ONLINE DRIVERS MEDIA

Its one thing to make strength and mass gains, its a whole different story to make them last - if possible, for the rest of your life! Study suggests: Training intense, may help.

Thank God for the Internet. Otherwise we would hardly be able to get our hands on papers that are written by Iranian scientists and published in the Turkish Journal of Sport and Exercise; and that, my dear (mostly) American friends, would be a real pity!

"Effect of acute detraining following two types of resistance training on strength performance and body composition in trained athletes" - thats the title of a paper that was published late last year but popped up in the major databases, only recently. In spite of the delay, the results Vahid Tadibi and his colleagues from the Razi University, the  University of Kordestan and the Islamic Azad University present in this 5-pages paper are unquestionably well worth being covered.
In view of the limited evidence available for the effect of detraining on strength training with different intensity and volume, Tadibi et al. set out to

"determine the influences of short term detraining after two kinds of resistance training on strength performance and body composition in trained athletes."  (Tadibi. 2013)

To this ends, the Iranian researchers recruited 30 healthy men students recruited from
Razi University of Kermanshah. The subjects were divided into two experimental groups as follows:

• group (I) who performed resistance training with low intensity and high volume (GRI: n=15), weight 73.7±10.3 kg, height 174.5±7.5 m and age 24.7±1.4 years old and 
• group (II) who performed low volume and high intensity (GRII: n=25), weight 63.2±6.2, height 175.8±5.5 and age 25.4±1 (years old). 

The participants attended physical education classes for six weeks/three times a week, with duration of 45-60 min each session. Each training session involved three phases in both groups and lasted 50–60minutes:

• warm up, specific or related training and cool down. 

Warm up and cool down phases were similar in both groups included 7 min running with intensity sufficient to raise breath rate, 3 min stretching training.
The actual intervention, i.e. the specific training part consisted of fast-paced circuit training workouts with 60 to 90 seconds rest between the following exercises:

• Figure 1: Graphical overview of the two training regimen

  bench press, 
• squat, 
• biceps curls, 
• triceps extensions, 
• shoulder press

What? No, I have no idea, if they forgot to list the back exercises, or if the subjects actually didnt do any. What I do know, though is that the

"[s]ubjects performed 12– 15 maximal repetitions/set (55–60% 1RM) in group I, low intensity and high volume (LIHV protocol), and 5 maximal repetitions/set (85–90% 1RM) in the group II, low volume and high intensity (HILV protocol)" (Tadibi. 2013)

In order to establish optimal progression the "1RM was retested in the end of every week so that resistance could be adjusted properly" (Tadibi. 2013).

TRAINING ? DETRAINING ? RESULTS?

Apropos progress, you will probably remember that the actual intention of the researchers was not to compare the muscle and strength gains during the six-week training program, but their persistence. Accordingly, the all-important question was what would happen, when the subjects resumed their normal active, but not necessarily resistance trained lifestyle after a 2-week lay-off of any type of systematic (training stoppage).

Figure 1: Relative changes in max strength (left) and body comp (right) from pre- to post-detraining (Tadibi. 2013)

Well, you can see the results of this type of realistic 6-weeks on 2-weeks of regimen in Figure 1 - a result based on which you should be able to confirm the following conclusions:

• Contrary to what common wisdom would predict, the low intensity, high volume (LIHV) and the high intensity, low volume (HILV) regimen produce statistically identical strength gains over the course of the six-weeks training phased (not shown in Figure 1)
• The gains on the high intensity, low volume (HILV) regimen were - albeit not significantly - but visibly more persistent than those that were brought about by the high volume low intensity regimen.
• The high volume training turned out to have significant fat burning effects of the initially significant relative reduction in body fat % of 18% (from  12.15% to 9.73 in LIHV vs.   11.91% to 10.59% in the HILV group), there were yet only 7% left after 2 weeks of detraining (the BF% went back up from 9.73±3.12% to 11.27±3.37%).

