Tag: program design

Mix Up Your Weights and Reps For Greater Gains

Two things we can conclusively say about the millions of people going to the gym.  First, they all want to make some improvements and get stronger.  Secondly, despite there being enormous amounts of data on what works and what doesn’t, most people (and trainers) are not applying a scientifically supported approach to their program design.  The majority of people are simply doing what other people are telling them to do or following workouts that they find in a magazine or online.  Worse yet to many of the “experts” writing these articles and providing these workouts aren’t spending any time actually reading about what has been proven to work best and are simply going on instinct, what they have been shown by others in the past and following whatever trends are currently popular in the training world.

Now don’t start thinking I hate all trainers and think every popular article ever written is worthless.  There are many great trainers who are well educated and really do care about learning the details behind what we do.  And there are plenty of up and coming trainers who are open to learning more and developing their skills.  It’s just that far too many individuals don’t spend enough time on the why’s behind what we do and when they do take the time to check out something new, they choose material to learn from that is already flawed and not based on science.  Add to that the tremendous numbers of people who think a job in the fitness industry is cool and fun and think that just because they followed some plan that gave them a bigger bench press they are suddenly qualified to teach others and are experts on the topic.  I love Instagram and think there are a lot of great things about it but some twenty year old college sophomore with youth, good genetics, time and the motivation/energy to hit the gym regularly who happens to take fabulous pictures because they look great is not yet qualified to coach and develop programs for the diverse spectrum of actual individuals that are looking for exercise guidance.

Now that I’ve spent two paragraphs griping, let’s do something to contribute to solving the problem and making you more aware of what the research is saying.  One of the challenges we face in evaluating and applying current research is the difference between populations.  Populations can be defined in many ways but for today’s research we are looking at general recreational gym goers.

Most exercise research is done with fairly homogenous subjects, experienced athletes, younger fit subjects closer to college age or older individuals.  Rarely does the research population look like the average cross section of the typical gym.  The average man or women who goes to the gym a few times a week, can lift with a fair amount of effort, has a basic level of fitness but isn’t following a super structured program designed to maximize specific training objectives.  This isn’t a high level athlete, power-lifter, crossfitter or Olympic lifter but someone who represents that majority of whom you see in the gym or who hires a personal trainer.

If we embrace our original premise that most of these subjects would like to get stronger we have to ask the question, what type of program design will do the best job of increasing strength?  It has been well demonstrated that long term periodized resistance training programs are successful.  The problem is most people do not have the long term perspective and discipline to follow a detailed year long, carefully designed program.  Most people want and need to see some changes in a shorter time period.  They also need a little flexibility to deal with the realities of actual life.   In addition they don’t have the benefit of having someone knowledgeable to design a long term program.

Traditionally the two variables we are manipulating the most in a program design are 1) intensity which usually refers to  load or the amount of weight lifted and 2) volume which refers to either the number of repetitions lifted or the total poundage lifted (total work), and often a combination of the two.  While the research has shown the long term benefits of periodization there is still debate as to which program design variations work best in the short term (6-12 weeks).  There are conflicting research findings and even then most of the research is done in the more homogeneous populations we already mentioned.  So what happens when we look at different ways of manipulating the training variables of intensity and volume in our average recreational training population?  Or in basic English, what combination of weights and repetitions will get the average person the strongest the fastest?

The Study

Two hundred subjects were broken down into four groups of 50.  Each group worked out 3 times per week for 6 weeks.  Each workout consisted of 8 exercises, each performed for 3 sets with 6o seconds of rest between sets.  What varied between the four groups were the resistance they used and the number of repetitions.

Group 1 used a constant load model.  They did 10 repetitions with 80% of their 1 rep maximum (RM) for all 18 workouts over the 6 six weeks.

Group 2 used an increasing load model.  The first two weeks they did 15 reps with 70% of their 1RM. In weeks 3 and 4 they did 10 reps with 80% of their 1RM.  For the last two weeks they did 5 reps with 90% of their 1RM.  In essence they regularly increased the weight and lowered their repetition count every two weeks.

Group 3 used a decreasing load model.  They began with 5 reps with 90% of 1RM.  In week three they switched to 10 reps with 80% of 1RM and for weeks 5 and 6 did 15 reps with 70% of 1RM.  Essentially the exact opposite of the increasing load model.

Group 4 had a daily changing load model where the weight and number of repetition changed every set.  In week one they did 15 reps with 70% 1RM for the first set, 10 reps with 80% of 1RM for the second set and 5 reps with 90% of 1RM for the third set.  They followed this pattern in weeks 3 and 5 as well.  For weeks 2, 4 and 6 they reversed the daily pattern and did 5 reps with 90% of 1RM for their first set, 10 reps with 80% of their 1RM for their second set and 15 reps with 70% of their 1RM for the third set.

