V O L U ME 3 , ISS U E 1 JANUARY 2 0 1 9

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 NUC KOLS | MIC HAEL ZO URDO S

 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 is currently enrolled in the exercise science M.A. program at 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.

2
 Letter from
the Reviewers

H
appy New Year! It is our honor to kick off 2019 with what we believe is one of our best
issues to date.
To start the year, Eric has a couple of unique qualitative articles. One of these arti-
cles details the mindset of Olympic and Paralympic champions. We think you’ll enjoy this as it’s
always fascinating to learn how the best in the world approach their craft. For his other written
piece, Eric has dissected a study that examines the peak week practices of natural physique ath-
letes. In the interpretation of this article, Eric details if what is actually done is supported by the
available scientific evidence.
Greg’s trio of written articles are all unique to the scientific literature. Two of these articles focus
on nutrition. These nutrition articles cover if the herb rhodiola is capable of improving anaerobic
performance and if protein requirements are indeed similar between men and women. Addition-
ally, safety bar squats have garnered little attention in the scientific literature, but thankfully, a
study was just published on the topic. Greg breaks down these results, which compared muscle
activation during safety bar squats with regular barbell squats.
Mike has tackled the first ever study on postactivation potentiation and lifting performance.
If you’re unfamiliar with the topic, it’s a cool read, as this is essentially a warm-up strategy that
has improved jumping and sprinting performance in previous research but has not yet been ex-
amined in relation to lifting performance. Mike’s written content is rounded out by examining a
cross-sectional study that attempted to explain when during a training career neuromuscular and
morphological adaptations to muscle drive strength changes.
In the video content, Eric provides some insight into nutrition for the aging lifter, which is a
needed addition to our previous content on training for the aging lifter. Mike examines some
unique training strategies that may be considered during a powerlifting meet week in his video.
As always, please do not hesitate to touch base in the Facebook group with any questions or
discussion. If you are new to MASS, the Facebook group suggestions often influence our video
content, so we welcome the feedback. Also, don’t forget to give the audio roundtables a listen.
Thank you for reading and listening to the first issue in Volume 3. We are committed to making
2019 the best year of MASS yet and plan to be here for many years to come.

The MASS Team

Eric, Greg, and Mike

3
 Table of Contents

6
BY G R EG NUCKOL S

There’s Finally Research on Safety Bar Squats

A lot of people have asked me to review the research on safety bar squats. There
was just one problem: there wasn’t any. That’s changed over the past couple of
months.

16
BY M I CHAEL C. ZOUR DOS

What is Postactivation Potentiation, and Does it Work for Lifting?

Postactivation potentiation exercise is usually applied by performing a heavy
back squat about 10 minutes prior to jumping or sprinting to improve explosive
performance. This article covers the first study looking at the ability of heavy squats
to improve squat repetition performance five minutes later.

26
BY E RI C HEL MS

The Science of Peaking

Bodybuilding “peak weeks” are often inspired by scientific principles, but actual
journal articles on the peaking process are few and far between. In this study, a
large number of natural physique competitors were surveyed about peak week
practices, and the scientific theories behind their practices were explored in
depth.

38
BY G R EG NUCKOL S

Protein Needs are Similar for Men and Women

The majority of the research analyzing acute protein needs has been performed
on male subjects, leading female strength athletes to wonder if the typical
recommendations are appropriate for them. A recent study found that the protein
needs of female athletes are basically the same as those of male athletes.

4
48
BY M I CHAEL C. ZOUR DOS

Different Factors Drive Strength at Different Times

Why exactly does strength increase? There are many factors that drive strength
gains, but neuromuscular and hypertrophy adaptations are two prominent factors.
However, even though they both play a role, each takes a primary role at different
points in a training career.

61
BY E RI C HEL MS

The Mindset of World Champions

We often focus on the quantitative science behind sport to improve performance,
since it’s tangible. However, world champions believe their success is primarily
due to the intangibles: their outlook and mindset.

71
BY G R EG NUCKOL S

Does a Popular “Adaptogen” Increase Anaerobic Performance as Much

as Caffeine?
Rhodiola rosea is a popular supplement, touted for its ability to decrease
perceptions of fatigue. A new study found that it also improves anaerobic exercise
performance, which may make it useful for lifters.

81
BY M I CHAEL C. ZOUR DOS

VIDEO: Training During Meet Week

The goal during the week of a powerlifting meet is usually to not mess things
up. But, what if you could still get stronger during the week? One strategy is to
“train into a meet” instead of fully tapering. This video will examine that concept
and some other nuances of structuring training during the week of a powerlifting
competition.

83
BY E RI C HEL MS

VIDEO: Nutrition for the Aging Lifter

Mike covered training and the aging process in his two-part series in Volume 2
Issues 5 and 6, and in this video, Eric goes over the nutrition-specific changes
that occur due to age, and what lifters can do about them.

5
 Study Reviewed: Effects of the Safety Squat Bar on Trunk and Lower-Body
Mechanics During a Back Squat. Hecker et al. (2018)

There’s Finally Research on

Safety Bar Squats
BY G RE G NUC KO LS

A lot of people have asked me to review the research on safety bar

squats. There was just one problem: there wasn’t any. That’s changed
over the past couple of months.

Photo used wth permission from EliteFTS

6
 KEY POINTS
1. In this study, competitive powerlifters squatted about 11% less for a 3RM with a
safety bar than with a barbell.
2. The safety bar led to a more upright torso position and increased lower trap
activation (assessed via EMG). It decreased activation in the vastus lateralis, the
hamstrings, and the abdominals.
3. In spite of the lower EMG readings in this study, a recent longitudinal study found
similar adaptations with barbell and safety bar squats. So, if you’re not specifically
training for a powerlifting meet, you’re probably not missing out on much if you
just use the bar you prefer.

S
afety bar squats were first popular- upright torso position, but the barbell
ized by Fred Hatfield in the ’80s, squat allowed for a higher 3RM and
and they grew in popularity in the elicited greater EMG readings in the
late ’90s and early 2000s on the back of vastus lateralis, the hamstrings, and the
Louie Simmons’ endorsement. While abdominals.
they’ve been popular in the gym for over
two decades now, safety bars have flown
under the scientific radar. They’re so un- Purpose and Research
known in the scientific literature that the
presently reviewed study (1) had to cite
Questions
a T-Nation article for anecdotal support
Purpose
of the safety bar’s popularity and effects.
The purpose of this study was to com-
However, the safety bar is finally get-
pare strength, muscle activation, and
ting some attention. In the present study,
joint ranges of motion in the safety bar
researchers had competitive powerlifters
squat and the barbell back squat.
test their 3RM squat with a barbell and
a safety bar. Then the researchers as-
Hypotheses
sessed differences in kinematics (joint
ranges of motion and body positioning) The researchers hypothesized that:
and EMG (as a proxy for muscle acti- 1. 3RM strength would be lower in
vation) between the two lifts while the the safety bar squat.
lifters performed reps at 75% of their 2. EMG of the upper- and mid-back
3RM. Squatting with the safety bar led muscles would be higher in the
to greater lower trap EMG and a more safety bar squat.

7
Table 1 Subject characteristics
Sex Age (years) Body mass (kg)
8 males
31.5 ± 6.3 88.1 ± 20.7
4 females
3. There would be no differences in
lower extremity muscle activation
or ranges of motion.
4. The safety bar squat would allow for
a more upright torso when squat-
ting.
Subjects and Methods
Subjects
The subjects were 12 competitive pow-
erlifters (eight men and four women)
who had at least some prior experience
with the safety bar squat. Further details
about the subjects can be seen in Table
1.
Methods
This study took place over three ses-
sions, with at least one week between
sessions. In the first two sessions, sub-
jects worked up to a 3RM on either
the barbell back squat or the safety bar
squat. In the third session, subjects per-
formed 3 sets of 5 repetitions with 75%
of their 3RM using both squat styles.
The subjects were allowed to self-select
their stance width, but were required to
use the same width for both squat styles.
Competitive lifting
Height (cm)
experience (years)
1.64 ± 1.0 3.3 ± 2.8
All reps had to be performed to legal
powerlifting depth. During the safety
bar squats, the subjects were told to not
press upward on the handles of the safety
squat bar. All reps were performed with
EMG electrodes on the upper, middle,
and lower traps, the spinal erectors, the
lats, the rectus abdominis, the obliques,
the medial and lateral hamstrings, the
vastus lateralis and medialis, the rectus
femoris, the medial gastrocnemius, and
the glutes. The subjects were also outfit-
ted with reflective markers for kinematic
analysis. The authors reported integrat-
ed EMG and peak kinematic measure-
ments.
Findings
The subjects squatted 11.3% more with
the barbell than the safety squat bar,
on average. Rectus abdominis, medial
and lateral hamstrings, vastus lateralis,
upper trap, and medial gastrocnemius
EMG were significantly greater during
the barbell squat. On the other hand,
lower trap activation was significantly
greater during the safety bar squat. Peak
hip flexion, ankle dorsiflexion, forward
knee travel, and forward lean were sig-
nificantly greater with the barbell squat.
8
 Figure 1 Scaled lower body EMG for safety bar and barbell squats

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
Glutes Lateral Medial Vastus lateralis Vastus medialis Rectus femoris Medial
hamstrings hamstrings gastrocnemius
Safety bar Barbell
* = significant (p < 0.05) difference between bars

There were no significant differences in

glute, vastus medialis, rectus femoris, Interpretation
spinal erector, lat, middle trap, or oblique There were a couple of things that in-
EMG. There also wasn’t a significant terested me about these results. The fact
difference in peak knee flexion. that the safety bar led to lower rectus ab-
For the graphical representations of dominis and upper trap EMG readings
the results, I’ve scaled all of the vari- surprised me; assuming EMG is at all
ables based on the higher value in each associated with how you feel after train-
between-condition comparison so that ing, I would have expected higher ab-
each graph will be readable. For exam- dominal and upper trap EMG with the
ple, the integrated EMG values for the safety bar. If I’ve only been back squat-
trunk muscles went as high as 720µV ting for several months, my upper traps
and as low as 44µV, which don’t play and abs are always wrecked the day after
well together on the same graph. With a session of safety bar squats.
scaling, the highest value for each com- I was also surprised that EMG for the
parison is 1, and the lowest value for any leg and thigh musculature was so much
comparison is 0.54. lower during safety bar squats. At first,
this may sound logical: Absolute loading
was lower with the safety squat bar, so

9
 Figure 2 Scaled trunk EMG for safety bar and barbell squats
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Spinal erectors Lats
* = significant (p < 0.05) difference between bars
absolute EMG readings should be low-
er as well. However, the average loads
used were 109.8kg for safety bar squats
and 123kg for barbell squats. The aver-
age subject weighed 88.1kg, and when
you squat, you’re also moving your body
mass. Thus, the total load difference was
something like 197.8 vs. 211.1 kg (I rec-
ognize I’d need to make some adjust-
ments for segmental masses to be com-
pletely accurate, but you get the point).
This means that the difference in total
load was only about 6.3%, not 11.3%.
However, the mean EMG differences
for the hamstrings and the vastus later-
alis were 10.2-20.6%, which are larger
than would be expected based solely on
differences in loading. We also have a
couple of studies comparing back squats
Upper traps Middle traps Lower traps Rectus abdominus External obliques
Safety bar Barbell
and front squats, finding that the low-
er body EMG differences between back
and front squats (which also have clear
differences in external loading) are ei-
ther small (2) or nonexistent (3, 4). So,
I wonder if the EMG differences in this
study may be partially attributable to dif-
ferences in comfort and technical profi-
ciency with the two bars. As you learn
a new exercise, EMG tends to increase
as muscle coordination improves and in-
hibitory feedback decreases (see Mike’s
article on that subject in this month’s
issue), and the difference in 3RMs sug-
gests to me that at least some of the sub-
jects weren’t incredibly experienced with
safety bar squats. I would have expected
a difference of ~5%, rather than ~11%,
if the lifters were truly proficient with
10
Table 2 Joint angles of trunk and lower extremity, mean ±