As the researchers point out, this result may look different, if the study population was older or sick. In less-conditioned individuals (Hakkinen. 1994), which is - in my humble opinion - a very important hint for both, the young and old SuppVersity readers, as it confirms (once again), that the optimal training routine is a very individual thing and cannot be cookie cut based on a single study.
References:

• Häkkinen, K. "Neuromuscular adaptation during strength training, aging, detraining, and immobilization." Critical Reviews in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 6 (1994): 161-161.
• Tadibi, Vahid, et al. "Effect of acute detraining following two types of resistance training on strength performance and body composition in trained athletes." (2013).

A personal trainer who knows what hes doing is that he will push you exactly so far as it is necessary to make maximal progress. Interestingly, even the best trainers will fail doing the same for themselves.

The more is better mentality thats so characteristic of our lives in the Western world of affluence is imho the most important obstacle trainees all around the world meet on their way to increased muscle strength, size and performance. Against that background its a pity that the results of a recent study from the School of Kinesiology and Health Studies at the Queen’s University relate to sprint training, only. So, after having a look at Jason G. E. Zelt, I will briefly take a look at similar evidence from the more popular field of "working out to look good naked" and to be as strong as Superman.

But lets not waste any more time and sprint straight to the point! Zelt et al. published the results of the initially mentioned study in the peer-reviewed European Journal of Applied Physiology (Zelt. 2014).
As Zelt et al. point out, the purpose of this study was twofold: (1) to confirm that reductions in SIT work-interval duration do not result in reduced adaptations in aerobic and anaerobic capacity, and (2) to examine the effects of reduced work interval duration on submaximal determinants of exercise performance, namely lactate threshold and critical power.

In accordance with previous studies where aerobic capacity and aerobic performance were measured (Burgomaster. 2008; Hazell. 2010), the scientists hypothesized that reducing SIT work interval duration would have no effect on training-induced increases in lactate threshold and critical power.

Figure 1: Effects of high (SIT30) and lower volume (SIT15) training on power output and lactate threshold (Zelt. 2014)

And indeed, it hadnt. While there was a significant main effectof training on VO2peak such that VO2peak was elevated post-training, no significant difference was observed in the improvements observed between groups (ET ~13 %, SIT 30–4 %, SIT 15–8 %; not shown in Figure 1).

"A significant main effect of training was observed such that lactate threshold and critical power were higher during post-testing across all groups (p  <  0.05). There was a main effect of training (p  <  0.05) on Wingate peak power with no differences observed between groups at post training."

As the researchers point out, these results clearly indicate that "reducing SIT work-interval duration from 30 to 15 s had no impact on training-induced increases in aerobic or anaerobic power, or on increases in lactate threshold (absolute) and critical power."
The initially hinted at question that remains is yet: "Is this true for the more popular training goal of getting strong, ripped and buffed, as well?" The answer to this question is certainly not easy to answer, as it may easily depend on your training status, your exact goals and maybe even the body parts youre training. You dont get it? Well, I guess its best Ill provide you with a few examples:

• Look at his legs, Ronnie Coleman must have done something right... and guess what, the study at hand suggests that part of it could have been his insane training volume.

  the legs of advanced trainees may need a little more hammering -- Maybe you remember this being the take-home message from a previous article, i.e. "Advanced Trainees Benefit from Increased Training Volume! Greater & Steadier Strength Gains with 8 Sets of Squats. Plus: Over 6 Weeks, 1 Set and 4 Sets Equally (In-)Effective." | read more
• the classic single vs. three set debate is still not settled -- While Starky et al.s 1996 study is one of the studies that appears to tip the scale in favor of studies suggests that there is no significant different in the strength and muscle gains in response to increasing the number of sets on a given exercise from one to three sets. Unfortunately, Starky et al. as well as most of their successors picked untrained noobs to test their hypothesis. And we all know: Noobs grow from simply looking at a barbell, right?
  
  So what do other studies say? Studies that used subjects like you and me? People who have been training regularly for ten or more years? People like the fifty-one experienced (>3 years), trained junior lifters who were randomly assigned to low, medium and high volume resistance training in a 2005 study by Juan J. Gonzalez-Badillo et al.
  

