press. Human
movement science. 2013 Jun 1;32(3):472-84.
6. Milanese C, Cavedon V, Corte S, Agostini T. The effects of two different correction strategies
on the snatch technique in weightlifting. Journal of sports sciences. 2017 Mar 4;35(5):476-
83.
7. Soderstrom NC, Bjork RA. Learning versus performance: An integrative review. Perspec-
tives on Psychological Science. 2015 Mar;10(2):176-99.
8. Torres R, Vasques J, Duarte JA, Cabri JM. Knee proprioception after exercise-induced mus-
cle damage. International journal of sports medicine. 2010 Jun;31(06):410-5.
81
Study Reviewed: The Effects of a Caffeine-Like Supplement, Teacrine®, on
Muscular Strength, Endurance and Power Performance in Resistance-Trained Men.
Cesareo et al. (2019)
Is Theacrine the New Caffeine?

BY E RI C T RE X LE R
Caffeine is wildly popular, both as a performance enhancer and a general life

enhancer. However, caffeine is not the only adenosine-blocking purine alkaloid on
the block; theacrine is structurally similar and thought to have similar applications.
A new study sought to determine if theacrine and caffeine do indeed have similar
effects on performance. Read on to find out if you should be swapping out your
pre-workout caffeine for theacrine instead.
82
KEY POINTS
1. Theacrine is structurally similar to caffeine and shares many of its properties. The
current study (1) sought to determine if theacrine (300mg), caffeine (300mg), or a
combination of both (150mg + 150mg) enhanced strength, power, endurance, or
subjective assessments of energy levels in resistance-trained men.
2. None of the treatments caused statistically significant improvements in strength,
power, or endurance performance. Caffeine (300mg) caused significant increases
in subjective measures of focus, energy, and motivation to exercise, but theacrine
and theacrine + caffeine did not.
3. There is currently insufficient evidence to suggest that you should be partially or fully
replacing your caffeine with theacrine. However, we’ve only just begun studying
theacrine, so more dosing and timing strategies should be explored before we bail
on theacrine altogether.
A s a MASS reader, you’re already

aware that we are pretty fond of
caffeine around here. We have
ture (Figure 1).
Given the notable structural similar-
ities between caffeine and theacrine,
previously covered a number of caffeine it’s no surprise that there is interest
topics, including its effects on strength in evaluating the ergogenic potential
performance, its susceptibility to habit- of theacrine. A recent study compared
uation, and more. Caffeine is a purine the effects of theacrine (300mg), caf-
alkaloid that primarily works by block- feine (300mg), a combination (150mg
ing adenosine receptors, which results theacrine + 150mg caffeine), or a pla-
in all of the effects we know and love cebo, on a variety of outcomes related
(such as improved wakefulness, alert- to strength, power, endurance, and sub-
ness, and exercise performance). Caf- jective assessments of energy levels in
feine has proven itself to be a favored resistance-trained men. The results in-
supplement for exercise enthusiasts, dicated that none of the treatments sig-
with research documenting benefits for nificantly improved strength, power, or
a range of physical performance out- endurance, and only caffeine (300mg)
comes involving endurance, strength, improved subjective focus, energy, and
and power (2). However, caffeine is motivation to exercise. This article dis-
not the only adenosine-blocking pu- cusses what these new results mean for
rine alkaloid on the market. Theacrine your caffeine use, and whether or not
(1,3,7,9-tetramethyluric acid) shares the use of theacrine is advisable.
many of caffeine’s properties, includ-
ing a strikingly similar chemical struc-
83
Figure 1 Chemical structure of caffeine and theacrine
O CH3 O CH3
H3 C N H 3C N
N N
O
O N N O N N
CH3 CH3 CH3
Caffeine Theacrine
The chemical structure of theacrine is remarkably similar to that of caffeine, which has prompted
interest in comparing their applications as performance-enhancing supplements
Hypotheses
Purpose and Hypotheses
The authors hypothesized that all
Purpose treatments containing caffeine and/or
theacrine would enhance bench press
The primary purpose of this study was and squat power and repetitions to fa-
to compare the effects of four different tigue, but not one-repetition maxi-
treatments (theacrine, caffeine, a com- mum (1RM), in comparison to place-
bination of theacrine and caffeine, and bo. The authors also hypothesized that
a placebo) on acute strength and power the treatments containing caffeine and/
outcomes. The secondary purpose was to or theacrine would favorably affect the
compare the effects of these treatments subjective outcomes (energy, focus, mo-
on additional subjective outcomes in- tivation to exercise, fatigue, Borg RPE)
cluding energy level, focus, motivation to a greater extent than placebo.
to exercise, fatigue, and Borg rating of
perceived exertion (RPE).
84
Table 1 Subject characteristics
Relative bench press Relative squat strength

Age (years) Height (cm) Body mass (kg)
strength (1-RM / body mass) (1-RM / body mass) intake (mg/day) experiments (mg/kg)
Mean 23.2 ± 3.1 177 ± 6 83 ± 7 1.4 ± 0.2 1.7 ± 0.2 215 ± 72.7 3.6 ± 0.3
Range 20-29 163-185 67-92 1.3 - 1.7 1.4 - 2.2 100 - 300 3.3 - 4.5
Data presented as mean ± SD
cise, fatigue, and Borg RPE.

Subjects and Methods
If you check the original paper, you’ll
Subjects notice that they refer to the supple-
ment as TeaCrine rather than theacrine
12 resistance-trained males completed throughout the manuscript. TeaCrine is
the current study. All participants were just the trademarked name of a particu-
required to bench press and squat at least lar company’s theacrine product, so the
125% of their body weight and were re- terms can be used interchangeably in
quired to be regular caffeine consumers this context. The study was funded by
(100-300mg of caffeine per day on most the company that sells the product being
days of the week). Subject characteris- tested, but that’s quite common in the
tics are listed in Table 1. supplement research world and is not
inherently problematic.
Methods
This study was a crossover design with
four conditions. This means that each Findings
subject completed four separate testing
For bench press 1RM, the analysis in-
visits and consumed a different treatment
dicated an overall effect of treatment,
at each visit. The treatments included
but follow-up analysis failed to find
theacrine (300mg), caffeine (300mg), a
any singular condition that was signifi-
combination (150mg theacrine + 150mg
cantly different from any other condi-
caffeine), or a placebo. At each visit,
tion. Based on the values in Table 2, it
subjects consumed their allotted treat-
looks like the experimental treatments
ment for the day, waited for 90 minutes,
containing caffeine or theacrine slight-
then underwent testing. Strength-related
ly outperformed the placebo condition,
outcomes of interest included one-rep-
but not by much. For bench press reps
etition maximum (1RM), repetitions to
to fatigue, the results were less promis-
fatigue at 70% of 1RM, and power and
ing, with no apparent differences among
velocity for bench press and squat. Ad-
conditions (Table 2). Squat 1RM was
ditional outcomes included 2km rowing
not significantly impacted by any of the
time and subjective variables including
conditions, with all mean values falling
energy level, focus, motivation to exer-
between 151kg and 148kg (Table 2).
85
Table 2 Bench press, squat and rowing results
Theacrine Combination Placebo p
Bench press 1RM (kg) 120.0 ± 16.0 119.0 ± 16.0 120.0 ± 16.0 117.0 ± 16.0 < 0.05
Bench press RTF (# reps) 12.0 ± 3.0 12.0 ± 3.0 13.0 ± 3.0 12.0 ± 3.0 0.72
Squat 1RM (kg) 151.0 ± 24.0 149.0 ± 25.0 150.0 ± 24.0 148.0 ± 21.0 0.18
Squat RTF (# reps) 13.0 ± 3.0 11.0 ± 3.0 12.0 ± 4.0 11.0 ± 4.0 0.16
2k Row TT (s) 478.0 ± 35.1 479.0 ± 39.6 478.6 ± 42.5 483.2 ± 45.6 0.87