Peak shank angle

Safety bar 114.0 ± 9.4 (108.0-119.9) -108.0 ± 10.2 (-114.5 to 101.6) 19.7 ± 6.8 (15.3-24) -24.1 ± 6.1 (-28.2 to 20.1) -41.6 ± 6.5 (-45.7 to 37.5)

Barbell 119.7 ± 11.2† (112.6-126.8) -107.7 ± 11.9 (-115.3 to 100.1) 20.6 ± 6.8† (16.2-24.9) -25.4 ± 6.8† (-29.7 to 21.1) -48.9 ± 9.0† (-54.6 to 43.2)

† = Significantly (p < 0.05) greater than the safety bar

safety bar squats. The authors also report to disagree. A study from Meldrum
a range of 2.4-18.9% differences in safe- and DeBeliso published a few months
ty bar and barbell 3RMs. I feel confident ago examines training adaptations after
saying that people who are truly profi- nine weeks of squatting with a barbell
cient with a safety bar don’t squat almost or safety squat bar (5). The study was
20% less with a safety bar than a bar- performed on baseball players, and it ex-
bell. The researchers only excluded peo- amined changes in squat strength (the
ple based on having no experience with safety bar group only tested strength
safety bar squats, so I think it’s plausible with the safety bar pre- and post-, and
that some of the EMG findings could the barbell group only tested strength
be attributable to differences in experi- with the barbell pre- and post-), vertical
ence and proficiency with the two bars. jump, and 60-yard sprint. I didn’t review
The fact that the safety bar also led to this study for MASS because group
lower abdominal EMG also suggests to allocation wasn’t random, so it can’t
me that the lifters may have been brac- be used to draw causal inferences (the
ing less effectively during the safety bar pitchers squatted with a safety squat bar,
squats, which would support the idea and the non-pitchers used a barbell),
that at least some of the subjects just but the study was otherwise well-done,
weren’t very experienced with safety bar and the two groups didn’t differ in any
squats. major way pre-training. Both groups in-
With any acute study, a reasonable creased vertical jump height to a similar
follow-up question is “does any of this degree (+1.9cm for the barbell group,
actually matter for long-term training and +2.9cm for the safety bar group),
adaptations?” The authors of this study both groups had small, non-signifi-
suggest that, due to the decreased EMG cant decreases in 60-yard sprint times
of the quads, hamstrings, and abdomi- (-0.07 seconds for the barbell group,
nals, “squats with the safety squat bar -0.08 seconds for the safety bar group),
may be less effective than squats with a and both groups had large increases in
standard barbell for increasing lower-ex- squat strength with the bar they used for
tremity strength.” However, I’m inclined training (+29.9kg for the barbell group,
+40.3kg for the safety bar group). In fact,

11
Table 3 Longitudinal changes, from Meldrum and DeBeliso (5)
Vertical jump
Safety bar squats +2.9cm
Barbell squats +1.9cm
*1RM with the bar used for training
strength increased significantly more in
the safety bar group, but they were also a
bit weaker to start with, so that’s proba-
bly not worth getting hung up on (and a
great proportion of their strength gains
may have been due to learning effects, if
the other group was more experienced
with barbell squats than they were with
safety bar squats).
This makes me more confident that
long-term adaptations probably don’t
differ very much between barbell and
safety bar squats, in spite of the acute
EMG differences observed in the pres-
ent study. In defense of Hecker et al (1),
I’m almost positive that this longitudi-
nal study by Meldrum and DeBeliso was
published after they’d already submitted
the present study for publication.
One set of findings that needs further
explanation is that there was virtually no
difference between groups in forward
knee travel (shank angle and peak dor-
siflexion were significantly different be-
tween groups, but they only differed by
0.9-1.3 degrees), and peak knee flexion
was the same, but peak hip flexion and
60-yard sprint Squat 1RM*
-0.08s +40.3kg
-0.07s +29.9kg
forward lean were lower with the safety
bar. If you’ve got a decent innate grasp
of geometry, you’d realize that this set of
findings would be virtually impossible
with barbell squats, assuming bar po-
sition didn’t change. Being significant-
ly more upright with the same amount
of dorsiflexion and knee flexion would
shift your center of mass backward, be-
yond your base of support. However, a
safety bar shifts the system’s center of
mass forward, all else being equal, allow-
ing a more upright posture without also
requiring more forward knee travel.
One argument put forth by the au-
thors of this study was that, since safety
bar squats allow you to maintain a more
upright posture, they’re potentially safer
for the lower back. However, I’m skep-
tical of that argument. If the position of
the barbell’s center of mass is unchanged,
then yes, a more upright squat may place
less stress on your lower back. However,
since the safety squat bar shifts the bar’s
center of mass forward, I think forces on
the spine would be quite similar to those
during a barbell squat. In other words,
12
if you weren’t more upright, the safety
squat bar would potentially lead to larger
forces on the spine. Furthermore, a hefty
portion of the force your spine “feels”
during exercise isn’t directly attributable
to external loading. Rather, it’s a result
of the contraction of the muscles sur-
rounding the spine. In this study, spinal
erector EMG was the same for both
squat styles, which suggests that forces
on the spine are similar. Now, it’s possi-
ble that safety bar squats may be safer if
they lead to less lumbar flexion (which is
entirely possible, since they require less
hip flexion, on average), but that wasn’t
assessed in this study. I’ve heard anec-
dotal reports that safety bar squats feel
better for some people with back issues,
and I’ve also heard anecdotal reports
that they bother some people more than
barbell squats. I think it’s plausible that
safety bar squats alter the mechanics of
the movement enough that they affect
the spine differently (sometimes for
the better, sometimes for the worse) for
some people, but my assumption is that
they’re not inherently better for spinal
health.
Ultimately, I think the main benefit of
safety bar squats is that they can allow
people with upper body injuries or mo-
bility restrictions to squat without issue.
A secondary benefit is that they may do
a better job building upper back strength
than barbell squats. I don’t think they’re
necessarily better or worse than barbell
squats, and in fact, I think both styles are
I THINK THE MAIN BENEFIT OF
SAFETY BAR SQUATS IS THAT
THEY CAN ALLOW PEOPLE
WITH UPPER BODY INJURIES
OR MOBILITY RESTRICTIONS
TO SQUAT WITHOUT ISSUE.
similar enough to be interchangeable in
most contexts. If you’re a powerlifter,
you’ll obviously benefit from doing at
least some of your training with a bar-
bell so you’re prepared for the platform,
but for simply developing lower body
strength, I doubt there’s much of a dif-
ference between barbell squats and safe-
ty bar squats. Feel free to use whichever
bar is most comfortable for you.
Next Steps
I’d like to see a longitudinal study sim-
ilar to the one performed on baseball
players, with the addition of random
group allocation. Ideally, it would also
assess hypertrophy. I’d also be interest-
ed in research into the effects of safety
bar versus barbell squats on long-term
bench press strength gains. Since safe-
ty bar squats should lead to less wrist,
elbow, and shoulder stress (especially
13
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
If you’re a powerlifter, you obviously need to squat with a barbell often enough to hone
your skills with your competition lift. However, safety bar squats seem to be a perfectly
fine squat variation for powerlifters and a perfectly fine alternative for anyone else who
just prefers squatting with a safety bar.

compared to low-bar squats), they may

indirectly aid upper body training. I’d
also be interested to see research on oth-
er specialty bars.

14
References
1. Hecker KA, Carlson LA, Lawrence MA. Effects of the Safety Squat Bar on Trunk and Lower-Body
Mechanics During a Back Squat. J Strength Cond Res. 2018 Oct 22.
2. Yavuz HU, Erdağ D, Amca AM, Aritan S. Kinematic and EMG activities during front and back
squat variations in maximum loads. J Sports Sci. 2015;33(10):1058-66.
3. Gullett JC, Tillman MD, Gutierrez GM, Chow JW. A biomechanical comparison of back and front
squats in healthy trained individuals. J Strength Cond Res. 2009 Jan;23(1):284-92.
4. Contreras B, Vigotsky AD, Schoenfeld BJ, Beardsley C, Cronin J. A Comparison of Gluteus Max-
imus, Biceps Femoris, and Vastus Lateralis Electromyography Amplitude in the Parallel, Full, and
Front Squat Variations in Resistance-Trained Females. J Appl Biomech. 2016 Feb;32(1):16-22.
5. Meldrum R, DeBeliso M. A Comparison of Back Squat & Safety Squat Bar on Measures of
Strength, Speed, and Power in NCAA Division I Baseball Players. International Journal of Sport
Science. 2018; 8(5): 137-144.

15
 Study Reviewed: Postactivation Potentiation Improves Acute Resistance Exercise
Performance and Muscular Force in Trained Men. Conrado de Freitas et al. (2018)

What is Postactivation Potentiation,

and Does it Work for Lifting?
BY MIC HAE L C . ZO URD O S

Postactivation potentiation exercise is usually applied by performing a

heavy back squat about 10 minutes prior to jumping or sprinting to improve
explosive performance. This article covers the first study looking at the ability
of heavy squats to improve squat repetition performance five minutes later.

16
 KEY POINTS
1. This paper investigated if postactivation potentiation (PAP) exercise could improve
both squat repetition performance and maximal isometric quadriceps strength in
trained men.
2. Subjects performed 4 sets of max reps at 70% both without any prior squatting
and after performing 1 set of 2 reps at 90% of 1RM (i.e. the PAP exercise). Subjects
also tested maximal isometric quadriceps strength with and without performing
the PAP exercise.
3. PAP improved both squat repetition performance and isometric quadriceps
strength. In fact, the results were quite impressive, as quad strength increased
9.8% with PAP and squat reps improved by 6.5 reps on average, or 29.5%. In brief,
performing a heavy back squat prior to volume sets improved volume capability.

W
e’re always looking for quick
and practical ways to improve
acute performance. For ex-
ample, caffeine has this effect, as does
dynamic stretching. In the context of
sports performance, performing a few
sets of heavy back squats (i.e. singles
at 80-90%) about 10 minutes prior to
jumping or sprinting increases perfor-
mance. This phenomenon is known as
postactivation potentiation (PAP) (2).
However, no study has yet examined
if squatting heavy can acutely increase
squatting performance. Essentially, can
warming up to a load heavier than your
working sets improve performance on
the working sets? This study (1) tested if
performing 1 set of 2 repetitions at 90%
of one-repetition maximum (1RM) on
the squat, as the PAP exercise, could po-
tentiate (i.e. improve) repetition perfor-
mance during 4 sets at 70% of 1RM on
the squat or improve maximal isomet-
ric contraction of the quadriceps (i.e. an
isometric knee extension on the dyna-
mometer) performed five minutes later.
Ten trained men completed four condi-
tions in a randomized order: 1) squats
with PAP first, 2) squats without PAP, 3)
quadriceps isometric strength with PAP
first, 4) quadriceps isometric strength
without PAP. The results showed that
both squat repetition performance and
isometric strength were significantly
higher following PAP. More specifically,
over all four squat sets at 70%, subjects
performed 56.20 ± 17.30 reps in the
PAP condition versus 48.80 ± 14.5 reps
in the no-PAP condition. The greater
reps performed with PAP were driven
by a 29.5% (or 6.5 rep) improvement
during the first set, with 22.00 ± 5.14
reps performed in the first set with PAP,
and 15.50 ± 5.10 reps performed in the
first set without PAP. So, can you really
improve squat repetition performance

17
Table 1 Subject characteristics

Relative squat Training frequency

Subjects Age (years) Body mass (kg) Height (cm) Training age (years)
strength (kg·kg-1) (days per week)
10 males 22.8 ± 2.4 81.5 ± 14.3 179.0 ± 7.7 1.30 ± 0.25 6.2 ± 2.6 4.1 ± 0.7

Data are mean ± SD

Subject characteristics from Conrado de Freitas et al. 2018 (1).

by almost 30% by performing a quick ceps improve quad strength?

two reps with 90% first? I don’t know.
It’s hard for me to wrap my head around Hypotheses
how you can improve performance that The authors hypothesized that both
much. Let’s use this article to discuss repetition performance and isometric
the mechanisms of PAP, the possibility strength would be potentiated by the
for PAP’s application in our programs, heavy back squats. In other words, they
and whether or not we truly believe this predicted that the PAP exercise would
magnitude of improvement will occur in work.
practice.

