ONLINE DRIVERS MEDIA

What now? Wait 3 minutes or off to the bench for an alternate set of bench presses or pulls ?

Traditional strength training with 80% of one-repetition maximum (1RM) utilizes 2- to 5-minute rest periods between sets. These long rest periods minimize decreases in volume and intensity, but result in long workouts. Performing upper-body exercises during lower-body rest intervals may decrease workout duration, but may affect workout performance.

The above is how Anthony B. Ciccone, Lee E. Brown, Jared W. Coburn, Andrew J. Galpin kick off their latest paper in the venerable Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (Publish Ahead of Print).
The purpose of the corresponding study was to compare the effects of traditional to those of alternating whole body strength training on squat performance. To this ends, Ciccone et al. recruites 20 youn men, who had to perform two workouts:

• The traditional set workout (TS) consisted of four sets of squats at 80% of 1RM on a force plate with 3-minutes rest between sets. 
• The alternating set workout (AS) also consisted of four sets of squats at 80% of 1RM but with bench press, and bench pull exercises performed between squat sets 1, 2 & 3 with between-exercise rest of 50 seconds, resulting in approximately 3-minutes rest between squat sets. 

For both workouts, sets 1-3 were performed for four repetitions, while set four was performed to concentric failure. The total number of completed repetitions, the peak ground reaction force (GRF), peak power, (PP), and average power (AP) of every squat repetition were recorded and averaged for each set.

Figure 1: Maximal # of reps on last set and average power in the classic vs. alternating condition (Ciccone. 2014)

Interestingly, there was no significant interaction for GRF, PP, or AP. Only, the volume-equated AP was ca. 5% greater during the TS condition (989 ± 183) than the AS condition (937 ± 176). A more pronounced difference which was yet still within the margin of one standard deviation (in this case 2.2. reps) was observed for the fourth squat set to failure, where the TS condition resulted in 15% more reps to failure (7.5 ± 2.2) than the AS condition (6.5 ± 2.2). Reason enough for Ciccone et al. to suggest that:

1. Individuals who aim to optimize squat AP should refrain from performing more than three AS sets per exercise.
2. Those who aim to maximize squat repetitions to failure should refrain from performing upper body multi-joint exercises during squat rest intervals.

Certainly a sound advice, but in the end, we all live in a world where time is a precious gem and some people give a fuck about average power and the number of reps until they fail.
References:

• Ahtianen, Juha P., et al. "Short vs. long rest period between the sets in hypertrophic resistance training: influence on muscle strength, size, and hormonal adaptations in trained men." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 19.3 (2005): 572-582.
• Ciccone AB, et al. "Effects of Traditional Versus Alternating Whole-body Strength Training on Squat Performance." J Strength Cond Res. (2014) Jun 17. Ahead of print.
• de Salles, Belmiro Freitas, et al. "Rest interval between sets in strength training." Sports Medicine 39.9 (2009): 765-777.

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.

Blueberries and other foods w/ tons of polyphenols are GSH boosters (Moskaug. 2005) and make supplements obsolete.

If you have been interested in dietary supplements for some time, I am pretty sure that you will have heard about oral glutathione ob(GSH) supplements in one of the "snake oil warnings" on various websites. The "master antioxidant" as it is called is after all believed by many to be not bioavailable - at least not orally. Studies in animal models, however, have already shown that oral GSH, administered either in the diet or by gavage, has the ability to increase plasma and tissue GSH levels ( Loven. 1986; Aw. 1991; Favilli. 1997; Kariya. 2007). It would thus be more appropriate to say that the efficacy of oral glutathione in humans has not yet been tested in peer-reviewed studies.
Now, the absence of human studies should definitely ring an alarm bell in the head of every healthily skeptic supplement user, what it should not do, though is mislead you to believe that GSH supplements dont work in human beings.

Now this is where John P. Richie Jr. and his colleagues from the Penn State Cancer Institute, the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at the Penn State University College of Medicine and the Orentreich Foundation for the Advancement of Science, come into play. As the scientist state, their "objective was to determine the long-term effectiveness of oral GSH supplementation on body stores of GSH in healthy adults." (Richie. 2014)
To this end, they conducted a 6-month randomized, double-blinded,placebo-controlled trial in the course of which the subjects, 41 women and 13 men (6 dropouts not included) with a normal BMI and no known health issues, consumed either ...

• an oral GSH supplement dosed at 250mg/day,
• an oral GSH supplement dosed at 1,000mg/day, or
• an identically looking placebo.

The main study outcomes were obviously analyses of the GSH levels in (a) blood, (b) erythrocytes, (c) plasma, (d) lymphocytes and (e) exfoliated buccal mucosal cells (the effects on a battery of immune markers was tested only in a handful of subjects).

Figure 1: Effects of 6 months GSH supplementation on ratio of oxidized to reduced GSH and natural killer cell cytotoxicity in healthy men and women aged 28-72y (Richie. 2014)

As the data in Figure 1 already suggests, there was a dose-dependent increase in GSH levels. With the high dose (1,000mg/day) producing GSH increases of 30–35 % in erythrocytes, plasma and lymphocytes and 260 % in buccal cells (P<0.05) and increases of 17 and 29 % in blood and erythrocytes, respectively, in the low-dose group (P<0.05 - data not shown in Figure 1).

These improvements had beneficial downstream effects on the overall status of the subjects antioxidant defense system. A fact you can conclude based on the decreased ratio of oxidized (used) to reduced (fresh) glutathione in whole blood the scientists observed in their subjects after 6 months. These benefits came hand in hand with an increase in natural killer cytotoxicity (+100%), another potentially highly desirable health benefit.

References:

• Aw, Tak Yee, Grazyna Wierzbicka, and Dean P. Jones. "Oral glutathione increases tissue glutathione in vivo." Chemico-biological interactions 80.1 (1991): 89-97.
• Favilli, Fabio, et al. "Effect of orally administered glutathione on glutathione levels in some organs of rats: role of specific transporters." British journal of nutrition 78.02 (1997): 293-300.
• Kariya, Chirag, et al. "A role for CFTR in the elevation of glutathione levels in the lung by oral glutathione administration." American Journal of Physiology-Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology 37.6 (2007): L1590.
• Loven, Dean, et al. "Effect of insulin and oral glutathione on glutathione levels and superoxide dismutase activities in organs of rats with streptozocin-induced diabetes." Diabetes 35.5 (1986): 503-507.
• Moskaug, Jan Ø., et al. "Polyphenols and glutathione synthesis regulation." The American journal of clinical nutrition 81.1 (2005): 277S-283S.
• Richie Jr, John P., et al. "Randomized controlled trial of oral glutathione supplementation on body stores of glutathione." European journal of nutrition (2014): 1-13.