Caffeine = 300mg caffeine; theacrine = 300mg theacrine; combination = 150mg caffeine + 150mg theacrine; TT = time trial; s = seconds
Similarly, no significant effects were ob- ceived energy was significantly greater
served for squat reps to fatigue, with 11- in the caffeine-only condition than in
13 repetitions completed in each con- the theacrine-only condition and place-
dition (Table 2). Time trial results for bo condition. The increase in perceived
2km rowing were not significantly in- focus was also significantly greater for
fluenced by supplementation, as the best caffeine-only versus theacrine-only. For
and worst times were only separated by perceived motivation to exercise, in-
about five seconds (478 seconds versus creases in the caffeine-only condition
483 seconds). were significantly greater than in the
Power and velocity outcomes during theacrine-only condition and placebo
bench press and squat testing were not condition. In contrast, there were no sig-
significantly affected by supplementa- nificant differences between conditions
tion (Table 3). However, it would ap- in terms of perceived fatigue levels.
pear that there was a pattern in which In addition, Borg RPE was assessed
the highest values tended to be observed immediately following the repetitions
in the caffeine-only condition, and the to fatigue test for squat and bench press.
lowest values tended to be observed in For bench press, the analysis did not
the placebo condition. Differences were suggest that RPE values differed among
modest in magnitude and not supported conditions. For squat, the analysis sug-
by the statistical tests, so this pattern is gested that RPE values did differ, but
nothing to get too worked up about, but follow-up comparisons did not find any
with small-sample research, it’s poten- singular condition to be significantly
tially noteworthy information. different than any other condition. How-
The researchers assessed a variety ever, a quick glance at the data (Figure
of subjective responses related to per- 2) reveals a pattern in which RPE val-
ceived energy levels, both before sup- ues tended to be lowest in the conditions
plementation and 90 minutes after in which caffeine was consumed (either
supplementation. The increase in per- alone or in combination with theacrine),
86
Table 3 Results for power and velocity outcomes
Theacrine Combination Placebo p
Peak power bench press 1RM (W) 355 ± 97 340 ± 117 312 ± 118 301 ± 87 0.35
Peak velocity bench 1RM (m/s) 0.30 ± 0.10 0.29 ± 0.10 0.27 ± 0.10 0.27 ± 0.10 0.45
Average power bench RTF (W) 304 ± 47 302 ± 55 292 ± 51 288 ± 50 0.05
Average velocity bench RTF (m/s) 0.37 ± 0.03 0.37 ± 0.04 0.35 ± 0.04 0.36 ± 0.04 0.18
Peak power squat 1RM (W) 1092 ± 272 965 ± 333 1010 ± 374 960 ± 198 0.18
Peak velocity squat 1RM (m/s) 0.76 ± 0.20 0.67 ± 0.21 0.69 ± 0.25 0.67 ± 0.14 0.14
Average power squat RTF (W) 458 ± 92 440 ± 79 444 ± 79 435 ± 75 0.19
Average velocity squat RTF (m/s) 0.44 ± 0.05 0.43 ± 0.04 0.43 ± 0.05 0.43 ± 0.04 0.48

W = watts; m/s = meters per second
and tended to be highest when caffeine ers evaluated body composition, clinical
was not consumed (placebo or theacrine safety markers (such as heart rate, blood
alone). pressure, and blood biomarkers), and
subjective assessments of perceived en-
ergy, focus, concentration, anxiety, and
Interpretation motivation to exercise. The study found
Theacrine is certainly an intriguing no evidence of adverse health outcomes
supplement, and some have touted it or habituation, but theacrine failed to
as a new and improved alternative to meaningfully impact body composition
caffeine. A rodent study (3) found that or subjective energy outcomes. In fact,
theacrine administration (via injections) the lower dose (200mg) of theacrine
increased locomotor activity in rats, and actually reduced perceived vigor at the
the mechanism of action appeared to be 4-week time point, before recovering to
related to blocking adenosine receptors. baseline at week 8.
So, the effect and mechanism of action Another characteristic distinguishing
were quite similar to caffeine, but the theacrine from caffeine involves the rate
study also found that the effect persisted of absorption and clearance following
with repeated administration and did not oral ingestion. While caffeine generally
appear to be subject to habituation. In re- reaches peak blood levels around 45-60
sponse to these promising findings, Tay- minutes after ingestion, theacrine lev-
lor et al (4) evaluated the chronic effects els tend to peak closer to two hours af-
of oral theacrine supplementation in hu- ter ingestion, although adding caffeine
mans. 60 healthy men consumed 300mg to a theacrine dose appears to increase
theacrine, 200mg theacrine, or a placebo the bioavailability of theacrine and re-
daily for eight weeks, and the research- duce its time to peak concentration (5).
87
Figure 2 Results for Borg RPE during squat and bench press
10
Caffeine
8 Theacrine
Combination
6
Placebo
RPE
0
Bench RTF Squat RTF
Data are presented as mean ± SD