Subjects and Methods

Purpose and Research
Questions Subjects
Ten males with at least a year of train-
Purpose ing experience participated. The avail-
To determine if squat repetition per- able details of the subjects are in Table 1.
formance and maximal isometric quad- However, when looking at Table 1, keep
riceps strength can be improved (poten- in mind that the six years of training ex-
tiated) by performing heavy back squats perience was accompanied by an average
first. squat 1RM of about 105kg. Logically, a
105kg squat by an 81.5kg male could be
Research Questions achieved within a year of training, so the
squat clearly wasn’t a focus for these in-
1. Does performing heavy back squats
dividuals.
prior to reps on the squat at 70%
of 1RM improve repetition perfor-
Overall Design
mance?
This study was completed over six vis-
2. Does performing heavy back squats
its. The first was a familiarization session,
prior to performing a maximal iso-
and the second tested 1RM. The next
metric contraction of the quadri-

18
 Figure 1 Description of experimental sessions

1st 2nd 3rd 4th

PAP or no PAP PAP or no PAP PAP or no PAP PAP or no PAP

5 minutes 5 minutes 5 minutes 5 minutes

1 week 1 week 1 week
10 seconds of quad 10 seconds of quad 10 seconds of quad 10 seconds of quad
strength strength strength strength
OR OR OR OR
Squats with Squats with Squats with Squats with
4x70% 1RM 4x70% 1RM 4x70% 1RM 4x70% 1RM
2’ rest interval 2’ rest interval 2’ rest interval 2’ rest interval

four visits were performed in a random-
ized order (Figure 1), each separated by
one week. The experimental conditions
were as follows: 1) squats with PAP, 2)
squats without PAP, 3) isometric quad-
riceps strength with PAP, 4) isometric
quadriceps strength without PAP.
Specific Protocols
To perform the potentiating exercise,
subjects simply performed 1 set of 2 reps
on the squat at 90% of 1RM, then rest-
ed five minutes before performing either
squats to failure with 70% 1RM or a
maximum voluntary isometric knee ex-
tension test. To test squat performance,
subjects performed 4 sets to failure at
70% of 1RM on the back squat with two
minutes of rest between sets. Isometric
quadriceps strength was tested on a dy-
namometer by exerting a maximal con-
traction for 10 seconds.
Additional Measurements
The authors also assessed macronu-
trient intake for 24 hours prior to each
condition to ensure that nutritional dis-
crepancies between conditions did not
account for any potential differences.
Further, blood samples were collected
immediately before and after each ses-
sion to examine the blood lactate re-
sponse.
Findings
Squat Reps
The major finding was that the PAP ex-
ercise was successful at improving squat
repetition performance, versus squatting
without PAP (p<0.01). In fact, it was a
really large difference on a practical lev-
el. In the PAP condition, subjects aver-
aged 56.20 ± 17.30 reps over the four
sets of squats, versus 48.80 ± 14.5 reps
without PAP. This was solely due to the
first set, where subjects averaged 22.00
± 5.14 reps in the PAP condition and

19
15.50 ± 5.10 reps in the no-PAP condi-
Figure 2 Squat repetition results
tion. In other words, that’s a 29.5% per-
formance increase (6.5 reps) on the first
set because of PAP. WOW. These results 25
No-PAP
PAP
are depicted in Figure 2AB.
20

Reps per set

Isometric Quadriceps Strength 15

Isometric quadriceps strength was 10

9.8% higher following PAP (p<0.01)

5
with a moderate effect size (d=0.50) com-
pared to the no-PAP condition. Howev- 0
Set-1 Set-2 Set-3 Set-4
er, average strength over the 10-second A
contraction was not quite significantly p = 0.001
greater (p=0.07) with PAP than without 80

PAP, but there was a small effect in favor 70

of the PAP condition (d=0.28). Reps over all 4 sets

60
50
40
Additional Measures
30
There was no difference in macronutri- 20

ent intakes between conditions, so nu- 10

trition did not account for the condition 0

B No-PAP PAP
differences. The authors also examined
relationships between relative strength * = significant difference between conditions

and both repetition performance and No-PAP = squat without PAP (postactivation potentiation) exercise first.
PAP = squats with PAP exercise performed beforehand

isometric strength, but neither associa-

tion was significant (p>0.05). Blood lac-
tate increased after all conditions with no
difference between conditions (p>0.05).
Interpretation
The major result, as we’ll get to in a
moment, is PAP eliciting a 29.5% im-
provement in squat repetition perfor-
mance during the first set following
PAP. To start, let’s focus on the rest of
the results, which are not too surpris-
ing. Peak isometric quadriceps strength
was significantly improved following
PAP, and average quad strength over a
10-second contraction was nearly sig-
nificantly greater. In the previous lit-
erature, PAP has mostly been achieved
using heavy back squats (i.e. >80% of
1RM) for 1-2 reps over multiple sets.
This has been shown to improve jump-
ing (3, 4) or sprinting performance (5).
Although studies don’t always show that
PAP exercise improves performance,

20
many show positive benefits with a
moderate effect, similar to the benefit of
PAP for isometric strength in this study
(6). So, the 9.8% improvement in peak
isometric quadriceps force isn’t too sur-
prising. Further, it’s also not surprising
that peak force would benefit more from
PAP than average force, since most of
the previous PAP data is related to ex-
plosive jumping or short sprinting (i.e.
quick performance as opposed to sus-
tained performance).
Since this is the first study to examine
if PAP can improve squat volume capa-
bility, it has the potential to be quite im-
portant, especially if the present results
can be replicated. But should we really
expect a replication to see an additional
6.5 reps on a single squat set at 70% of
1RM due to PAP? I’m not sure. Before
we go any further, let’s think about this
benefit on a practical level. If you could
spend maybe 10 extra minutes warming
up to improve your squat performance
by six reps, would you do it? I would.
If you are training at 70% of 1RM, just
work up to 90% for a double, then rest
for five minutes before going down to
70% for your volume sets. Pretty simple.
However, I’m not sure how likely it is for
this magnitude of benefit to play out in
practice. Do you think doing this would
allow you to immediately add six reps to
your rep max at 70% of 1RM? I don’t.
To clarify, I think the results and the
study are honest; I just don’t think this
would play out in practice in trained lift-
IF YOU COULD SPEND MAYBE
10 EXTRA MINUTES WARMING
UP TO IMPROVE YOUR SQUAT
PERFORMANCE BY SIX
REPS, WOULD YOU DO IT?
ers. Most PAP studies that find positive
results see a benefit of up to about 10%
at most, so a benefit of 29.5% is extraor-
dinarily large. Since this is the first study
on volume performance, a call for rep-
lication is warranted. Let’s now explore
the mechanisms of PAP and the factors
that may account for the 29.5% greater
squat performance in set one.
Mechanisms of PAP
While there are suggested mechanisms
for potentiation, none are truly known.
These suggested mechanisms include:
general benefits of a dynamic warm-
up (i.e. increased core temperature and
muscle stiffness), increased recruitment
of high-threshold motor units, and im-
proved phosphorylation of myosin light
chains, which causes the contractile
proteins (actin and myosin) to be more
sensitive to calcium (7); thus, even as fa-
tigue sets in during the latter reps of a
set, there would be stronger-than-nor-
mal contractions due to the improved
21
interaction of myosin heads with the ac-
tin filament, possibly resulting in more
reps.
Factors Accounting for the Magnitude of
Results
It has been previously reported that
subjects who can squat >1.75 times body
mass get a larger benefit from PAP than
lesser-trained individuals (8); thus, PAP
is related to training status. Although
the subjects in the current study were
trained, relative strength wasn’t that high
(1.3 times body mass), so it’s unlikely
that the training status is responsible for
the 29.5% improvement in rep perfor-
mance. In more straightforward terms,
subjects weighed in at ~81kg and squat-
ted ~105kg; while that’s pretty standard
with many of the “trained” subjects in the
scientific literature, I don’t think anyone
here is impressed by that.
When I first glanced at the results,
I thought that inconsistency of squat
depth could account for some of the
results. This wasn’t the case. The meth-
ods of the study state that a bench was
adjusted to the appropriate height for
each subject’s depth. Beyond that, it is
not clear exactly how deep the squats
were (i.e. parallel or below?) or if sub-
jects simply touched the bench or sat
down on the bench. No matter, depth
was consistent between all subjects and
all conditions – which is what’s import-
ant in this context – so inconsistency of
squat depth wasn’t a factor.
This next “factor” is quite speculative
on my part, but we are trying to explain
a 6.5 rep performance improvement,
so I think it’s warranted. I don’t think
we should discount the possibility of a
psychological benefit of the PAP exer-
cise. The subjects likely knew, at least to
some extent, that the goal of the study
was to see if PAP could improve per-
formance. Therefore, it is possible that
they perceived the PAP exercise would
help them, so they were more psycho-
logically prepared in the PAP condi-
tion. Additionally, if you’ve ever worked
up to a heavy weight on the squat and
then backed down to a lighter weight,
the lighter weight usually feels really
light when you un-rack it. That feeling,
coupled with a possible preconceived
notion of PAP improving performance,
may have indeed contributed to the im-
proved performance. To be clear, this
paragraph isn’t written in a negative way.
In fact, this may be an indirect benefit of
PAP, and if so, that’s even more reason
to utilize this strategy.
PAP Protocol
The PAP exercise in this study was only
one set of heavy squats. While there is not
an “optimal” PAP protocol, most previ-
ous research has used multiple sets (6, 8)
of PAP, and one study used 10 sets of 1
rep at 90% on the squat, which improved
10- and 20-meter sprint performance
(5). The fact that potentiation could be
achieved in this study with only 1 set of
22

IF PAP CAN BE ELICITED,
THEN YOU CAN USE IT IN A
VARIETY OF DIFFERENT WAYS
TO MANIPULATE TRAINING
VARIABLES TO ACHIEVE
DESIRED OUTCOMES.
2 reps at 90% is key, because if lifters are
going to implement something like this,
it needs to be time-efficient. Achieving
PAP with just one heavy set is certainly
time-efficient.
The other aspect of a PAP protocol
that must be considered is the rest in-
terval between the PAP exercise and the
first working set. A meta-analysis on the
topic found that a rest interval of 0-3
minutes resulted in decreased perfor-
mance on the performance task, a rest
interval of 8-12 minutes had a beneficial
effect, and the effects of 4-7 minute rest
intervals is inconclusive (9). The present
study used a rest interval of five minutes,
which further strengthens the time-effi-
cient argument.
In Practice
On the surface, these results are quite
promising. If you can work up to 1 set
of 2 reps at 90% 1RM and improve the
amount of reps you can do at 70% 1RM,
that is certainly worth it. In theory, per-
forming more reps per set increases vol-
ume, so it may lead to more hypertrophy.
However, that might not even be the
best application. Rather, if you could do
5 sets of 10 reps at 70% of 1RM without
PAP, maybe you could do 6 sets of 10 at
70% with PAP because subsequent sets
would be easier by leaving more reps in
the tank on the first set. The latter expla-
nation is a bit speculative, as the mech-
anistic benefits may dissipate after the
first set, but it’s possible. As usual, the
point is a conceptual one; if PAP can be
elicited, then you can use it in a variety
of different ways to manipulate training
variables to achieve desired outcomes.
However, many questions remain. I’ll
pose some of these questions in the
“next steps” section, but we need repli-
cation of these results – not just to see
if PAP works for resistance exercise, but
to see if the magnitude of benefit (i.e.
6.5 reps or 29.5%) can be replicated. I’m
still a skeptic about results of that mag-
nitude. That may be unfair on my end,
and I do think this study was done well
and done honestly (there’s no reason to
think otherwise); however, with such a
favorable finding, and this being the first
study, I think waiting for replication be-
fore making a definitive conclusion is
reasonable. Additionally, it’s also worth
noting that someone may get a long-
term strength benefit if they use PAP
exercise, as working up to 90% frequent-
ly may facilitate chronic neuromuscular
23
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
1. These results demonstrate that PAP exercise can elicit a large improvement of 6.5
reps for squat repetition performance at 70% 1RM.
2. While the magnitude of benefit in this study needs replication, it’s promising
because performing the PAP exercise (1 X 2 at 90% of 1RM) would only add about
10 minutes to a training session, so it’s time-efficient to use this strategy.
3. We should be cautious when applying these results. This is the first study to
examine if PAP exercise can elicit performance improvement on the squat (or any
rep performance on any lifting movement), so we should wait for replication before
expecting benefits of the magnitude observed in this study.

adaptations. two reps at 90% is not the same effort

Finally, whatever mechanism or po-
tential psychology reason is responsible
for the results, it’s worth repeating that
the benefits only occurred on the first
set. While it’s possible some benefit of
PAP could exist in latter sets if a training
session is structured differently (as spec-
ulated above), the mechanisms seems to
be quite short-lived.
for everyone (9 RPE for some and 8
RPE for others), perhaps RPE or veloci-
ty should be utilized to individualize the
PAP exercise effort? In other words, the
main point is that we don’t yet know the
ideal configuration for PAP to improve
resistance training performance.