Before the training program initiated and at the conclusion the subjects were tested on their 1 repetition maximum as well as their 10 repetition maximum.  All four groups saw increases in their strength over the 6 week period for both their 1RM and their 10RM.  What was most interesting is that there was no notable difference in improvements between the first three groups; constant load, increasing load and decreasing load.  There was a significant difference between group four, the daily changing load and the other three approaches.  In both the 1RM and 10RM the daily changing load group saw significantly larger increases in strength then the other groups.

Putting It All Together

While all four training approaches successfully increased strength, it was clear that a daily changing load approach resulted in the greatest strength gains over the short term for our advanced recreational training population.  Remember that populations matter so while this group clearly shows a benefit from using the daily changing approach we cannot say that the same method is optimal for advanced lifters and strength athletes.  Yes we all like to think we are above average and advanced lifters, the reality is most people, including most personal training clients, are not so giving this approach a try makes a lot of sense.

There is also a question of time.  This study was done over 6 weeks.  We cannot say what would happen if we looked at the results of a similar study done over an entire year where the 1RM and in turn the adjusted percentage of 1RM was modified for all groups as the study went on.  After seeing the significantly larger changes in the daily adjusted group it would make sense that the same group would benefit over the longer run but it may not.  The hypertrophy (muscle growth) impacts that can happen with longer training periods could alter the final result, though it could also increase the benefit of daily adjustments as well.

We cannot say for sure why the daily adjusted group saw such significant improvements over the other three approaches.  The authors theorize that the constant changes in intensity and volume could prevent any sort of habituation from occurring.  The regular changes could be placing a greater stress on the neuromuscular system generating the larger gains.

It is also possible that the difference is based on the concept of having motor units with different thresholds to firing.  The constant changes might not allow the neuromuscular system to become adjusted to a particular set of demands.  More fatigue may be produced in a larger number and variety of motor units forcing the neuromuscular system to recruit additional high-threshold units.  The daily changing load subjects may become more efficient at recruiting the high-threshold units which assists them in producing more force and experiencing greater gains.

So there you have it.  If you want to see greater gains over your next short term block of training time consider adopting a training plan that varies the weight and repetition range throughout the different sets of each exercise.

Eifler, C. (2016) Short-Term Effects of Different Loading Schemes in Fitness-Related Resistance Training.  Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.  30(7):1880-1889

How Long To Rest Between Sets?

How long to rest between sets?  It’s a question every new lifter asks, and an issue that experienced lifters are constantly trying to manipulate to maximize their results.  If you walk into a gym that houses serious strength athletes you might see them take 5-10 minutes between their peak training sets.  Once you start doing the math and realize how long you will be in the gym if you are taking five or more minutes between sets it creates a long enough workout that it becomes demotivating.  Most people just don’t have two hours to spend on their daily workout.

In the average commercial gym where most people are concerned with how they look in addition to getting stronger we see rest times that vary from less than a minutes to a few minutes.  Often the driving factor is if someone is working out alone or socializing with others.

There is a general gym belief that when you are training for hypertrophy (increased muscle size) then rest periods of around a minute are optimal.  If you are training for peak strength development then approximately 3 minutes tends to be the most common advice.  Those trying to maximize calorie burn are keeping their rest periods to below a minute.

So what is the right answer?  Should you be jumping right to your next set or sitting back and watching the minutes go by?  In a 2016 study Schoenfeld et al. attempted to help answer this question by looking at changes in strength and size when subjects used either a 1 minute or a 3 minute rest period.  Test subjects were broken into two groups and with the exception of their rest period did the exact same workout, 3 times a week for 8 weeks.  Each workout consisted of 7 exercises, each done for 3 sets of 8-12 repetitions.  The subjects were tested for maximum strength with their 1 repetition maximum for the bench press and back squat.  Muscle endurance was tested with a bench press done at 50% of the 1RM done to failure.  Muscle growth was measured utilizing ultrasound at the elbow flexors (biceps and brachialis), triceps and quadriceps.

All of the subjects were injury and drug free men ages 18-35 with at least 6 months experience lifting weights.  This ensured that any gains were not the result of early neurologic adaptations to beginning a training program.  The subjects were pair matched to ensure that there were similar subjects in each experimental group.

The training programs consisted of barbell back squats, plate loaded leg press, leg extension, flat barbell bench press, seated barbell military press, wide grip pulldowns and seated cable rows.  During each set of 8-12 repetitions the subjects trained to momentary muscular failure and the weight was adjusted between sets to keep the subjects achieving failure in the designated repetition range.  There was an attempt to consistently raise the weight as subjects were able to.  This selection of exercises and approach towards managing loads is very similar to what is commonly seen in many fitness settings.

The Results

There was clearly a winner when it came to strength improvements.  In the back squat both the long rest period (3 min) subjects and the short rest period (1 min) subjects saw statistically significant improvements, however the long group had a 15.2% improvement and the short group had a 7.6% change.  For the bench press the long group increased 12.7% while the short group only improved 4.1%.

When it came to the the 50% bench press test for muscular endurance both groups saw significant improvements though we again see the long group outpacing the short group with a 23.2% change as opposed to a 13% improvement.