Borg rating of perceived exertion (RPE) values following the squat and bench press repetitions to fatigue (RTF) test
Theacrine also hangs around for a longer sition, and subjective energy levels, with
time; while the half-life (that is, the time no major changes reported in response
required to remove half of the caffeine to supplementation. Kuhman et al (6)
from your blood) of caffeine is gener- investigated the effects of theacrine with
ally around 5-8 hours, the half-life of caffeine (150mg of each), caffeine alone
theacrine is up around 16-26 hours (5). (150mg), or a placebo on cognitive per-
Based on these differences, some people formance and subjective energy lev-
have framed theacrine as being similar els. The combination of theacrine with
to caffeine, but with lower risk of effects caffeine did not significantly improve
fading with repeated use, and a longer cognitive performance or reaction time.
duration of action after ingestion. Mean values reflected a pattern in which
When it comes to human studies on the combination of theacrine and caf-
theacrine, we don’t have much evidence feine may have had modestly favorable
to interpret yet. As previously men- effects on grogginess, lethargy, attentive-
tioned, Taylor et al (4) evaluated some ness, alertness, focus, and energy level,
outcomes related to safety, body compo- but only the effects on grogginess and
88
lethargy were statistically significant. In was not a significant overall effect of
contrast, caffeine alone increased jittery treatment. Nonetheless, all conditions
and depressed feelings to a statistically involving caffeine or theacrine result-
significant degree. However, it’s import- ed in greater running times than place-
ant to note that these subjective values bo; theacrine was 27% higher, caffeine
were all assessed on 10-point scales, was 32% higher, and the combination of
and nearly all mean values were with- theacrine and caffeine was 38% higher.
in a point or so of each other, so we’re As far as I know, the only other theacrine
talking about small effects. Ziegenfuss performance paper out there is a very
et al (7) also evaluated a number of sub- brief, unpublished master’s thesis. That
jective responses to theacrine supple- study compared 200mg of theacrine to a
mentation; 200mg of theacrine resulted placebo treatment and found no effect of
in more favorable values for energy, fa- theacrine on 1RM or reps to fatigue for
tigue, and concentration. However, only bench press or leg press.
the effects on energy and fatigue were Generally speaking, the human litera-
statistically significant, and this was ture to date fails to provide compelling
partially due to values getting worse in evidence that theacrine is a major step
the placebo condition. up from caffeine; it generally has similar
Recently, Bello et al (8) took a look effects for most non-exercise outcomes,
at some outcomes related to exercise and it appears to have either similar or
performance. They had 24 participants slightly smaller effects on exercise per-
complete a simulated soccer match, with formance. In the current study (1), there
some cognitive testing performed at weren’t any substantial performance
half-time and after the simulated match. effects to get excited about, as none of
Then, participants ran until exhaustion at the treatments significantly improved
85% of their VO2max. The experimen- strength, power, or endurance outcomes.
tal treatments they used were virtually You could argue that the caffeine con-
the same as the current study (275mg dition generally had the most favorable
theacrine, 275mg caffeine, 125mg power values, and placebo generally
theacrine + 150mg caffeine, or place- had the least favorable, but that’s a bit
bo). Choice reaction time was improved of a stretch given the magnitude of the
by caffeine and theacrine + caffeine, but differences. The lack of performance ef-
not by theacrine alone, in comparison to fects in the current study might simply
placebo. In addition, the theacrine con- come down to dosing. Caffeine has a
dition resulted in worse overall scores solid track record for increasing endur-
on the choice reaction test than placebo. ance, strength endurance, and maximal
For running time to exhaustion, there strength and power, in descending order
89
of effect size (2). However, the effec- resenting, to my knowledge, the third
tive range for dosing is around 3-9mg/ human study assessing the acute perfor-
kg, with 5-6mg/kg typically represent- mance effects of theacrine, the evidence
ing the “sweet spot.” For the subjects in available does not indicate that theacrine
the current study, the 300mg flat dose or a mixture of theacrine + caffeine are
provided would have supplied 3.3mg/ more effective than an equivalent dose
kg for the heaviest subject, and 4.5mg/ of caffeine alone. However, we still
kg for the lightest, thus placing the caf- have much to learn about theacrine. For
feine dose toward the lower end of the example, 300mg is the highest dose that
effective range. In addition, the subjects has been examined for human perfor-
in the current study were habitual caf- mance outcomes, but it’s quite possible
feine users, with all subjects consuming that the optimal dose may be higher than
somewhere between 100-300mg/day. that. Studies to date have generally pro-
As Greg discussed in a previous MASS vided the supplement dose between 30-
article, the performance effects of caf- 90 minutes prior to the onset of exercise,
feine are (to some extent) subject to ha- but theacrine may require a longer rest
bituation, or a diminished effect over period before peak performance effects
time with habitual caffeine use. Given are observed.
the size of the dose and the habitual Caffeine has a long track record of im-
caffeine use of the study participants, it proving a wide range of performance
shouldn’t be an absolute shock that the outcomes, with dozens and dozens of
observed performance changes failed to studies to back it up (2). It’s also very af-
achieve statistical significance. fordable and easy to access with a vari-
Caffeine caused significantly great- ety of products. So, in order to convince
er increases in energy level, focus, and someone to ditch their caffeine, theacrine
motivation to exercise in comparison to must prove that it is not only as good,
theacrine, while no treatments were par- but meaningfully better than caffeine.
ticularly effective for decreasing subjec- At this point, it hasn’t accomplished
tive resting fatigue levels. For Borg RPE that yet. Having said that, I do find the
values following squat and bench press, non-habituating aspect of theacrine to
the caffeine values were not significant- be worthy of additional research. So
ly different than any other individual far, the theacrine studies assessing per-
treatment, but the lowest RPE values for formance have been restricted to acute
both exercises were observed in the caf- (single-dose) ingestion. It’s entirely pos-
feine condition, and the second-lowest sible that caffeine’s performance effects
values were observed in the caffeine + may fade more than theacrine’s effects
theacrine condition. With this study rep- over time, and that theacrine is indeed
90
the better option for daily (or semi-dai- tation on the duration or quality of the
ly) use. If future research were to show subsequent night’s sleep. To be clear,
that theacrine induces performance ben- I’m speculating here, so future evidence
efits similar to those of caffeine, but is could certainly change my mind. But for
less susceptible to habituation with re- the time being, I’m not sufficiently con-
peated use, that would present a justifi- vinced that there is an inherent benefit
able reason to ditch the caffeine in favor to theacrine’s longer half-life for most
of theacrine. lifters/athletes, and I would like to see
On the other hand, I struggle to view some direct evidence evaluating the ef-
the slower absorption and clearance of fects of theacrine on sleep quality.
theacrine as particularly favorable char-
acteristics. Waiting 90-120 minutes for
peak levels isn’t a huge deal, but is (in Next Steps
many cases) a little less convenient than As the literature currently stands, it’s
the 30-60 minutes required for caffeine. hard to suggest that the acute effects of
More importantly, caffeine provides you theacrine are meaningfully better than
with a pretty wide window for its dura- caffeine, whether you’re using theacrine
tion of action, and clears the blood rela- to partially or fully replace the caffeine
tively slowly. If anything, I have always dose. Caffeine is cheap, easily accessi-
wished that caffeine had a shorter half- ble, and well-studied; in order to start
life, as research has shown that whether replacing caffeine with theacrine, I’d
you take caffeine 0, 3, or 6 hours before want to see data indicating that theacrine
sleep, your sleep quality is disrupted to a is substantially better than caffeine, not
significant degree (9). I previously men- just equivalent. There are, however,
tioned a study that reported a modest re- a few areas in which more research is
duction in vigor in response to theacrine needed to determine if theacrine may
supplementation. The authors of that have an advantage over caffeine. I’d be
study (4) suspected that low doses may very interested to see studies compar-
promote sleepiness via the A1 and A2A ing the effects of caffeine and theacrine
adenosine receptors, whereas high dos- on habituation and sleep quality. If
es may promote excitation of the central theacrine delivers similar acute perfor-
nervous system. I can’t help but won- mance effects, but is less susceptible to
der if part of this reduced vigor could habituation with repeated use or has a
relate to sleep disruption due to the long smaller impact on the subsequent night
half-life of theacrine, but I’m not aware of sleep, those may be reasons to even-
of any human research directly evaluat- tually make the switch, or at least transi-
ing the effects of theacrine supplemen- tion to a combined approach that utilizes
91
There is very little research available on the performance effects of theacrine. At
this point, the data available suggest that old fashioned caffeine is as good or
better when it comes to acute exercise performance. At this time, it’s still unclear if
theacrine’s longer half-life translates to an actual advantage over caffeine, and its
overall effects on exercise performance require further research. In addition, more
studies are needed to determine optimal dosing and timing strategies, and to figure
out if its effects on exercise performance diminish with repeated use. There is some
evidence to suggest that theacrine’s effects on performance are at least similar to
those of caffeine, but the research available does not suggest that replacing caffeine
with theacrine is actually an upgrade.
both caffeine and theacrine. In addition,

the human performance literature per-
taining to theacrine has been restricted
to fairly low doses provided between
30-90 minutes before exercise, so I’d
be interested to see if the performance
effects of theacrine are larger if higher
doses are taken, with doses delivered at
least two hours before exercise testing.
92
References
1. Cesareo KR, Mason JR, Saracino PG, Morrissey MC, Ormsbee MJ. The effects of a caf-
feine-like supplement, TeaCrine®, on muscular strength, endurance and power performance
in resistance-trained men. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2019 Oct 28;16(1):47.
2. Grgic J, Grgic I, Pickering C, Schoenfeld BJ, Bishop DJ, Pedisic Z. Wake up and smell the
coffee: caffeine supplementation and exercise performance-an umbrella review of 21 pub-
lished meta-analyses. Br J Sports Med. 2019 Mar 29;
3. Feduccia AA, Wang Y, Simms JA, Yi HY, Li R, Bjeldanes L, et al. Locomotor activation by
theacrine, a purine alkaloid structurally similar to caffeine: involvement of adenosine and
dopamine receptors. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2012 Aug;102(2):241–8.
4. Taylor L, Mumford P, Roberts M, Hayward S, Mullins J, Urbina S, et al. Safety of Tea-
Crine®, a non-habituating, naturally-occurring purine alkaloid over eight weeks of continu-
ous use. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2016;13:2.
5. He H, Ma D, Crone LB, Butawan M, Meibohm B, Bloomer RJ, et al. Assessment of the
Drug–Drug Interaction Potential Between Theacrine and Caffeine in Humans. J Caffeine
Res. 2017 Sep 1;7(3):95–102.
6. Kuhman DJ, Joyner KJ, Bloomer RJ. Cognitive Performance and Mood Following Ingestion
of a Theacrine-Containing Dietary Supplement, Caffeine, or Placebo by Young Men and
Women. Nutrients. 2015 Nov 19;7(11):9618–32.
7. Ziegenfuss TN, Habowski SM, Sandrock JE, Kedia AW, Kerksick CM, Lopez HL. A Two-
Part Approach to Examine the Effects of Theacrine (TeaCrine®) Supplementation on Ox-
ygen Consumption, Hemodynamic Responses, and Subjective Measures of Cognitive and
Psychometric Parameters. J Diet Suppl. 2017 Jan 2;14(1):9–24.
8. Bello ML, Walker AJ, McFadden BA, Sanders DJ, Arent SM. The effects of TeaCrine® and
caffeine on endurance and cognitive performance during a simulated match in high-level
soccer players. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2019 Apr 18;16(1):20.
9. Drake C, Roehrs T, Shambroom J, Roth T. Caffeine effects on sleep taken 0, 3, or 6 hours
before going to bed. J Clin Sleep Med JCSM Off Publ Am Acad Sleep Med. 2013 Nov
15;9(11):1195–200.
93
Study Reviewed: Sex Differences in Fatigability and Recovery Relative to the
Intensity-Duration Relationship. Ansdell et al. (2019)
Females Fatigue Slower than Males