Next Steps
There’s a lot of work to do on this top-
ic, so let’s propose some future ques-
tions. Can PAP exercise elicit improved
rep performance at other intensities (i.e.
60% or 80% of 1RM)? Would this work
on the bench press or deadlift? Is anoth-
er rest interval superior to five minutes?
Would greater performance improve-
ment occur with multiple sets at 90%?
Should the PAP exercise be performed
at an intensity other than 90%? Since

24
References
1. Conrado de Freitas M, Rossi FE, Colognesi LA, de Oliveira Joao Vitor NS, Zanchi NE, Lira, FS,
Cholewa JM, Gobbo LA. Postactivation Pontentiation Improves Acute Resistance Exercise Per-
formance and Muscular Force in Trained Men. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.
2018. Epub Ahead of Print.
2. Khamoui AV, Jo E, Brown L. Postactivation potentiation and athletic performance. Available from
URL: www. nsca-lift. org Taken on. 2011;14:2013.
3. Boullosa DA, Abreu L, Beltrame LG, Behm DG. The acute effect of different half squat set con-
figurations on jump potentiation. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2013 Aug
1;27(8):2059-66.
4. Khamoui AV, Brown LE, Coburn JW, Judelson DA, Uribe BP, Nguyen D, Tran T, Eurich AD, Nof-
fal GJ. Effect of potentiating exercise volume on vertical jump parameters in recreationally trained
men. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2009 Aug 1;23(5):1465-9.
5. Chatzopoulos DE, Michailidis CJ, Giannakos AK, Alexiou KC, Patikas DA, Antonopoulos CB,
Kotzamanidis CM. Postactivation potentiation effects after heavy resistance exercise on running
speed. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2007 Nov 1;21(4):1278-81.
6. Wilson JM, Duncan NM, Marin PJ, Brown LE, Loenneke JP, Wilson SM, Jo E, Lowery RP,
Ugrinowitsch C. Meta-analysis of postactivation potentiation and power: effects of conditioning
activity, volume, gender, rest periods, and training status. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research. 2013 Mar 1;27(3):854-9.
7. Lorenz D. Postactivation potentiation: An introduction. International journal of sports physical
therapy. 2011 Sep;6(3):234.
8. Seitz LB, Haff GG. Factors modulating post-activation potentiation of jump, sprint, throw, and
upper-body ballistic performances: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Sports Medicine. 2016
Feb 1;46(2):231-40.
9. Gouvêa AL, Fernandes IA, César EP, Silva WA, Gomes PS. The effects of rest intervals on jumping
performance: A meta-analysis on post-activation potentiation studies. Journal of sports sciences.
2013 Mar 1;31(5):459-67.

25
 Study Reviewed: Nutritional Peak Week and Competition Day Strategies of
Competitive Natural Bodybuilders. Chappell et al. (2018)

The Science of Peaking

BY E RI C HE LMS

Bodybuilding “peak weeks” are often inspired by scientific principles, but

actual journal articles on the peaking process are few and far between. In
this study, a large number of natural physique competitors were surveyed
about peak week practices, and the scientific theories behind their
practices were explored in depth.

26
 KEY POINTS
1. Natural bodybuilding competitors who competed in the U.K. during 2016-2017
completed a questionnaire with both quantitative and qualitative questions
regarding their peak week practices.
2. The most common peak week strategies employed by the participants were
carbohydrate loading, and water and sodium manipulation. On competition day,
the most common strategy employed was the consumption of high glycemic index
carbohydrates, and only 6.2% of participants left their diet completely unaltered
during the peaking process.
3. The majority of strategies that are employed by bodybuilders have not been
investigated empirically; this is not to say they are ineffective, just unstudied. While
some of these strategies are sound from a theoretical basis, some are not and may
be deleterious to appearance or even dangerous.

A
mong physique competitors, it
is standard practice to manip-
ulate nutrition and training
in the final week leading into a show
in order to “make the final touches”
on one’s physique. However, very lit-
tle research exists that examines the
bodybuilding “peak week” process. In
the present study (1), the authors re-
cruited 81 competitive physique ath-
letes (59 men and 22 women) from
British Natural Bodybuilding Feder-
ation competitions in 2016-2017 to
complete questionnaires about their
peak week strategies. The majority of
competitors manipulated carbohy-
drate in the final week (57.6-95.5%)
and loaded water (64.4-68.2%), but
other strategies such as sodium ma-
nipulation and Vitamin C loading,
among others, were used infrequently.
In this review, I’ll discuss the theoret-
ical merit of each strategy, review the
existing data on peaking, and provide
recommendations for competitors and
coaches based on the best physiologi-
cal principles, theories, anecdotes, and
data currently available.
Purpose and Research
Questions
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to ob-
serve, detail, and describe the peaking
strategies of natural bodybuilders to
better understand what strategies might
be potentially useful for improving com-
petitive outcomes.

27
Table 1 Characteristics of British competitive natural bodybuilders

Males n-59 Females n-22

Mean SD Mean SD
Age 33.02 12.00 34.74 9.70

Years training 12.48 9.49 5.29 6.16

Years competing 3.56 3.14 2.30 1.26

Diet length (weeks) 22.68 9.45 23.65 6.91

Height (m) 1.77 0.06 1.63 0.05

Diet start weight (kg) 88.32 10.14 63.82 6.72

Diet end weight (kg) 76.57 78.10 55.20 5.22

Total weight loss (kg) 11.73 5.55 8.62 3.40

Weight loss per week (kg) 0.63 0.55 0.39 0.16

% weight loss 13.00 5.55 13.31 4.48

% weight loss per week 0.72 0.66 0.60 0.24

Diet end BMI (kg/m2) 24.55 1.79 20.63 1.27

BMI = body mass index

Hypothesis swered quantitative questions related to

As an observational study, there was
no hypothesis stated.
Subjects and Methods
Subjects and Study Design
Competitors participating in the Brit-
ish Natural Bodybuilding Federation
championship qualifiers in 2017 and in
the 2016 British Championship (n = 81;
59 males and 22 females) were recruited
to complete a 34-item questionnaire on
peak week strategies. Competitors an-
training, nutrition, weight change, hy-
dration, and supplementation, and space
was given for qualitative answers as well.
The male participants were all body-
builders but were recruited from the
following classes: teens (n = 4), under
23 years (n = 8), novices (n = 10), open
(n = 20), masters (n = 13), and profes-
sional (n = 5). All female competitors
were grouped together but were recruit-
ed from different divisions and classes:
Figure (n = 15; 9 open, 4 over 40 years,
and 4 professional), athletic (n = 5), and
bodybuilding (n = 3). Participant char-
acteristics are shown in Table 1.

28
Table 2 Prevalence of peak week strategies amongst British competitive natural bodybuilders

Carbohydrate Water Sodium

Restriction Loading Both* Loading Restriction Both* Restriction Loading Both* Vitamin C Regular Diet ‘Other’

34 46 28 38 16 12 9 13 4 14 5 5
Males n-59
57.6% 78.0% 47.4% 64.4% 27.1% 20.3% 15.3% 22.0% 6.8% 23.7% 8.5% 8.5%
18 21 17 15 10 8 2 2 1 5 0 0
Females n-22
81.8% 95.5% 77.3% 68.2% 45.5% 36.4% 9.1% 9.1% 4.5% 22.7% 0.0% 0.0%
52 67 45 53 26 20 11 15 5 19 5 5
Total n-81
64.2% 82.7% 55.0% 65.4% 32.1% 25.0% 13.6% 18.5% 6.2% 23.5% 6.2% 6.2%

Results are expressed as total counts and percentages.

Vit C = vitamin C loading is practiced, Reg. diet = regular competition diet is followed, ‘Other’ = examples including: protein and fat loading, large amounts of dandelion tea consumption,
* = the number and percentage of competitors who employed both restriction and loading.
Note the columns above represent the order in which loading and restriction and practiced, i.e., water loading typically preceeds water restriction

Findings high fat or high protein grazing, sodi-

um loading and “other” strategies. The
various practices and the percentages of
Peak Week Strategies the participants who utilized them are
Peak week strategies were quantita- shown in Table 4. Exemplar foods relat-
tively presented as the proportion of the ed to the relevant categories are shown
respondents who utilized carbohydrate in Table 5.
restriction and/or loading, water restric- The qualitative quotes describing the
tion and/or loading, sodium restriction various competition day strategies and
and/or loading, vitamin C megadosing, the number of participants who made
maintenance of the regular diet, and statements similar to the exemplar
“other” strategies. The various practices quotes are shown in Table 6.
and the percentages of the participants
who utilized them are shown in Table 2.
The qualitative quotes describing the Interpretation
various strategies and the number of
As a cross-sectional, observational
participants who made statements sim-
study delivered via questionnaire, this
ilar to the example quotes are shown in
study can only tell us what bodybuilders
Table 3.
do, not necessarily what they should do.
With that said, given that 93.8% of the
Competition Day Strategies
respondents utilized some form of peak-
Competition day strategies were quan- ing strategy (either during peak week
titatively presented as the proportion of and/or on competition day), it’s certain-
the respondents who utilized high gly- ly worthwhile to explore the possibility
cemic index carbohydrate pre-stage, a that acute nutrition manipulations may
higher carbohydrate intake, water re- be useful for improving appearance in
striction, reduced fiber intake, alcohol, the short term. For those of you who

29
Table 3 Indicative quotes about peak week strategies from British competitive natural bodybuilders

Counts of
Peek week strategy Indicative quotes
qualitative text
• “At the start of peak week I would switch back to low carbs until 3 days out.”
• “I gardually increase my water load the week before contest day and also carb deplete in that week, for

normal carb intake.”