While the existing common recommendations for muscle growth are around the 1 minute period, the results of this study suggest just the opposite.  For the elbow flexors the long group had a 5.4% improvement and the short group had a 2.8% change.  When it came to the triceps the difference between groups was even more notable.  The long group improved by 7% while the short group only saw changes of 0.5%.  In the anterior quadriceps the pattern continued with the long group seeing a 13.3% change while the short group had a 6.9% improvement.  For the vastus lateralis the long group changed 11.5% and the short group 10%.

While it was expected that we would see strength improvements that clearly favored the longer rest periods it was surprising to see that muscle growth also favored the longer rest.

One notable aspect of the research design that has also popped up in other studies is that the subjects performed their exercises to momentary muscular failure on all of their working sets.  There seems to be a trend within the research that when sets are taken to failure, more significant outcomes are seen.  Now don’t go rushing back to the gym and swear that every set needs to be done this way.  This isn’t a topic that has been closely studied, it is just an observation that some researchers and I have made.  In studies where the volume of work is more closely controlled to match up different experimental groups it often means certain subjects are not training to failure and when those studies are compared to ones where subjects are training to failure often differences are seen.

This dovetails with the question of training volumes.  In this study the subjects in the longer rest group recovered more and as a result were able to lift with more total volume then the shorter rest subjects.  To what extent this extra volume that the longer group was able to lift drove their greater levels of improvement is an important question to ask.  Other studies have also raised similar questions, if variables such as training to failure or more sets which produced more volume lifted drove the results or if there was another factor responsible for the differences seen.

This study was done in younger men, aged 18-35.  We cannot say for sure if the same results would be seen in women or what differences we would encounter with older subjects.  Often younger men respond differently then 40 or 50+ individuals.

The Take Away

So what lessons can we take away from this study?  First, if you are looking for a very straight forward strength training plan that can produce results the workout used in this research is a great model to follow.  The researchers did a nice job of choosing a program that is similar to what you would see in today’s gym settings for the average person looking to gain strength and size.  Yes we can change a few things around, I would.  It’s not perfect but it is a good model to think about.

Secondly, if you want to maximize the development of strength or size it may be time to stop following the high intensity model of high volume/low rest metabolic workouts that have become popular over the past few years.  Those workouts are still great and have a place in many programs but you have to think about what your training objective is.  If it is to improve anerobic work capacity and maximize calorie burn they may be the perfect choice.  If you are focused on maximizing strength or size gains you might want to slow down and take more rest between sets.

Should you take a full three minutes rest between all of your sets from now on?  Possibly but that creates a long workout and the reality is most people don’t have that much time to spend in the gym.  It is perfectly fine to shorten the rest time during your warm up sets.  Researchers have not reached any conclusion on the ideal rest period and other studies have found positive results at 2 minutes.  If you want to maximize your results but speed things up 2 minutes is probably fine for the average person.  Those at more elite levels should consider going a little longer.  And remember there were still positive improvements with subjects who utilized the 1 minute rest period.  The results may not be as great within an 8 week period but when you balance time demands into the equation it may be perfectly fine to stick with the shorter rest periods.  I would rather have someone come into the gym and rest for a minute or less between sets and get a good workout in then have them not workout at all because they didn’t have the time available to maximize their rest periods.

You can also consider utilizing the rest periods in a productive way.  No one says you have to sit around for 2-3 minutes between sets.  The trick is to make sure you are not loading the muscle groups that you are training.  While most people tend to not think about it, you also need to consider the impact on your nervous system of what you are doing.  If you are training legs that day, yes doing some sets of arms in-between does allow your legs muscles to rest but the nervous system is still being loaded and contributing to the buildup of fatigue. Don’t just think that training an unrelated body part means you are getting your optimal rest.  The nervous system is a key component to your training and any fatigue you put into it has to be considered.

If you are doing some sort of training split where you are not training your entire body that day you can consider doing some mobility exercises in-between sets that focus on the body parts you are not training that day.  Most of us can benefit from more flexibility and this approach ensures this important aspect of self care is not ignored as it often is.  Let’s face it, mobility work is the most commonly skipped part of a workout program and if you plan for it to be done during the workout between lifting sets you are far more likely to consistently get it done.

If you are doing a full body workout I suggest you focus on a specific movement pattern/body part first so as you move on through the workout you can then utilize the rest periods to do your stretching for the parts of the body you focused on in the prior training block.

There you go.  Time to rethink how long you are resting between sets and how you are utilizing those seconds.  There is no perfect answer yet but there are better answers.  Let your training objectives drive your decisions and most importantly, keep lifting.

Schoenfeld, B., Pope, Z., Benik, F., Hester, G., Sellers, J., Nooner, J., Schnaiter, J., Bond-Williams, K., Carter, A., Ross, C., Just, B., Henselmans, M. and Krieger, J.  (2016) Longer Interset Rest Periods Enhance Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy In Resistance-Trained Men. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 30:7: 1805-1812.