Largely Due to Differences in Blood Flow
BY G RE G NUC KO LS
It’s fairly common knowledge that female lifters are less fatigable in the
gym than male lifters. However, that relationship is surprisingly nuanced,
and it’s primarily driven by a factor most people don’t immediately
suspect: blood flow.
94
KEY POINTS
1. Critical intensity – an estimate of the level of muscular effort that can be maintained
indefinitely – is higher in the quads for females than males during intermittent
isometric contractions.
2. At 10% above critical intensity, females were still able to sustain contractions for
more than twice as long as males.
3. These differences are likely due, primarily, to sex differences in blood flow during
muscular contractions and recovery. These blood flow differences are likely relevant
in “normal” training as well, and not just low-intensity isometric training.
T
here are a lot of myths floating used exercise protocols that aren’t very
around about sex differences in relevant for most MASS readers – inter-
fatigability when lifting. The mittent isometric knee extensions at low
most common myth is that female lift- intensity – but this study helps frame a
ers can do some ridiculous amount of couple of larger points I wanted to make
reps with loads very close to their 1RMs about sex differences in fatigability. This
(I’m sure it’s true in some cases, but study itself, however, found that critical
there’s plenty of data refuting that idea intensity is higher for female lifters than
on average). I also commonly hear that male lifters, that time to task failure at
female lifters are only less fatigable be- 10% above critical intensity is higher
cause they have lower “neuromuscular for female lifters than male lifters, and
efficiency” (that also doesn’t have any that differences in blood flow largely ex-
empirical support). In actuality, female plain these differences.
lifters are generally less fatigable in the
gym than male lifters, though the prima-
ry reasons seem to be simple differenc- Purpose and Hypotheses
es in muscle mass and strength and dif-
ferences in the regulation of blood flow Purpose
during exercise, leading to more effi- This study had three main purposes:
cient oxygen delivery and waste clear-
1. To compare the relative torque at
ance. And if anything, the differences in
which critical intensity is attained
blood flow may be more important than
in males and females.
the differences in strength.
2. To examine the mechanisms con-
The present study (1) is the first that
tributing to fatigue during pro-
we’ve reviewed for MASS that inves-
longed isometric tasks above and
tigates sex differences in fatigability. It
95
below critical intensity. intensity and critical power both refer
3. To compare short-term rates of re- to the intensity or work rate at which
covery between males and females, a physiological steady state can be es-
along with their physiological un- tablished and maintained during exer-
derpinnings. cise. In other words, at or below crit-
ical power, some local and systemic
Hypotheses physiological changes will occur (heart
rate increases, cardiac output increas-
The authors hypothesized that critical
es, muscle pH will drop, etc.), but they
intensity would occur at a higher rela-
will plateau pretty quickly, so that per-
tive torque in females than males due to
formance can be maintained for a long
superior oxygen availability, that time to
time (infinitely, in theory, were it not for
task failure would be similar between the
gradual decreases in neural drive over
sexes when contractions are performed
time). Above critical intensity or critical
at 10% above critical intensity, and that
power, a physiological steady state will
short-term recovery after fatiguing exer-
not be established, such that heart rate
cise would be faster in females.
will keep trending up, metabolic stress
will keep trending up, and fatigue will
accumulate if you maintain your work
Subjects and Methods rate, eventually leading to exhaustion.
Critical intensity and critical power rep-
Subjects
resent the dividing line between acutely
Nine male and nine female subjects fatiguing and acutely non-fatiguing lev-
completed this study. Training status els of exercise. If you’re more familiar
of the participants wasn’t stated. All of with the “anaerobic threshold” or “lac-
the female subjects were on monopha- tate threshold,” critical power is a simi-
sic contraceptive pills and were tested lar concept, though it’s generally slight-
during the 21-day period of the month ly lower.
when they were taking active pills, in
You can calculate critical intensity
order to negate any possible effects of
one of two ways. You start by perform-
hormonal fluctuations.
ing 3-5 exercise trials of differing in-
tensities that lead to exhaustion in 2-15
What is Critical Intensity?
minutes. Then, you can either plot the
Before we press on, it’s worth under- relationship between work rate and time
standing what critical intensity is. Criti- to task failure (which will be curvilin-
cal intensity is a generalization of criti- ear) and find the horizontal asymptote
cal power, which is a relatively common of the resulting function, or you can plot
measure in endurance research. Critical
96
Figure 1 Relationship between total impulse and time to task failure
(TTF) in males and females in the current study
200000
Females
Males
150000
Impulse (N·s)
100000
50000
0
200 400 600 800
Time to task failure (s)
Critical intensity is calculated for each individual by finding the slope of their TTF-impulse trendline,
and W' is the y-intercept of that trendline
the relationship between total work per- “reserve” of possible work above W’.
formed (or total impulse) and time to Thus, exercise above critical intensity or
task failure, and calculate the (linear) critical power “depletes” W’, and when
slope of the resulting trendline; this is it’s all gone, exhaustion occurs. Rest or
illustrated in Figure 1. The second op- exercise below critical intensity/power
tion is preferred, because it also allows allows for the reconstitution of W’, via
you to calculate another value, called ATP and phosphocreatine resynthesis,
W’. W’ is the y-intercept of the linear clearance of metabolic waste products,
trendline, and roughly represents one’s shifts back toward homeostatic pH lev-
97
els, etc. understanding them isn’t crucial for un-
I realize that this is all a bit technical, derstanding the aspects of the study that
but it’s necessary background informa- are relevant to the majority of MASS
tion to understand this study. You can readers. I’m just making this note so
think of critical intensity as the thresh- that the handful of neuromuscular phys-
old between a rate of work you could iology nerds who read MASS will know
literally maintain all day (for example, that it may be worth their time to pull up
doing one biceps curl with a broomstick the full text of this article.
every 5 minutes. I assume all MASS The study took place over seven lab
readers could manage that without any visits. The first was simply a familiar-
issues whatsoever), and a rate of work ization visit. Visits 2-5 were comprised
that would eventually tire you out (for of trials designed to estimate critical
example, if you do one rep at 30% of intensity, and visits 6 and 7 were com-
your max every 3 seconds, you’ll be prised of trials 10% above and 10% be-
able to do a lot of reps, but you will low each subject’s critical intensity.
eventually be unable to perform another During the familiarization visit, the
rep). You can think of W’ as the reserve subjects got comfortable with perform-
of energy that runs out when you exert ing knee extensions on an isometric
yourself at a level above critical intensi- dynamometer. They then performed a
ty, which must recharge if you want to baseline neuromuscular function assess-
perform well on the next set, a bit like ment, including a maximal voluntary
a battery. If you’re still confused, Gato- contraction (MVC). After five minutes
rade actually has a pretty solid explainer of rest, they performed a fatiguing task
on this topic. at an intensity of 60% of MVC; the task
consisted of intermittent contractions,
Experimental Design consisting of three second contractions
Note that I’m not going to describe all interspersed with two seconds of rest
of the measures in this study in a ton of between contractions. They performed
detail. It’s worth understanding critical an MVC every minute during the fa-
intensity, as critical intensity is a cru- tiguing task. They had a visual guide to
cially important concept in this study. know if they were reaching their target
However, many of the measures are force during the 60% contractions, and
neuromuscular assessments that would failure was defined as an inability to
primarily be relevant to neuromuscular exceed 60% of MVC on three consecu-
physiologists, not most MASS readers tive contractions. Immediately after task
(lifters, trainers, and coaches). It would failure, they performed a post-exercise
take a lot of time to explain them all, and neuromuscular assessment.
98
Figure 2 Time to task failure during the 40-80% MVC trials, and the trial at 10% above critical intensity
5000
4500
Females
Males
4000
Time to task failure (s)
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
25% 35% 45% 55% 65% 75%
Intensity (%MVC)
Time to task failure during the supermaximal intensity trial (leftmost pair of dots) and critical intensity calculation sessions (visits 2-5).
Values further up and to the right indicate lower fatigability.
During visits 2-5, the subjects com- utes for all subjects, since they would
pleted the same fatigue protocol as they theoretically never reach failure. Tests
completed during visit 1, with intensi- of neuromuscular function followed the
ties ranging from 40% to 80% of MVC. supramaximal and submaximal inten-
Intensity was 60% on visit 2, and on sity trials, occurring immediately after
visits 3-5, intensities were randomized, completion of the protocol, and after 15,
with the aim of achieving failure within 30, and 45 minutes of rest.
2-15 minutes. These four fatigue proto- All visits were separated by at least 48
cols were used to estimate critical inten- hours.
sity and W’.
Visits 6 and 7 were the primary exper-
imental visits. They involved the same Findings
sort of fatigue protocol, with intensities During sessions 2-5, the female sub-
10% above and 10% below each subject’s jects needed to complete their fatigue
critical intensity. During the supramax- protocols at higher intensities than the
imal intensity trial (+10%), the protocol male subjects in order to match time to
was continued until exhaustion. During task failure between groups, meaning
the submaximal intensity trial (-10%), the female subjects had relatively greater
the protocol was continued for 45 min- strength endurance at intensities ranging
99
from 40-80% MVC. For example, at the Figure 3 Critical intensity and W' in the two groups
highest intensity used during this part of
the study, males had a mean time to task
failure of 217 seconds with 61% MVC, 35
P = 0.003
while females had a mean time to task
Critical intensity (%MVC)