Carbohydrate restriction
Carbohydrate loading
Water loading
Water restriction
Sodium depleting
Sodium loading
Vitamin C loading
Regular diet is followed
54
•
• “Deplete 3 days...carbs 100 > 75 > 60g.”
• “4 day carb deplete.”
• “3 days, 1/2 carbs every day.”
• “Carb loaded 2 days before using high GI (glycemic index) carb + rice. Increase water on these days.”
• “4 days out a mix of simple and complex carbs, 1100g, 600g, 400g, 700g.”
• “Three day load, high GI initially followed by low GI 2500g over 3 days.”
64
• “Load 3 days...carbs 1200, 800, 500g.”
• “Carb and water load 3x maintenance level.”
• “Carb up slowly for 3 days using sweet potatoes, rice cakes, jam.”
• “I water load on peak week while increasing vitamin C, then drop water back down.”
• “1 day 12L and then lower at 8L then 4L.”
42 • “10L for 7 day out.”
• “Water 8L day, stop consuming 10 p.m. evening before show.”
•
• “Cut water 24h from show just sip.”
• “The day before cut water out.”
• “Stop water at 3 p.m. day before show - glass of wine night before and sip a wine day of show.”
26
• “Water reduction from Friday (Sunday competition).”
• “Cutting water around 6 p.m. (night before competition).”
• “Night before show I cut water, sipping with carb meals only.”
• “Salt gradually reduced last 3 days below 1g Na/day.”
• “Stopped salt 3 days before comp.”
10
• “No salt the last 3 days.”
• “No salt all during the week.”
• “Salting meals - pink salt all week.”
• “Increased sodium for 4 days.”
16 • “Salt high till day before then lower water + drop salt.”
• “On contest day I load up with salt (sodium).”
• “Relative to CHO + water.”
• “4 days out 2g, 3 days out 4g, 2 days out 6g, 1 day out 8g.”
• “Throughout days 2 and 3, vitamin C and water loading over...two days before show vitamin C increases
accordingly.”
17
• “Increase water...1:1 ratio of 1000mg of vitamin C, then drop water the 1/2 day before keeping vitamin C at
5000mg.”
• “Up to 2000mg daily 4 days pre comp.”
• “No I believe in sticking to my diet plan right until the end, its never led me wrong, but I would be open to
trying other things on show day.”
5
• “No, we didn’t change much.”
• “No major changes to overall routine.”

haven’t yet seen it, I do discuss the pro- period and sodium restriction, followed
cess of peaking in depth in this MASS by a carbohydrate and potassium load-
video. However, in this article, I want to ing period, and then a reduction in wa-
go into more depth on the traditional ter intake and other methods of “drop-
approach to peaking, problems with the ping water” (dehydration) going into the
traditional approach, and what natural show. The authors of this study exempli-
bodybuilders are commonly doing in fied these traditional approaches by cit-
modern times. ing the “Aceto/Addison Peak Week” (2).
In this approach, glycogen is depleted via
The Traditional Approach a low carb intake and depletion training
The traditional approach to peak week early in the week (high-rep work), then a
that has been utilized for decades typi- carbohydrate load occurs mid-week that
cally consists of a carbohydrate depletion is tapered down over a few days leading
into show day itself. During this multi-

30
Table 4 Prevalence of competition day strategies amongst British competitive natural bodybuilders

High GI CHO Water High protein /

Higher CHO Alcohol Sodium loading ‘Other’
pre stage restriction fat grazing
40 27 12 11 9 5 9 8
Males n-59
67.8% 45.8% 20.3% 18.6% 15.3% 8.5% 15.3% 13.6%
16 5 6 5 6 3 2 3
Females n-22
81.8% 22.7% 27.3% 22.7% 27.3% 13.6% 9.1% 13.6%
59 32 18 16 16 8 11 11
Total n-81
71.6% 39.5% 22.2% 19.8% 18.5% 9.9% 13.6% 13.6%

‘Other’ = strategies including: water loading, the consumption of B-vitamins, the use of arginine based supplements, CHO
restriction, and food restriction; GI = glycemic index, CHO = carbohydrate

day carbohydrate loading period, wa-
ter intake is scaled to the carbohydrate
load, such that it also tapers. However,
on competition day, water is further re-
duced despite maintaining a moderately
high carbohydrate intake. Additionally,
sodium is restricted three to four days
prior to competition, and Vitamin C is
loaded in the days leading into compe-
tition and competition day. An example
of this approach is shown in Figure 1
for an 80kg competitor with a 350g/day
baseline carbohydrate intake going into
peak week.
The logic behind this approach is that
by loading carbohydrate in advance and
dropping water going into the show, the
~3g of water stored with each gram of
glycogen in muscle will be retained (3)
while subcutaneous water is removed,
resulting in muscle fullness with in-
creased separation and appearance of
leanness. Strategies such as Vitamin C
megadosing and sodium restriction are
used to further facilitate water losses
with the belief that the loaded glyco-
gen will “protect” the competitor from
dehydration-induced losses of water in
muscle and an acute reduction in mus-
cle size.
Problems with the Traditional Approach
Water retention is often the scapegoat
when bodybuilders come into a show

Table 5 Foods consumed by British competitive natural bodybuilders on competition day

High glycemic index jelly babies, Haribo, Skit-

carbohydrates pre-stage tles, honey, jam, jelly, syrups, rice cakes, dextrose, glucose
White potatoes, sweet potatoes, buckwheat, rice, oats, rice cakes, marmite (yeast ex-
Carbohydrate sources
tract), baby food, salted crisps, cookies

Protein and fat sources Almonds, peanut butter, cashew butter, poached eggs, steak, chicken, turkey, fry up

Alcohol Brandy, whisky, vodka, red/white wine

Pre-stage carboyhydrates are consumed in the 30 to 60 minute period prior to competitors taking the
stage to compete

31
Table 6 Indicative quotes about competition day strategies amongst British natural bodybuilders

Counts of
Strategy Indicative quotes
qualitative text
• “Back stage 20 mins before stage - skittles / sugary sweets, 10 mins before stage pump up.”
•
Pre-stage carb 55 • “Follow regular diet, eat sweets before going on stage.”
• “10 mins before stage 20g dark chocolate.”
• “Haribo while pumping up back stage.”
• “Rice cakes on honey.”
• “I eat 100g of chocolate on competition day, sweet potatoes, buckwheat and rice cakes.”
Higher carb 25 • “I eat rice cakes and peanut butter jam every 2h before judge.”
• “High carb every 2h.”
• “Not really loading but large preserve, mainly sweet potato.”
• “Minimum water on comp day.”
• “Water only to quench thirst.”
• “Sip water only.”
• “Just sipped water as needed.”
Water restriction 11 • “Nil water.”
• “Water cut 6 p.m. day before comp, then sips with food only.”
Water depleting?
• “Minimum on Sunday.”
• “I limit my intake to around 500 mL pre-judging thereafter I had a litre for the evening for the show.”
•
• “Minimal veg, easily digestible food.”
•
Fibre restriction 10
• “Dropped veggies 24 h pre show.”
•
• “Removal of green veg and oats.”
• “Before going on stage I will have rice cakes, a few sweets, and a glass of wine.”
• “Whilst pumping up, I will sugar load my system and may have a sip of whisky.”
Comp. day alcohol 15 • “Minimum carbs and a whisky before stage.”
• “Pre stage: red wine + Haribo / dark chocolate.”
• “Pre-evening show I have a few sips of red wine.”
• “Breakfast - fats + protein (eggs + bacon).”
• “Small amount of steak + rice cakes throughout the day.”
High protein and fats 8 • “Steak and 2 eggs for breakfast then just graze during the day on rice cakes and honey.”
• “Healthy fats and chicken for all meals on competition day.”
• “Fry up for breakfast (sodium + fat).”
• “I had about 1500mg sodium about an hour before going on stage.”
• “Immediately before stage - salt + grapes.”
• “1 tsp salt prior to stage.”
Sodium loading 12 • “Upped salt on all meals.”
Use of sodium or salt foods?
• “3g in oats.”
• “Salty crisps and dark chocolate 30 to 40 min before the stage.”
• “Regular diet this time.”
• “Follow regular prep, add in extra grapes 20 min before stage.”
• “No plan.”
Regular diet or other 17
• “Followed regular diet mainly, add extra fat at breakfast for energy.”
• “Foods low to prevent bloating.”
• “Nitrix oxide prior to stage.”

out of shape. Since the so-called “golden
age” of bodybuilding competition, body-
builders have loaded carbohydrate, cut
water, reduced sodium, and loaded po-
tassium in an effort to retain hydration
intramuscularly and shed water subcu-
taneously to enhance the appearance of
muscularity. Carbs are loaded to get gly-
cogen-bound water into muscle, water
is reduced to minimize the amount of
water in the body overall, and then so-
dium is reduced and potassium is loaded
so that what remains resides in the mus-
cle cell.
The scientific theory behind this ap-
proach makes recourse to the “sodium
potassium pump,” whereby, in animal
cells, a high concentration of potassium
ions relative to sodium ions will move
more ions and water into the intracel-
lular space, and vice versa if there are

32
 Figure 1 The Aceto/Addision peak week
1200
1000
Carbohydrate intake (g)
800
600
400
200
0 0
1 2
Carboyhydrate (g)
a greater concentration of sodium ions
relative to potassium ions (4). While it
is true that this is how the sodium-po-
tassium pump behaves, and it is true
that glycogen is bound with water, there
are some substantial errors in this logic,
which is why I wouldn’t advise following
this approach.
First, when you are dehydrated, mus-
cle water decreases as well (5), which can
make you look smaller and flat. The so
called “protection” against this outcome
is the previous carbohydrate load. How-
ever, not all muscle water is associated
with glycogen. Indeed, replenishing gly-
cogen while also consuming copious flu-
14
12
10
Water intake (L)
8
6
4
2
3 4 5 6 Contest
Day
Day
Water (L)
ids after exercise-induced glycogen and
water losses results in nearly six times the
amount of muscle water retention com-
pared to restricting the amount of fluids
but consuming the same amount of car-
bohydrate post exercise. It seems that the
minimum ratio of water to glycogen in
muscle is 3:1; however, the vast majority
of muscle water is not associated with
glycogen, and much more muscle water
is present in a non-dehydrated state (4).
Further, intramuscular is not the same
thing as intracellular, and subcutaneous
is not the same thing as extracellular. In
fact, the vascular system is extracellular,
and it is the delivery system of nutri-
33
ents to the muscle. Blood pressure drops
substantially during contest preparation
(6) and also rises or decreases acutely in
response to increases or decreases in di-
etary sodium (7), respectively.
What this means is that with blood
pressure already low from dieting, by
cutting sodium prior to getting on stage,
you are giving yourself a double wham-
my of decreased blood pressure and not
being able to get a pump. If you also cut
water, now you’ve given yourself a tri-
ple whammy of “no-pump city.” But it
doesn’t stop there. Believe it or not, glu-
cose transport from the small intestine
requires sodium (8)! If sodium is re-
stricted on the day of the show, you’ve
also potentially hampered your ability
to acutely store glycogen, and this could
cause bloating.
Modern Practices
Fortunately, this study shows that
times are changing. Indeed, only 32.1%
of competitors restricted water during
the peak week, and only 22.2% on the
day of competition. Likewise, dehydra-
tion “aids” such as sodium restriction,
Vitamin C megadosing, and alcohol
consumption were used by only 13.6%,
23.5%, and 18.5% of all competitors, re-
spectively.
You may be thinking that even though
the competitors using these approaches
are in the minority, a lot of people are
still using these approaches. You’d be
right. However, based on my observa-
I HAVE NEVER PERSONALLY
SEEN A NATURAL COMPETITOR
IMPROVE THEIR APPEARANCE
WITH CUTTING WATER
(AND USING OTHER
DEHYDRATION STRATEGIES),
CUTTING SODIUM, AND/
OR LOADING POTASSIUM.
tions of the community, these practices
were even more widespread a decade
ago. But given everything I’ve just told
you, you might wonder why competitors
still follow these practices at all.
Well, when these practices became
popular, natural bodybuilding really
didn’t exist. Natural federations didn’t
come around until the 1980s. Before
that, oral steroids were easily and legally
obtained, not frowned upon, more reg-
ularly used by bodybuilders, and – de-
spite many of these early drugs being
quite androgenic (increasing the risk of
hormonally mediated water retention) –
they were often taken throughout con-
test preparation.
I personally believe that this is where
the recommendations for water and
34
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
1. Carbohydrate loading was used by the majority of competitors, and this makes
sense from a theoretical perspective as a way to increase muscle size. However,
the amount of carbohydrate that is appropriate for loading is likely individual.
2. Water restriction or any dehydration strategy likely results in a decrease in muscle
size via reductions in muscle water, even if muscle glycogen stores are full.
3. Sodium restriction may lower blood pressure (which is likely already lower than
normal from dieting), interfering with the pre-stage “pump-up.” It may also hamper
intestinal transport of glucose, which may interfere with carbohydrate loading.
4. Sodium loading may acutely enhance blood pressure, which could aid a pump-up
on competition day, and consuming a low-fiber diet on the day of competition may
reduce bloating and gastrointestinal discomfort.