  Figure 2: Number of repetitions per week and average intensity (AI) during the 10-week training period in the low-volume (LVG), moderate-volume (MVG), and high-volume (HVG) training groups (left); EEffect size for the snatch, clean & jerk, and squat performances. LVG low volume group; MVG medium volume group; HVG high volume group (Gonzalez-Badillo. 2005)

  As you can see in Figure 2 (right), there is a highly significant advantage of the medium vs. both the low and high volume group who trained at significantly lower, respectively higher volumes (see Figure 2, left) than the guys in the medium volume group for squats and clean & jerks. The snatch, on the other hand, probably because it is the most demanding exercise, technically speaking, benefited from a "little" more volume (~ 100 reps per week).
• the lower the volume, the higher the frequency -- Furthermore, the overview in Table 1, which was originally published as part of a review of the determinants of strength training success by Tan (1999) shows that another volume-related parameter, i.e. the training frequency, figures, as well; with high(er) frequencies producing greater increases in strength gains.

  Table 1: Summary of studies looking into optimal training frequency (Tan. 1999)

  Up to five training sessions for the upper and up to four for the lower body are possible, but whether theyre in fact as productive as the studies Tan cites would suggest appears questionable and will certainly depend on the volume of the individual sessions.
  
  The fact that it seems as if the upper body would respond more favorably to increases in training frequency than the lower body would albeit stand in line with the previously cited beneficial effects of high(er) volume training on the legs.
  
  

  Figure 3: Generally speaking a 2007 review of the literature by Mathias Wernbom et al. supports the notion that legs (in this case the quadriceps) dont just gain the most strength, but also the most size with ~3 training sessions per week; with the one outlier (12x/week) being a low intensity Kaatsu study by Abe et al. (2005)

  Why? Well, the study by Robins et al. conducted in 2012 (learn more) used a high volume on training days, but a necessarily low training frequency (two session per week, A + B). As Tan points out, ...
  

  "[...a]nother point to note from Table 1 is that previously trained athletes are closer to their strength potential and may require higher frequencies compared with untrained athletes" (Tan. 1999)."

  A statement that takes us back to the simple, but significant assessment that we cannot expect to find a training volume thats perfect for everyone: Individualization is key!

As far as the design of specific routines is concerned the previously cited review by Wernborn et al. offers a neat overview of suggested training principles, most of you will be familiar with.

Table 2: Recommendations for dynamic external resistance training for hypertrophy (Wernborn. 2007)

If you take a look at the middle column, you will hopefully realize that the suggested progression from 1-2 sets to 3-6 sets is specified on a "per muscle group" basis. The three biceps exercise with three sets of 8-12 reps, each, are thus off the charts, already; and youd be better off doing three sets of barbell curls and nosebreakers to end up at your maximum of six sets per body part (in this case the "arms") to return to the gym two days later and hammer your arms with three sets of hammer curls and cable press-downs.
References:

• Abe, Takashi, Charles F. Kearns, and Yoshiaki Sato. "Muscle size and strength are increased following walk training with restricted venous blood flow from the leg muscle, Kaatsu-walk training." Journal of Applied Physiology 100.5 (2006): 1460-1466.
• Robbins, Daniel W., Paul WM Marshall, and Megan McEwen. "The effect of training volume on lower-body strength." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 26.1 (2012): 34-39.
• Tan, Benedict. "Manipulating resistance training program variables to optimize maximum strength in men: a review." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 13.3 (1999): 289-304.
• Wernbom, Mathias, Jesper Augustsson, and Roland Thomeé. "The influence of frequency, intensity, volume and mode of strength training on whole muscle cross-sectional area in humans." Sports Medicine 37.3 (2007): 225-264.
• Zelt, Jason GE, et al. "Reducing the volume of sprint interval training does not diminish maximal and submaximal performance gains in healthy men." European journal of applied physiology (2014): 1-10.