failure of 216 seconds with 71% MVC. 30
When intensity was roughly matched, 25

the differences were even more pro-
nounced. For example, when females 20
used 61% MVC, their time to task fail-

15
ure averaged 486 seconds – more than
double the males’ time of 217 seconds. 10
This can be seen in Figure 2, along with Males Females
performance during the supramaximal

(critical intensity +10%) trial.
MVC force was significantly greater
P = 0.850
30000
for males (708 ± 119 N vs. 458 ± 59 N;
p < 0.001), but absolute critical intensi-
ty wasn’t significantly different between
W' (N·s)
20000
sexes (143 ± 26 N vs. 123 ± 26 N; p =
0.109). When normalized to MVC force,
critical intensity was significantly great- 10000
er for the female subjects (24.7 ± 2.5%
vs. 20.8 ± 2.3%; p = 0.003). There were
no significant differences for W’. Males Females
During the supramaximal trial (critical

The differences in critical intensity was statistically significant
intensity +10%), time to task failure was

more than twice as long for the female 10% below baseline in males, on aver-
subjects (3742 ± 1035 vs. 1826 ± 765 age), but there was a lot of individual
seconds; p<0.001). Following the supra- variability, so that difference wasn’t sta-
maximal trial, MVC force recovered at tistically significant.
virtually the same rate for males and fe- During and following the submaximal
males during the first 30 minutes of rest. trial (critical intensity -10%), there were
From 30 to 45 minutes, rate of recovery some small differences in some of the
seemed to be nominally greater for the nitty gritty neuromuscular measures, but
female subjects (recovering to baseline, actual force output decreased to a simi-
while MVC force was still more than lar degree in both sexes (and plateaued
100
Figure 4 Changes in MVC force during the supermaximal trial
100
Females
Males
80
(% Baseline)
MVC
60
40
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 15 30 45
Exercise time (min) Recovery time (min)
Individual decreases and increases in MVC force during and following the supermaximal trial.
* = significant (p<0.05) difference from pre-exercise; $ = significant difference from immediately post-exercise.
well before the termination of the trial, both sexes, but it increased dramatically
as one would expect for exercise below more in the male subjects (~600% over
critical intensity), and recovery of MVC baseline in the male subjects vs. ~100%
force also didn’t significantly differ be- over baseline in the females). During the
tween sexes. submaximal trial, levels of oxygenated
Notably, blood flow-related variables hemoglobin in the quads went virtually
differed between the sexes during both unchanged in the male subjects while it
the supramaximal and submaximal tri- increased in the female subjects. Levels
als. During the supramaximal trial, levels of deoxygenated hemoglobin increased
of oxygenated hemoglobin in the quads in the male subjects and didn’t change in
decreased in the male subjects and ac- the female subjects, though that differ-
tually increased in the female subjects. ence wasn’t statistically significant.
Deoxygenated hemoglobin increased in
101
Figure 5 Blood flow related variables throughout the supramaximal task (+10%)
A B
2000
400
Females
Deoxygenated hemoglobin
Males 1500
Oxygenated hemoglobin
200
(% Baseline)
(% Baseline)
1000
0 500
0
-200
1st set 25% 50% 75% 100% 1st set 25% 50% 75% 100%
A = oxyhemoglobin (O2Hb); B = Deoxyhemoglobin (HHb)

# = significantly different between males and females (P < 0.05); * = significantly different from Pre (P < 0.05)
during isometric resistance training, and