electrolyte manipulation began. Back in At best, I’ve known competitors who

the day, bodybuilders didn’t have access
to less androgenic drugs, drugs to control
estrogen, and diuretics, which are com-
mon today. Thus, water retention may
have been a big issue early on, possibly
becoming such an issue that appearance
was improved by using these practices
that cause dehydration.
I honestly can’t say much about wheth-
er it is indeed true that these peak week
strategies are necessary, effective, or
harmful in enhanced competitors (and
if they are still necessary in the modern
era) because I’ve only peaked natural ath-
letes. However, I can say that for drug-
free competitors, I would advise against
these practices. I have never personally
seen a natural competitor improve their
appearance with cutting water (and us-
ing other dehydration strategies), cut-
ting sodium, and/or loading potassium.
don’t harm their physique by doing this.
At worst, I’ve seen competitors make
themselves feel terrible and degrade
their appearance. Most importantly, let’s
not forget that if taken to extremes, de-
hydration and electrolyte manipulation
can prove fatal.
Finally, check out the “Application
and Takeaways” section where I discuss
which strategies probably make the most
sense for peak week.
Next Steps
To truly investigate the efficacy of
peaking strategies, we’d need a study that
qualitatively assessed different approach-
es within individuals. For example, you
could take a sample of bodybuilders near
the end of their season in stage condi-
tion, either prior to shows or between

35
shows. In a randomized order, you could
have them perform different peak week
strategies. For example, you could have
the same carbohydrate load strategy, but
manipulate water or electrolytes in dif-
ferent ways, or just compare two or three
totally different approaches. You’d have
to ensure they got back to a similar base-
line body fat percentage between peak
week conditions and then show pictures
of their physiques to a panel of body-
building judges. The judges would score
the two or three pictures of each per-
son, blinded to their identity and which
protocol was used for each picture. Then
we’d be able to see if a given strategy
consistently worked better (or if differ-
ent people need different strategies). Be-
lieve it or not, I think you’d actually get a
fair number of interested participants as
well, since it would give them objective
personalized information about which
strategy worked best for them.

36
References
1. Chappell, A.L., & Simper, T.N, Nutritional Peak Week and Competition Day Strategies of Com-
petitive Natural Bodybuilders Sports, 2018. 6(4): p. E126.
2. Aceto, C. Championship Bodybuilding; Morris Publishing: Kearney, KS, USA, 2001.
3. Fernández-Elías, V.E., Ortega, J.F., Nelson, R.K., Mora-Rodriguez, R., Relationship between mus-
cle water and glycogen recovery after prolonged exercise in the heat in humans. Eur J Appl Physiol,
2015. 115(9): p. 1919-26.
4. Skou, J.C., Nobel Lecture. The identification of the sodium pump. Biosci Rep. 1998. 18(4): p. 155–
69.
5. Costill, D.L., et. al., Muscle water and electrolytes following varied levels of dehydration in man. J
Appl Physiol, 1976. 40(1): p. 6–11.
6. Rossow, L.M., et. al., Natural bodybuilding competition preparation and recovery: a 12-month case
study. Int J Sports Physiol Perform, 2013. 8(5): p. 582–92.
7. Stachenfeld, N.S., Acute effects of sodium ingestion on thirst and cardiovascular function. Curr
Sports Med Rep. 2008. 7(4 Suppl): p. S7–13.
8. Crane, R.K., Krane, S.M., Studies on the mechanism of the intestinal active transport of sugars.
Biochim Biophys Acta, 1959. 31(2): p. 397-401.

37
 Study Reviewed: Protein to Maximize Whole-Body Anabolism in Resistance-
Trained Females After Exercise. Malowany et al. (2018)

Protein Needs are Similar for

Men and Women
BY G RE G NUC KO LS

The majority of the research analyzing acute protein needs has been performed
on male subjects, leading female strength athletes to wonder if the typical
recommendations are appropriate for them. A recent study found that the protein
needs of female athletes are basically the same as those of male athletes.

38
 KEY POINTS
1. In a sample of well-trained women, increasing protein intakes led to increases in
net protein balance up to 1.53g/kg/day, or 2.03g/kgFFM/day.
2. The “better-safe-than-sorry” intake (the top of the 95% confidence interval) is
1.85g/kg/day, or 2.47g/kgFFM/day.
3. These findings are nearly identical to a very similar study with male subjects and
are also very close to the protein recommendations of a recent meta-analysis.
Thus, it seems that the protein requirements for male and female lifters are similar.
Therefore, research on the protein needs of male lifters can probably be used to
safely arrive at recommendations for women.
4. However, expressed relative to body mass, protein needs may be slightly lower in
women, since women tend to carry more fat. When expressed relative to fat-free
mass, the recommendations are virtually identical.

A
while back, I published a guest
post on Stronger By Science
about the protein needs of lift-
ers. In the ensuing discussion on Face-
book, a woman asked me whether the
recommendations in the article would
apply to women, and her question was
“liked” by a couple dozen other women,
indicating that other women had the
same question. I told her that I couldn’t
see why the conclusions of the article
wouldn’t apply to women. Her response
was something to the effect of, “I just
wanted to make sure, because only one
of the cited studies actually included fe-
male subjects.” I looked back, and sure
enough, almost all of the research was
conducted solely on male subjects. Then
I looked back at the muscle protein syn-
thesis research more generally, and real-
ized that almost all of the studies look-
ing at protein synthesis after strength
training used male subjects. I generally
expect to find more studies on men than
women, since that’s a pretty persistent
trend within sport science (2), but the
sex divide in muscle protein synthesis
research is especially stark.
With that in mind, I was excited when
the presently reviewed study was pub-
lished (1). It used a method called the
indicator amino acid oxidation (IAAO)
technique – which is one of the best (or
potentially the best) non-invasive ways
to assess whole-body protein metabo-
lism – to assess protein needs in female
lifters after a full-body training session
(3). It found that the protein needs of
female lifters, when expressed per ki-
logram of body mass, are similar to the
protein needs of male lifters (perhaps a
bit lower), when compared with the re-
sults of another recent study (4). Further-

39
more, when protein needs are expressed
per kilogram of lean mass, protein needs
of male and female lifters are virtually
identical. Thus, while it would certain-
ly be good to see more protein research
with female subjects, we can now have
a bit more confidence that the current
male-dominated body of literature can
probably be applied to women as well.
Purpose and Research
Questions
Purpose
Almost all of the research investigat-
ing the protein dosages required to max-
imize net protein balance following re-
sistance training has been performed on
male subjects. Therefore, the purpose of
this study was to investigate the protein
dosage required to maximize net protein
balance following resistance training in
women.
Research Questions
1. What level of protein intake maxi-
mizes net protein balance following
a workout in female subjects?
2. By comparison, how does this rec-
ommendation compare to research
on male subjects?
Hypotheses
It was hypothesized that the protein
intake required to maximize whole body
I GENERALLY EXPECT TO FIND
MORE STUDIES ON MEN THAN
WOMEN, BUT THE SEX DIVIDE IN
MUSCLE PROTEIN SYNTHESIS
RESEARCH IS ESPECIALLY STARK.
protein synthesis in resistance-trained
women would be lower than 1.7g/kg/
day – the dose previously established in
men. It was further hypothesized that
the intake necessary to maximize pro-
tein synthesis in women would fall with-
in the ACSM’s recommended range of
1.2-2.0g/kg/day.
Subjects and Methods
Subjects
The subjects were eight healthy women
with regular menstrual cycles who had
been lifting for at least one year. To par-
ticipate in the study, the women could
not be taking hormonal contraceptives,
and they needed to bench press at least
0.7x bodyweight and leg press at least
2.3x bodyweight.
Study Overview
At the start of the study, habitual ca-
loric expenditure was estimated via ac-
40
Table 1 Subject characteristics

Habitual dietary
Bench press 1RM
Subjects Age (years) Height (cm) Body mass (kg) Fat free mass (kg) Body fat (%) Leg press 1RM (kg) protein intake
(kg)
(g·kg-1·d-1)
8 females 23 ± 3.5 163.3 ± 3.7 67.0 ± 7.7 50.4 ± 3.8 24.4 ± 6.9% 59.1 ± 7.9 211.8 ± 53.5 1.91 ± 0.53

Data are mean ± SD

celerometry, and habitual energy and beverage for breakfast, one hour prior to
protein intake were assessed via three- their exercise session. Their exercise ses-
day diet logs. Body composition was as- sion mirrored the session they’d complet-
sessed with a BOD-POD. The subjects ed two days prior. Following training, the
were also familiarized with the resistance women consumed eight isocaloric hour-
training protocol for the study, and they ly meals with fixed carbohydrate and fat
tested 3RMs to estimate their 1RMs levels and a randomly assigned protein
for the exercises used during the study intake, ranging from 0.2-2.9g/kg/day
(barbell bench press, lat pull-down, bar- (split into eight boluses). The protein
bell overhead press, seated cable row, leg itself was designed to have an amino
press, and knee extensions). acid profile mirroring egg protein, with
After familiarization, the subjects strictly controlled phenylalanine content
completed 6-7 “metabolic trials.” Two and extra tyrosine (the additional tyro-
days prior to testing, the women com- sine was to ensure that all phenylalanine
pleted a standardized workout consist- would be used for either protein synthe-
ing of 4 sets of 8-10 reps for all exercises sis or protein oxidation and wouldn’t in-
listed above with 90 seconds of rest be- stead be converted to tyrosine). Starting
tween sets. On the day prior to testing, with the fifth “meal,” the protein bever-
the women were instructed to rest. On ages included chemically-labeled (13C)
both of these days, they were required bicarbonate and phenylalanine. Breath
to consume a diet with 1.2g/kg/day of and urine samples were collected to cal-
protein and 4g/kg/day of carbohydrate, culate rates of phenylalanine appearance
with the rest of their caloric needs (de- and oxidation, and to measure urinary
termined from the accelerometry and urea and creatinine in order to calculate
body composition data) coming from rates of protein synthesis, oxidation, and
fat. Meals were provided to the subjects. excretion.
The standardized diets prior to the test- The metabolic trials all took place
ing days were intended to reduce meta- during the luteal phase of the menstru-
bolic variability on the testing days. al cycle, and a three-day isotope wash-
On the testing day itself, the women out period was required between trials.
consumed a protein-free carbohydrate This meant that, schedules permitting,
two metabolic trials could take place per

41
 Figure 1 Study overview

Luteal phase Luteal phase Luteal phase Luteal phase

Pre-study

Familiarization

Intervention

Intervention

Intervention

Intervention

Intervention

Intervention

Intervention
Follicular phase Follicular phase Follicular phase

3+ days

3+ days

3+ days
Body composition

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3

Standardized workout No exercise

(full-body) Metabolic trial
Standardized diet Each intervention has a different, randomized protein intake
Standardized diet (1.2g/kg PRO, 4g/kg CHO, maintenance calories)
(1.2g/kg PRO, 4g/kg CHO, maintenance calories)

Metabolic trial

Protein-free
breakfast Meal Meal Meal Meal Meal Meal Meal Meal
-1 hr 0 hr 1 hr 2 hr 3 hr 4 hr 5 hr 6 hr 7 hr 8 hr
Standardized
workout (full-body)