Interpretation the difference is larger with low-intensi-
I wish I had this study on hand when ty contractions than high-intensity con-
I was doing my thesis research, because tractions. There’s less research on dy-
it illustrates several points and concepts namic training with normal machines or
I had to piece together from multiple free weights, but it also tends to suggest
studies and presents them all in one tidy that females fatigue at a slower rate than
package. males and have greater strength endur-
The two main takeaways of this study ance. There are three primary reasons
are that females are less fatigable than why that’s the case: 1) females have a
males (i.e. they have more strength en- higher percentage of type I muscle fi-
durance) and that the difference in fati- bers, on average; 2) females have a low-
gability is largely driven by differences er reliance on glycolytic metabolism at
in blood flow and oxygen delivery. A submaximal exercise intensities (partial-
more subtle point is that the differences ly due to differences in fiber type, and
in blood flow are important during both partially independent of differences in
muscle contraction and muscle relax- fiber type); 3) females are better able to
ation. perfuse their muscles with blood during
resistance exercise to deliver oxygen
So, just to recap a lot of literature, fe-
and clear waste products (partially due
males fatigue at a slower rate than males
to the fact that they simply have small-
102
Figure 6 Blood flow related variables throughout the submaximal task (-10%)
A B
1000 600
Females
Deoxygenated hemoglobin
Males
Oxygenated hemoglobin
400
750
(% Baseline)
(% Baseline)
200
500
0
250
-200
0
-400
-250 -600
A = oxyhemoglobin (O2Hb); B = Deoxyhemoglobin (HHb); # = significantly different between males and females (P < 0.05)
er muscles, and partially independent of tween the sexes was critical intensity,
that fact). If you want to read a compre- but that if critical intensity was used as
hensive discussion of mechanisms, I’d the reference point for training intensity,
strongly recommend a review paper by the sex differences in fatigability would
Sandra Hunter (2), and if you want to vanish. Much to the contrary, though
read a summary of all of the studies in critical intensity was higher in females
this area using “normal” resistance exer- (meaning they could sustain intermittent
cise, you can check out chapter 2 of my contractions at ~25% MVC essentially
thesis (which is finally published). forever, whereas males would only be
This study builds on prior research able to sustain intermittent contractions
by changing the reference point that at ~20% MVC), contractions at 10%
training intensity is normalized to: crit- above critical intensity were also more
ical intensity rather than maximal force sustainable in males than females.
output. The authors hypothesized that The key in this study, and (I believe)
critical intensity would be higher in fe- the key to understanding the differences
males, but that time to task failure 10% in fatigability between male and female
above critical intensity would be similar lifters generally is blood flow.
in males and females. In other words, To start with, it’s worth contextualiz-
they thought the major difference being these results within the larger body
103
of isometric research, since that’s some-
thing MASS readers probably aren’t
overly familiar with. In Hunter’s 2014 THE TWO MAIN TAKEAWAYS
review (2), she found that time to task
failure during isometric contractions OF THIS STUDY ARE THAT
was greater in females, and that the dif- FEMALES ARE LESS FATIGABLE
ference between the sexes decreased as
intensity increased, from a ~35% dif- THAN MALES AND THAT THE
ference at very low intensities (<20%
1RM) to a ~15% difference at maximal DIFFERENCE IN FATIGABILITY
intensity. In the present study, when IS LARGELY DRIVEN BY
considering the supramaximal trial and
the four trials used to calculate critical DIFFERENCES IN BLOOD FLOW
intensity, time to task failure was more
than double that of males with intensi- AND OXYGEN DELIVERY.
ties ranging from ~30% 1RM to ~60%
1RM. That’s an enormous difference
from the prior studies on isometric exer- seconds), in line with other research on
cise. What explains the difference? The sex differences in fatigability. In the
intermittent nature of the contractions. strength-matched cohort, however, time
The studies in Hunter’s analysis used to task failure was similar between the
continuous contractions, while the pres- sexes (864 vs. 819 seconds). So, for con-
ent study used intermittent contractions tinuous contractions, it seems that the
with a pattern of three seconds contract- sex difference in fatigability may sim-
ing, followed by two seconds of rest. ply be reflective of strength differences
To illustrate why those little two-sec- between the sexes, rather than some oth-
ond breaks are so important, let’s exam- er underlying physiological characteris-
ine two studies (3, 4). The first study (3) tic. Now let’s consider the second study
essentially contained two experiments (4). It also compared strength-matched
in one. It involved holding a continuous males and females performing isometric
isometric elbow flexion contraction at elbow flexion, this time at 50% MVC,
20% MVC. It compared a group of 20 but it used intermittent contractions (6
strength-matched males and females and second contractions interspersed with 4
a larger cohort of both sexes that wasn’t seconds of rest). In this study, in spite of
strength-matched. In the non-strength- the groups being matched for strength,
matched cohort, time to task failure time to fatigue was almost three times
was longer in the females (1024 vs. 681 greater for females (1408 vs. 513 sec-
onds).
104
so the relative difference in fatigabili-
ty decreases as well. But how does that
explain the finding that there are huge
FEMALES RECOVER FASTER differences in fatigability with inter-
WHEN GIVEN TIME TO REST mittent contractions? The answer also
has to do with blood flow: resistance
UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES exercise causes a greater vasodilatory
response in females (5), and females
WHEN REST INTERVALS also tend to have greater capillary den-
sity than males (6). So, when the mus-
ARE CONTROLLED, AND cles relax and the occlusive force on the
THUS ACCUMULATE FATIGUE blood vessels drop, (relatively) more
blood can rush into females’ muscles,
AT A SLOWER RATE. delivering more oxygen and clearing
waste products. Thus, even when males
and females are strength-matched, as in
So, what explains these findings? As the second study discussed in the prior
mentioned previously, females have a paragraph (4), they’d fatigue at the same
greater proportion of type I muscle fi- rate during each six-second contraction,
bers and a lower reliance on glycolyt- but the females would be able to make
ic metabolism, but those things didn’t much better use of each four-second re-
seem to matter much (if any) during laxation period, eventually leading to a
continuous contractions when strength nearly three-fold difference in time to
was matched. Rather, the biggest factor task failure.
seems to be blood flow. Females tend So, at this point, you may be wonder-
to have smaller muscles than males, ing: “Is any of this stuff you’ve been
and smaller muscles don’t occlude rambling about actually important for
blood vessels quite as much when they the sort of strength training I do?” That
contract. Thus, when not matched for would be a fair question. After all, iso-
strength, females are less fatigable than metric contractions at ~30-35% 1RM
males during continuous contractions, aren’t all that similar to the sort of train-
while males and females fatigue at a ing MASS readers tend to do. However,
similar rate when matched for strength I’d strongly contend that it is relevant.
(and thus muscle size, since strength is
Again, I’ll refer you to my thesis re-
very strongly correlated with muscle
search (I’m really glad it’s been pub-
cross-sectional area). When contraction
lished on ProQuest, so I can finally dis-
intensity increases, the amount of blood
cuss it in detail). It assessed fatigability
vessel occlusion increases in both sexes,
105
in two ways: reps to failure during a
single set of bench press at 75% 1RM,
and total reps completed during a fa- COMPARED TO THEIR MALE
tigue protocol consisting of sets of 5
reps at 75% 1RM with 90 seconds of COUNTERPARTS, FEMALE
rest between sets. Reps to failure during LIFTERS WILL PROBABLY END
a single set is somewhat analogous to
the continuous isometric contractions UP NEEDING TO TRAIN WITH
(though muscular effort varies through-
out a dynamic rep, the muscles are al- EITHER A) MORE REPS PER
ways under load and contracting to SET B) MORE SETS WITH THE
some degree, without true relaxation),
and the fatigue protocol is analogous to SAME REPS OR C) SLIGHTLY
the intermittent isometric contractions.
Reps to failure at 75% 1RM were very HEAVIER FOR THE SAME REPS
similar in males and females (an aver- AND SETS, ON AVERAGE.
age of 9.0 reps for females, and 8.6 reps
for males). However, total reps complet-
ed during the fatigue protocol differed
dramatically; the female subjects com- the fatigue protocol because they were
pleted almost twice as many total reps, able to recover more effectively be-
on average (58.3 vs. 29.6). During each tween sets. I was mainly interested in
set of the fatigue protocol, velocity de- functional outcomes, so I didn’t use ex-
creased by a similar amount in both sex- tra equipment to assess blood flow like
es, while velocity recovered to a greater the authors in the presently reviewed
degree from the last rep of one set to the study, but I’d almost bet that a differ-
first rep of the next set in the female sub- ence in blood flow during the recovery
jects. Thus, intra-set fatigue was similar, period, leading to differences in oxygen
but the female subjects recovered to a delivery and waste clearance, was the
greater degree during each 90-second primary factor underpinning the differ-
recovery period. Because of this, even ence in performance I saw.
though fatigue occurred at a similar rate I recognize that this may be a lot of
during each set (which is what we’d ex- information to process, but there are a
pect; with dynamic contractions, males few clear takeaways regarding sex dif-
and females tend to be similarly fatiga- ferences in fatigue:
ble during a single set with loads above 1. As a general statement, female lifters
~70% 1RM), females accumulated fa- are less fatigable during resistance
tigue at a much slower rate throughout
106
training than male lifters. 6. The difference in fatigability de-
2. The difference in fatigability depends pends heavily on the presence of
partially on contraction type. The dif- rest intervals. Whether it’s 2-4 sec-
ference in fatigability during a single ond rest intervals between isometric
set is fairly large and very consistent contractions or normal rest intervals
for isometric contractions, but small- between sets, females recover faster
er and somewhat less consistent for when given time to rest under cir-
dynamic contractions. cumstances when rest intervals are
controlled, and thus accumulate fa-
3. The difference in fatigability depends
tigue at a slower rate.
partially on intensity. The difference
is larger for low-intensity training So, what are the practical implications
and smaller for high-intensity con- here? First off, compared to their male
tractions. Even with dynamic con- counterparts, female lifters will proba-
tractions, females are consistently bly end up needing to train with either
less fatigable than males with loads a) more reps per set b) more sets with
below 60-70% 1RM. the same reps or c) slightly heavier for
the same reps and sets, on average. As
4. The difference in fatigability depends
always, that won’t be true for all peo-
partially on absolute strength. In the
ple at all times, but it will tend to be
typical situation where males are
true the majority of the time. If you use
stronger than females, the difference
some form of autoregulation, those dif-
is larger. When males and females
ferences should take care of themselves
are strength-matched, the difference
and arise organically. However, if you
is either smaller or negated, depend-
use rigid, pre-made training programs,
ing on context.
it’s worth keeping the target audience
5. The difference in fatigability across in mind. If you’re a female lifter, and
an entire training session probably you’re interested in following a train-
depends somewhat on whether lifting program that was probably written
ers are training to failure on each set. with a predominantly male audience in
Since decrements in performance mind, it may not be a bad idea to add a
with failure training are due to mus- couple sets, because it’s likely the pro-
cle damage and neural fatigue to gram will be easier for you than it was
a larger degree when compared to intended to be. Furthermore, if you train
non-failure training, the metabolic both male and female clients, it’s prob-
differences resulting from differenc- ably not a bad idea to allow for longer
es in blood flow likely don’t matter rest intervals with your male clients. I’m
quite as much, making fatigability very confident that females recover to
more similar between the sexes.
107
Female lifters tend to be less fatigable than male lifters, though it’s impossible to
pin down a single figure to express how much less fatigable they are. The relative
difference depends on a multitude of factors, including contraction type, training
intensity, the magnitude of strength differences, whether training is taken to failure or
not, and whether fatigability is assessed during a single set or across multiple sets
interspersed with rest periods. Depending on what mix of variables you’re working
with, female lifters could be 2-3x less fatigable, or there could be no difference
in fatigability whatsoever. However, while there are other relevant physiological
differences between males and females, including differences in fiber types and
substrate utilization, sex differences in fatigability during resistance exercise seem
to primarily be driven by differences in blood flow during both exercise and recovery.
a greater degree than males do if both 124), compared to a mean difference be-
are given 90-second rest intervals, but tween sexes of 28.4. Knowing a lifter’s
it’s entirely possible that they would re- sex tells you something about their fati-
cover to roughly the same degree if, for gability, but it should best be seen as a
example, females rest for 2 minutes be- nudge in one direction or another, with
tween sets while males rested for 3 min- individual experimentation still playing
utes, thus equalizing the rate of fatigue the largest role in personalizing training
across the entire training session (to be plans.
clear, those are random numbers. It may
be 2 minutes vs. 5 minutes, or it may
be 2 minutes vs. 2.5 minutes). Finally, Next Steps
as always, make sure you assess your- I know I’m biased here, but I’d like to
self or your clients as individuals, rather see more research investigating sex dif-
than simply sex categories. While sex ferences in fatigability that uses a proto-
does make a difference, the difference col similar to my thesis study. I think it’s
between individuals within each sex can a pretty good model for simultaneously
be larger than the average difference be- capturing both intra-set fatigue and in-
tween sexes. In the presently reviewed ter-set recovery, with more ecological
study (1), you can see that when look- validity than the types of experimental
ing at the individual times to fatigue in designs more commonly used in fatigue
Figure 4 in this article, and in my thesis research. Since I only investigated the
study, the range of total reps performed bench press, I’d love to see a similar
during the fatigue protocol was 41 for study using either squats or leg press to
males (13-54) and 105 for females (19-
108
see if my findings generalize to lower
body training as well.
109
References
1. Ansdell P, Brownstein CG, Škarabot J, Hicks KM, Howatson G, Thomas K, Hunter SK,
Goodall S. Sex differences in fatigability and recovery relative to the intensity-duration re-
lationship. J Physiol. 2019 Dec;597(23):5577-5595.
2. Hunter SK. Sex differences in human fatigability: mechanisms and insight to physiological
responses. Acta Physiol (Oxf). 2014 Apr;210(4):768-89.
3. Hunter SK, Critchlow A, Shin IS, Enoka RM. Fatigability of the elbow flexor muscles for a
sustained submaximal contraction is similar in men and women matched for strength. J Appl
Physiol (1985). 2004 Jan;96(1):195-202.
4. Hunter SK, Critchlow A, Shin IS, Enoka RM. Men are more fatigable than strength-matched
women when performing intermittent submaximal contractions. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2004
Jun;96(6):2125-32.
5. Parker BA, Smithmyer SL, Pelberg JA, Mishkin AD, Herr MD, Proctor DN. Sex differences
in leg vasodilation during graded knee extensor exercise in young adults. J Appl Physiol
(1985). 2007 Nov;103(5):1583-91.
6. Roepstorff C, Thiele M, Hillig T, Pilegaard H, Richter EA, Wojtaszewski JF, Kiens B. High-
er skeletal muscle alpha2AMPK activation and lower energy charge and fat oxidation in men
than in women during submaximal exercise. J Physiol. 2006 Jul 1;574(Pt 1):125-38.
110
VIDEO: All About Plus Sets
Everybody seems to program a set or two per week for as many reps as possible
(AMRAP) or also known as a plus set. These sets have quite a bit of utility, but they
also have some drawbacks and are oftentimes overused. This video covers when to
use plus sets and provides strategies to individualize their usage.
Click to watch Michael's presentation.
111
References
1. Load Progression Part 1. Volume 3 Issue 2.
2. Load Progression Part 2. Volume 3 Issue 3.
3. Assistance Work in Periodization and Loading Options. Volume 2 Issue 2.
4. RPE and RIR: The Complete Guide. Volume 3 Issue 9.
112
VIDEO: Post-Season
Nutrition Strategies, Part 1
BY E RI C HE LMS
When anecdotally discussed in the bodybuilding community, the transition back to