• Isocaloric meals at each hour post-training from +0h to +7h (8 hours total)
• Same protein intake at each meal during a trial
• Different protein intakes for each trial
• Enriched bicarbonate and phenylalanine added to meals from +4h to +7h Protein balance assessed
• Whole body protein balance assessed via breath and urine samples from +4h to +8h post-training

menstrual cycle. In practice, the subjects

completed their six or seven metabolic Interpretation
trials in 86 ± 19 days. Whenever someone writes an arti-
cle about protein needs for lifters, there
are inevitably several comments from
Findings women asking whether the general rec-
As protein intakes increased, the ra- ommendations apply to them. That’s
tio of urinary urea to urinary creatinine certainly a valid question, since most
increased linearly. This is indicative of of the research has used male subjects.
greater protein oxidation and excretion However, this study indicates that, yes,
with increased protein intakes. protein needs for female lifters are prob-
ably roughly the same as protein needs
However, up to an average intake for male lifters.
of 1.53g/kg/day, protein synthesis in-
creased faster than protein oxidation. This study was very similar to a re-
After this point, protein synthesis and cent study in men (4), which used the
oxidation increased at similar rates, lead- same technique (IAAO) for identifying
ing to no further change in net protein the minimum protein dose required to
balance. The top of the 95% confidence maximize net protein balance. The mean
interval extends to 1.85g/kg/day, mak- intake required to maximize net protein
ing this the “better safe than sorry” dose. balance in that study was 1.7g/kg/day,
When normalized to fat-free mass, the with the 95% CI extending up to 2.2g/
“breakpoint” was 2.03g/kgFFM/day, with kg/day. When normalized to fat-free
the top of the 95% confidence interval mass, the recommendation was 2.0g/
extending up to 2.47g/kgFFM/day. kgFFM/day, with the 95% CI extending
up to 2.5g/kgFFM/day. Thus, when nor-

42
 Figure 2 Relationship between protein intake and urinary urea/creatinine ratio

50
r2 = 0.56 Subject 1
P < 0.001
40 Subject 2

Subject 3
Urea / creatine

30 Subject 4

Subject 5
20
Subject 6

Subject 7
10
Subject 8

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Protein intake (g/kg/day)

malized to body weight, protein require-
ments may be slightly higher in men (by
~0.2g/kg/day). However, when normal-
ized to fat-free mass, the requirements
are virtually identical. That makes sense.
Men tend to be a bit leaner than women,
and, logically, protein requirements for
maintenance of adipose tissue should be
very low. Thus, you’d expect protein re-
quirements relative to bodyweight to be
a bit lower for people with more fat (re-
gardless of sex), but you’d expect protein
requirements to scale with fat-free mass.
That’s what you see in these two studies.
It’s worth noting that the prior study in
men measured protein requirements on
a rest day (48 hours after their most re-
cent training session), whereas the pres-
ently reviewed study measured protein
requirements in women after a work-
out, so the study on men may slightly
underestimate male protein needs, and
the presently reviewed study may slight-
ly overestimate female protein needs.
However, the male subjects in the prior
study were bodybuilders; I can’t imagine

43
 Figure 3
15
Net protein balance (µmol/kg/hr)
10
5 Subject 6
0
0.0 0.5
that the protein requirements of body-
builders plummet after a couple of rest
days, so I don’t think this is a major issue.
Furthermore, the results of this study
are broadly in line with the findings of a
recent meta-regression by Morton et al
that looked at actual changes in lean mass
(5). This meta-regression found that ap-
proximately 1.6g/kg/day of protein was
required to maximize gains in lean mass,
with a “better-safe-than-sorry” dose of
2.2g/kg/day. Of note, this meta-regres-
Relationship between protein intake and whole body net protein balance
Breakpoint = 1.53g/kg/day
Upper 95% Cl = 1.85g/kg/day
r2 = 0.65
1.0 1.5
Protein intake (g/kg/day)
Subject 1
Subject 2
Subject 3
Subject 4
Subject 5
Subject 7
Subject 8
2.0 2.5 3.0
sion included the results of 49 studies;
18 included female subjects, and only 5
used exclusively female subjects. So, the
meta-regression was primarily based on
male data, but the protein recommenda-
tions from the meta-regression are very
similar to the protein recommendations
in the present study.
There are a few caveats to these results,
of course. To start with, the feeding pat-
tern used in studies that employ this sort
of design may not be optimal for total
44
protein accretion. Meal frequency is still
a contentious subject, but some research
indicates that less frequent, larger protein
THIS STUDY INDICATES THAT,
boluses (i.e. 20g every 3 hours) are more YES, PROTEIN NEEDS FOR
effective than more frequent, smaller
protein boluses (i.e. 10g every 1.5 hours) FEMALE LIFTERS ARE PROBABLY
(6). Since this type of research design
requires that people consume a fixed
ROUGHLY THE SAME AS PROTEIN
amount of protein every hour following NEEDS FOR MALE LIFTERS.
training, the protein feedings may not
be spaced out enough to maximize pro-
tein synthesis. This could mean that total
intake, that would change the average
protein needs would change with more
requirement to 1.41g/kg/day during
spaced-out meals (maybe recommen-
the follicular phase, versus 1.53g/kg/
dations would be lower if protein was
day during the luteal phase. Personally,
utilized more efficiently, or maybe rec-
I don’t think ~0.1g/kg/day is worth be-
ommendations would be higher if more
ing neurotic about; just make sure you
protein could be put to good use), or it
hit at least 1.5g/kg/day, aim for 1.85g/
may just affect the magnitude of protein
kg/day, and you’ll probably be covered.
accretion without affecting the dose-re-
That shouldn’t be a particularly onerous
sponse curve. My hunch is that this is-
intake level to aim for: the habitual pro-
sue doesn’t matter much, but it’s worth
tein intake of the women in this study
mentioning.
averaged ~1.9g/kg/day.
Furthermore, the menstrual phase may
Another caveat is that this study as-
affect protein needs in women. On one
sessed protein needs after a full-body
hand, some research indicates that mus-
training session. A recent study found
cle protein synthesis doesn’t vary across
that 40g of protein post-workout led to
the menstrual cycle (7). On the other
greater muscle protein synthesis than 20g
hand, some research indicates that ly-
after a full-body workout (9), whereas
sine requirements are higher during the
prior research had found no significant
luteal phase (8). It’s possible that total
differences between 20g and 40g using
protein requirements (and not just ly-
only lower body training (10). These
sine requirements) are higher during the
findings suggest that protein needs may
luteal phase. However, even in the study
be higher after a full-body workout. So,
finding differing lysine requirements,
there’s a chance that protein needs would
the mean difference was small (~7.7%).
be a bit lower on a body part split. How-
If we extrapolated that to total protein
ever, I imagine that the calculus chang-

45
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
Protein needs for women are comparable to protein needs for men; men may need
slightly more, since a larger proportion of their body mass is lean mass, but if a difference
exists, it’s very small. As such, if women consume somewhere between 1.5-1.9g/kg/
day (~0.7-0.9g/lb/day) at maintenance caloric intake, they’re probably in the clear.

es during an entire training program,
compared to a single training session. In
other words, protein needs may be a bit
lower if you just do a single lower body
session, but if you’re doing a lower body
session today after an upper body ses-
sion yesterday, I bet protein needs would
be about the same as they would be after
a full-body workout.
A further caveat is that this study as-
sessed whole-body protein balance, and
not just muscle protein balance. Fur-
thermore, it only looked at acute protein
kinetics; acute findings don’t always gen-
eralize to long-term results. It’s possible
that the requirements to maximize mus-
cle protein synthesis, or that the protein
requirements to maximize muscle gain
in the long-run are a bit higher or a bit
lower than the value found in this study.
However, since the results of this study
are in line with a meta-regression on
studies that actually measured changes
in lean mass, I think the recommenda-
tions derived from this study are proba-
bly pretty solid.
A final caveat is that the women in this
study were purposefully kept at caloric
maintenance. Protein requirements for
women, like men, are likely higher when
in a calorie deficit. So, the recommenda-
tions from this study (at least ~1.5g/kg/
day, and up to 1.9g/kg/day) should apply
when you’re at maintenance or in a cal-
orie surplus, but you may need to eat a
bit more protein when you’re in a caloric
deficit.
Next Steps
I’d actually be intrigued to see if pro-
tein needs vary across the menstrual cy-
cle. I’ve seen it claimed that the mass
of the uterus roughly doubles, from
~4oz to ~8oz, during the late follicu-
lar and early luteal phases of the men-
strual cycle (though I’ve been unable to
find a citation for that claim). A quar-
ter pound (~115g) of tissue growth in
approximately two weeks isn’t anything
to sneeze at. So, I’d be interested in re-
search examining whether protein needs
during the peak of this process (around
ovulation) are higher than protein needs
at the start of menses.

46
References
1. Malowany JM, West DWD, Williamson E, Volterman KA, Abou Sawan S, Mazzulla M, Moore
DR. Protein to Maximize Whole-Body Anabolism in Resistance-trained Females After Exercise.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2018 Nov 1.
2. Costello JT, Bieuzen F, Bleakley CM. Where are all the female participants in Sports and Exercise
Medicine research? Eur J Sport Sci. 2014;14(8):847-51.
3. Elango R, Ball RO, Pencharz PB. Indicator amino acid oxidation: concept and application. J Nutr.
2008 Feb;138(2):243-6.
4. Bandegan A, Courtney-Martin G, Rafii M, Pencharz PB, Lemon PW. Indicator Amino Ac-
id-Derived Estimate of Dietary Protein Requirement for Male Bodybuilders on a Nontraining
Day Is Several-Fold Greater than the Current Recommended Dietary Allowance. J Nutr. 2017
May;147(5):850-857.
5. Morton RW, Murphy KT, McKellar SR, Schoenfeld BJ, Henselmans M, Helms E, Aragon AA,
Devries MC, Banfield L, Krieger JW, Phillips SM. A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-re-
gression of the effect of protein supplementation on resistance training-induced gains in muscle
mass and strength in healthy adults. Br J Sports Med. 2018 Mar;52(6):376-384.
6. Areta JL, Burke LM, Ross ML, Camera DM, West DW, Broad EM, Jeacocke NA, Moore DR,
Stellingwerff T, Phillips SM, Hawley JA, Coffey VG. Timing and distribution of protein ingestion
during prolonged recovery from resistance exercise alters myofibrillar protein synthesis. J Physiol.
2013 May 1;591(9):2319-31.
7. Miller BF, Hansen M, Olesen JL, Flyvbjerg A, Schwarz P, Babraj JA, Smith K, Rennie MJ, Kjaer M.
No effect of menstrual cycle on myofibrillar and connective tissue protein synthesis in contracting
skeletal muscle. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2006 Jan;290(1):E163-E168.
8. Kriengsinyos W, Wykes LJ, Goonewardene LA, Ball RO, Pencharz PB. Phase of menstrual cycle affects
lysine requirement in healthy women. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2004 Sep;287(3):E489-96.
9. Macnaughton LS, Wardle SL, Witard OC, McGlory C, Hamilton DL, Jeromson S, Lawrence CE,
Wallis GA, Tipton KD. The response of muscle protein synthesis following whole-body resistance
exercise is greater following 40 g than 20 g of ingested whey protein. Physiol Rep. 2016 Aug;4(15)
10. Witard OC, Jackman SR, Breen L, Smith K, Selby A, Tipton KD. Myofibrillar muscle protein
synthesis rates subsequent to a meal in response to increasing doses of whey protein at rest and after
resistance exercise. Am J Clin Nutr. 2014 Jan;99(1):86-95.

47
 Study Reviewed: Neural Adaptations After 4 Years vs. 12 Weeks
of Resistance Training vs. Untrained. Balshaw et al. (2018)

Different Factors Drive Strength

at Different Times
BY MIC HAE L C . ZO URD O S

Why exactly does strength increase? There are many factors that drive
strength gains, but neuromuscular and hypertrophy adaptations are two
prominent factors. However, even though they both play a role, each
takes a primary role at different points in a training career.