“normal life” after a competitive season as a physique athlete is often just as difficult, if
not more difficult than the contest season itself. Why is this? In part 1 of this series we
cover the existing strategies to deal with this period, which of their elements are based
in scientific-evidence, and which aren’t.
Click to watch Eric's presentation.
113
Relevant MASS Videos and Articles
1. How Are Female Physique Competitors Impacted By Contest Preparation?. Volume 1 Issue
2.
2. Contest Prep Recovery in Male and Female Physique Competitors. Volume 1 Issue 3.
3. Dealing with Metabolic Adaptations to Weight Loss. Volume 2 Issue 5.
4. Energy Availability in Strength and Power Athletes. Volume 2 Issue 11.
5. Ramifications of Weight Manipulation in Female Physique Athletes. Volume 3 Issue 8.
6. VIDEO: Global Contest Prep Fatigue Management, Part 1. Volume 3, Issue 5.
References
7. Trexler ET, Smith-Ryan AE, Norton LE. Metabolic adaptation to weight loss: implications
for the athlete. Journal of the international society of sports nutrition. 2014 Dec;11(1):7.
8. Rosenbaum M, Leibel RL. Adaptive thermogenesis in humans. International journal of obe-
sity. 2010 Oct 11;34(S1):S47.
9. Doucet E, St-Pierre S, Alméras N, Després JP, Bouchard C, Tremblay A. Evidence for the
existence of adaptive thermogenesis during weight loss. British Journal of Nutrition. 2001
Jun;85(6):715-23.
10. Leibel RL, Rosenbaum M, Hirsch J. Changes in energy expenditure resulting from altered
body weight. New England Journal of Medicine. 1995 Mar 9;332(10):621-8.
11. Leibel RL, Hirsch J. Diminished energy requirements in reduced-obese patients. Metabo-
lism. 1984 Feb 1;33(2):164-70.
12. Ravussin E, Lillioja S, Anderson TE, Christin L, Bogardus C. Determinants of 24-hour en-
ergy expenditure in man. Methods and results using a respiratory chamber. The Journal of
clinical investigation. 1986 Dec 1;78(6):1568-78.
13. MacLean PS, Bergouignan A, Cornier MA, Jackman MR. Biology’s response to dieting:
the impetus for weight regain. American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and
Comparative Physiology. 2011 Jun 15;301(3):R581-600.
14. Weyer C, Walford RL, Harper IT, Milner M, MacCallum T, Tataranni PA, Ravussin E. En-
ergy metabolism after 2 y of energy restriction: the biosphere 2 experiment. The American
journal of clinical nutrition. 2000 Oct 1;72(4):946-53.
15. Rosenbaum M, Vandenborne K, Goldsmith R, Simoneau JA, Heymsfield S, Joanisse DR,
Hirsch J, Murphy E, Matthews D, Segal KR, Leibel RL. Effects of experimental weight
perturbation on skeletal muscle work efficiency in human subjects. American Journal of
Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology. 2003 Jul;285(1):R183-92.
16. Weigle DS, Brunzell JD. Assessment of energy expenditure in ambulatory reduced-obese
114
subjects by the techniques of weight stabilization and exogenous weight replacement. Inter-
national journal of obesity. 1990;14:69-77.
17. Rosenbaum M, Goldsmith R, Bloomfield D, Magnano A, Weimer L, Heymsfield S, Gallagh-
er D, Mayer L, Murphy E, Leibel RL. Low-dose leptin reverses skeletal muscle, autonomic,
and neuroendocrine adaptations to maintenance of reduced weight. The Journal of clinical
investigation. 2005 Dec 1;115(12):3579-86.
18. Joosen AM, Westerterp KR. Energy expenditure during overfeeding. Nutrition & metabo-
lism. 2006 Dec;3(1):25.
19. Levine JA, Eberhardt NL, Jensen MD. Role of nonexercise activity thermogenesis in resis-
tance to fat gain in humans. Science. 1999 Jan 8;283(5399):212-4.
20. Rosenbaum M, Hirsch J, Gallagher DA, Leibel RL. Long-term persistence of adaptive ther-
mogenesis in subjects who have maintained a reduced body weight. The American journal
of clinical nutrition. 2008 Oct 1;88(4):906-12.
21. Mountjoy M, Sundgot-Borgen JK, Burke LM, Ackerman KE, Blauwet C, Constanti-
ni N, Lebrun C, Lundy B, Melin AK, Meyer NL, Sherman RT. IOC consensus statement
on relative energy deficiency in sport (RED-S): 2018 update. Br J Sports Med. 2018 May
15:bjsports-2018.
115
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.
1. Bennett et al. A randomised controlled trial of movement quality-focused exercise

versus traditional resistance exercise for improving movement quality and physical
performance in trained adults
2. Raya-González et al. Acute Effects of Caffeine Supplementation on Movement Veloc-
ity in Resistance Exercise: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
3. Sinclair et al. Acute effects of knee wraps/sleeve on kinetics, kinematics and muscle
forces during the barbell back squat
4. Vianney et al. Age-related Deficits in Voluntary Activation: A Systematic Review and
Meta-analysis
5. Iellamo et al. Autonomic nervous system responses to strength training in top-level
weight lifters
6. Thamm et al. Can Heart Rate Variability Determine Recovery Following Distinct
Strength Loadings? A Randomized Cross-Over Trial.
7. Tillaar. Comparison of Kinematics and Muscle Activation between Push-up and Bench
Press.
8. Schwingshakl et al. Dietary sugars and cardiometabolic risk factors: a network me-
ta-analysis on isocaloric substitution interventions
9. Elliott and Massey. Effect of acute antagonist static stretching on upper-body agonist
power
10. Wright et al. Effects of Dietary Protein Quantity on Bone Quantity following Weight
Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
11. McBurney et al. Establishing What Constitutes a Healthy Human Gut Microbiome:
State of the Science, Regulatory Considerations, and Future Directions
12. Joyner. Genetic Approaches for Sports Performance: How Far Away Are We?
13. Melby et al. Increasing Energy Flux to Maintain Diet-Induced Weight Loss
14. Kristiansen et al. Inter- and intra-individual variability in the kinematics of the back
squat
15. Mattu et al. Menstrual and oral contraceptive cycle phases do not affect submaximal
and maximal exercise responses
116
16. Lim et al. Resistance Exercise–induced Changes in Muscle Phenotype Are Load De-
pendent
17. Figueiredo. Revisiting the roles of protein synthesis during skeletal muscle hypertro-
phy induced by exercise
18. Kilroe et al. Short-term muscle disuse induces a rapid and sustained decline in daily
myofibrillar protein synthesis rates
19. Ahmad et al. The effect of the artificial sweeteners on glucose metabolism in healthy
adults: a randomized double-blinded crossover clinical trial
20. Ferland et al. The relationship between body composition measured by Dual-Energy
X-ray Absorptiometry (DEXA) and maximal strength in classic powerlifting
21. Owen et al. Which specific modes of exercise training are most effective for treating
low back pain? Network meta-analysis
117
Thanks for
reading MASS.
The next issue will be released to
subscribers on February 1, 2020.
Graphics by Kat Whitfield, and layout design by Lyndsey Nuckols.
118

MASS Volume 4, Issue 1 PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

MASS Volume 4, Issue 1 PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

V O L U ME 4 , ISS U E 1 JANUARY 2 0 2 0

E R IC H E LMS | G R E G N UCK O LS | MIC HAEL ZO URDO S | ERIC T REXL E R

The MASS Team

More Velocity-Based Training Data: Still Encouraging, Though a Bit

Score Another One for Non-Failure Training

Now We Know: Carb Loading Works for Bodybuilding

Four Weeks of Daily Supplementation with a Multi-Ingredient Pre-

Pre-Exhaustion May Not Be the Ticket to Larger Gains

We Out Here Talkin’ About Practice, Man

Is Theacrine the New Caffeine?

Females Fatigue Slower than Males Largely Due to Differences in

VIDEO: All About Plus Sets

VIDEO: Post-Season Nutrition Strategies, Part 1

More Velocity-Based Training Data:

We recently reviewed the first longitudinal study on the effects of velocity-

Exercise Sets x Reps Load

Percentage group: 60% 1RM

Nordic lower 4x6 Body weight

Incline dumbbell bench press 3x8 2 RIR

Barbell bent over row 3x8 1 RIR

Front plank 2 x 60s Body weight

Percentage group: 80% 1RM

SL barbell Romanian deadlift 4x6 2 RIR

Dumbbell push press 3x6 2 RIR

Pull-ups 3x8 1 RIR

Barbell rollout 2 x 10 2 RIR

Effect size: 1.8 ± 0.83

Mean power (W)

Effect size: 0.55 ± 0.65

Percentage-based training Velocity-based training

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

Rugby skills and Rugby skills and

Percentage-based training (n=15) Velocity-based training (n=15)

Sprint time (s)

Score Another One for

No training for at least

Subject characteristics from Lacerda et al. 2019 (1)

uals. Therefore, I would chalk this up Protocol Overview

Performed a few days before (pre-test) and after the 14 weeks of

Performed a few days before (pre-test) and after the 14 weeks of

Max reps at 70% of 1RM on the leg extension. Performed 10

Conducted with an ultrasound at pre- and post-testing. Was

Data from Lacerda et al. 2019 (1)

typical error assessment, which is a way

Individual response (how

Failure 12.68 ± 12.53 Failure = 1

Failure 13.85 ± 8.30 Failure = 1

Failure 14.27 ± 21.11 Failure = 0

Cross-sectional area — rectus femoris

Failure 15.89 ± 11.71 Failure = 3

Cross-sectional area — vastus lateralis

Failure 15.06 ± 14.20 Failure = 0

Now We Know: Carb Loading

Anthropometric, physical activity,

While this may sound like a relatively Hypotheses

Age 26.2 ± 4.9 27.3 ± 5.0

Training experience (years) 8.8 ± 2.8 9.2 ± 2.9

Body fat (%) 6.7 ± 0.7 6.6 ± 0.9

Fat mass (g) 8.4 ± 1.2 8.5 ± 1.0

Fat free mass (g) 72.2 ± 5.5 70.8 ± 7.8

Energy balance (energy

Grams 266.3 ± 51.0 205.8 ± 66.5* 252.4 ± 57.5 46.6 ± 28.4*†

Grams 70.6 ± 15.9 55.6 ± 12.5* 68.1 ± 15.9 56.8 ± 27.9*