48
 KEY POINTS
1. This paper compared and examined the electromyography (EMG)-torque
relationship in male subjects who either had no training experience, 12 weeks of
training experience, or 4 years of training experience to determine the degree to
which neuromuscular factors contributed to strength adaptation after the first 12
weeks and after 4 years of training.
2. Subjects performed knee extensions, and it was determined that neural factors
were the primary reason for strength adaptation within the first 12 weeks of training.
However, it was observed that the subjects with 4 years of experience had the
same muscle activation as those with 12 weeks of experience, despite improved
strength. This suggests that hypertrophy (and other morphological changes), not
neural adaptations, drove the strength response after the first 12 weeks of training.
3. Although it does seem that neural adaptations and hypertrophy are the primary
factors early and later in a training career, respectively, we should be cognizant of
the fact that the underpinnings of strength adaptation are multi-faceted.

W
e know lifting weights in-
creases strength, but what are
the underlying factors behind
the strength gains, and how do these
factors change over time? Two of these
factors are muscle hypertrophy (2) and
neuromuscular adaptations (3). It seems
clear that neural adaptations are the
primary driver in the beginning stages
of training (4). Yet, in MASS, we have
hypothesized that neuromuscular effi-
ciency can still improve in well-trained
lifters with years of experience. How-
ever, even if that assertion is true, we
don’t know the degree to which neural
factors contribute to strength adapta-
tion later in a training career. One way
to determine which mechanism is ac-
counting for strength gains is to exam-
ine how the association between maxi-
mal force/torque (terminology depends
on the movement) and electromyogra-
phy (EMG) activity changes as strength
increases. For example, when neural
adaptations are driving strength gains,
there is an increase in EMG amplitude
at peak torque. However, if hypertro-
phy is the main factor underpinning the
strength response, then EMG amplitude
would be the same at the new strength
levels as it was at the old strength lev-
els. In graphical terms, when torque (or
strength) improves and the slope of the
EMG line does not change, it is likely
that neural adaptations are driving the
adaptation. However, when there is a
“shift down/right,” or a lower slope of
the EMG-torque relationship, then
both hypertrophy and neural factors
likely accounted for strength adaptation

49
(it’s worth scrolling to Figure 1 at this
point to see the illustration of the past
two sentences). This study (1) compared
this EMG-torque relationship during
a knee extension on a dynamometer in
untrained individuals, individuals with
12 weeks of experience, and individuals
with 4 years of training experience to de-
termine how morphological and neural
adaptations contribute to strength over
time. In brief, the findings indicated that
neural adaptations drove strength gains
in the first 12 weeks of training; how-
ever, hypertrophy was more of a prima-
ry factor driving strength in the 4-year
cohort. So, these findings suggest that
neural adaptations occur initially, then
hypertrophy is a more predominant fac-
tor later on (this is not new suggestion).
However, we must also consider that
just because one factor is primary at a
certain point in a training career, that
doesn’t mean the other factor has no
contribution at that time. Further, this
article will discuss if neural adaptations
are more predominant in the long-term
in “skill” exercises such as the powerlifts,
compared to the single-joint movement
employed in this study.
Purpose and Research
Questions
Purpose
The purpose was to examine the EMG-
torque relationship in subjects with dif-
ferent levels of training experience to
determine if neuromuscular adaptations
continue to contribute to strength gains
after the initial 12 weeks of training.
Research Questions
1. How does the EMG-torque rela-
tionship change as training experi-
ence increases?
2. Do changes in the EMG-torque
relationship indicate that neural ad-
aptations still occur after 12 weeks
of training? Or do these changes
indicate that muscle hypertrophy is
driving strength adaptation as the
training years go by?
Hypotheses
The authors hypothesized that muscle
activation would increase as strength in-
creased in the first 12 weeks of training,
suggesting that neural factors are driv-
ing the strength adaptation.
The authors also predicted that muscle
activation would be similar in the 4-year
versus 12-week cohort, despite greater
torque (strength) in the 4-year cohort,
suggesting hypertrophy to be a primary
factor driving strength.
Note: One thing to point out before
we continue is that the authors used
the term hypertrophy to describe mor-
phological changes. There are various
other morphological changes (i.e. con-
nective tissues adaptations, changes in
pennation angle, etc.) that contribute to
50
Table 1 Subject characteristics
Cohort Age (years)
Untrained (n=29) 25 ± 2
12 weeks (n=14) 24 ± 2
4 years (n=14) 22 ± 2
Data are mean ± SD
Subject characteristics from Balshaw et al. 2018 (1).
strength gains. So, even though the term
hypertrophy was used in the research
questions and hypothesis, that is only
because that is how the authors present-
ed it. In reality, there are various mor-
phological factors, and we will elaborate
on this point in the discussion.
Subjects and Methods
Subjects
Fifty-seven men participated. The
men were classified in one of three co-
horts: 1) Untrained (n=29), 2) 12 weeks
of experience (n=14), or 3) 4 years of
experience (n=14). The untrained sub-
jects were not engaged in any “system-
atic physical training.” Subjects in the
12-week cohort were also initially un-
trained, but they completed a supervised
knee extension training protocol for 12
weeks prior to this study, thus pre- and
post-training data were collected in that
cohort only. The 4-year cohort (average
Body mass (kg) Height (cm)
74 ± 10 176 ± 7
70 ± 9 175 ± 8
92 ± 10 184 ± 6
training = 4±1 years) reported training
about three times per week and said they
consistently performed squats, step-ups,
leg presses, and lunges as part of their
training. Further details of the subjects
are in Table 1.
Protocol
The protocol had some technical nu-
ances, and they are not all completely
relevant to us. Thus, I’ll provide an over-
view of the protocol. Further details are
in Table 2 to make the methods digest-
ible.
Data collection took place over four
sessions. The first session was a familiar-
ization session. Sessions two and three
were the experimental testing sessions, in
which EMG, maximal torque, and sub-
maximal torque of the quadriceps and
hamstrings were tested using a dyna-
mometer. During the fourth visit, MRI
and ultrasound scans were completed to
obtain muscle cross-sectional area.
51
Table 2 Protocol during each visit

Visit

Visit 1 • Familiarization

• 3-4 maximal leg extensions on the dynamometer, each lasting 3-5

Visits 2 and 3
(2 and 3 were the exact same and
occured 7-10 days apart)
seconds to obtain the greatest torque of the quads
• Submaximal torque was obtained by subjects matching a predeter-
mined torque over a 5-second contraction at 20, 40, 60, and 80% of
max torque
• Leg curls were performed in the exact same way as the leg extensions
to obtain maximal hamstring torque
• During the maximal contractions, EMG was measured of the working
muscle
• During the submaximal contractions, EMG of both the agonist and
antagonist muscles was measured

• MRI and ultrasound scans were conducted on each individual mus-

Visit 4 cle of the quadriceps to obtain muscle cross-sectional area (muscle
(Occurred within 7 days of visit 3) size) and each individual muscle was summed to obtain muscle size
of the entire quadriceps

Overview of methods from Balshaw et al. 2018 (1).

Hypothetical Representation greater peak torque. The “extension”

In the intro, we mentioned how an ex-
tension of the EMG-torque curve line
indicates that neural adaptations are
driving strength gains, while a change
in the slope of the EMG-torque curve
indicates that hypertrophy is driving
strength gains. So, before stating the re-
sults, let’s look at a basic representation
of exactly what this means in Figure 1 so
that we are sure to understand the find-
ings.
In Figure 1A, we can see that from
pre- to post-training (when strength
adaptation occurs over a period of time),
the line is “extended,” which shows that
there is greater EMG amplitude at a
without any shift of the line indicates
the prominence of neural adaptations.
In Figure 1B, we see there is no exten-
sion (no increase in peak EMG), but the
post-training line has shifted down and
to the right; thus, there is the same peak
EMG at post-training versus pre-train-
ing even though torque (strength) in-
creased. So, Figure 1B indicates that
hypertrophy is driving the strength re-
sponse. Figure 3C shows both an exten-
sion (increased EMG) and shift down/
right (increased torque), demonstrating
that both neural and hypertrophic adap-
tations are behind the strength improve-
ment.

52
 Figure 1 Hypothetical example of adaptations
Pre-training
A B
EMG (mV)
Torque (Nm)
EMG = electromyography
In brief, increased peak EMG (in-
creased height on the y-axis) suggests
neural adaptations, while a decreased
slope (shift down and right) suggests
hypertrophy.
Findings
Direct Comparison of EMG, Torque, and
Cross-sectional Area
As expected, both torque and absolute
EMG of the agonist muscle increased
with experience (4 years > 12 weeks >
untrained). During submaximal con-
tractions, EMG of the agonist mus-
cle was greater in both 4 years and 12
weeks versus untrained, but the 4-year
and 12-week cohorts were not different
from each other. Also, as expected, mus-
Post-training
C
cle cross-sectional area was significantly
greater in the 4-year cohort compared
to the other two cohorts, while the un-
trained and 12-week cohorts had similar
quad CSAs.
Agonist Muscle EMG-Torque Relation-
ship
We will now examine how the hypo-
thetical example from Figure 1 plays
out. In Figure 2A, you can see that the
untrained and 12-week cohorts have
EMG-torque curves with similar slopes,
but that the curve for the 12-week
groups extends further, which shows that
increased EMG activity occurred with
increased torque. This means that neural
adaptations drove the strength response
in the first 12 weeks of training.
In Figure 2A, the line for the 4-year
53
 Figure 2A & 2B EMG-torque relationship of the agonist muscle

A B

0.3 UNT
(n=29) 0.20
Corrected Agonist EMG (mV)

12 WK

Corrected Agonist EMG (mV)

(n=14)
0.15
0.2
4 YR
(n=14)
0.10

0.1
0.05

0.0 0.00
0 100 200 300 400 UNT 12 WK 4 YR
(n=29) (n=14) (n=14)
Leg extension torque (Nm)

EMG = electromyography, * = Significantly lower EMG activity at a common torque than both the untrained and 12-week cohorts.

cohort is shifted down and to the right a lower percentage of its motor units
when compared to the other two co- to achieve the highest common torque,
horts. At the highest common torque compared to the other cohorts.
in all three cohorts (that torque was 196
Nm), muscle activation was lower in the Antagonist Muscle EMG-Torque Rela-
4-year cohort, demonstrating that the tionship
same force could be produced at a lower The antagonist relationship was similar
muscle activation, suggesting hypertro- to the agonist relationship. In Figure 3A,
phy (and other morphological changes) you can again see the slope of the line in
were driving strength adaptations. Sim- the 4-year cohort was significantly lower
ilar to Figure 2A, Figure 2B shows that (p<0.05) than the other two groups. In
the “corrected” EMG for the agonist Figure 3B, you can see that EMG was
muscle during the maximal contractions significantly lower (p<0.05) at the high-
was significantly lower in the 4-year co- est common torque in the 4-year cohort
hort. This simply shows that at the high- compared to the other two cohorts.
est common torque, a lower percentage
of total muscle activation was needed to
achieve this torque. In other words, the Interpretation
4-year cohort probably needed to recruit
In short, these findings suggest that

54
 Figure 3A & 3B EMG-torque relationship of the antagonist muscle

A B

30
Normalised antagonist EMG
(% Knee flexion EMGMAX)

30

Normalised Antagonist EMG

(% Knee flexion EMGMAX)
20
20

10
10

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 UNT 12 WK 4 YR
(n=29) (n=14) (n=14)
Leg extension torque (Nm)

EMG = electromyography, * = Significantly lower EMG activity at a common torque than both the untrained and 12-week cohorts.

neural adaptations drive strength gains The findings of this study likely show
within the first 12 weeks of training, that hypertrophy has some contribution
while from 12 weeks to 4 years, fur- to strength over the long term, but it’s
ther neural adaptations are minimal, also an oversimplification to infer that
and morphological change emerges as muscle hypertrophy is the only factor
a prominent factor explaining strength driving strength over the long term.
gains. The latter statement is indirectly That being said, when individual fibers
supported by the finding that muscle are smaller, more fibers must be recruit-
cross-sectional area was the greatest in ed to produce a similar amount of force
the 4-year cohort, while cross-section- or torque. For example, the 4-year co-
al area was similar in the untrained and hort had lower muscle activation at the
12-week cohorts. What does this mean same torque as the other groups, but
from a practical perspective? Also, we still had a greater peak torque. Since
should ask: Does this study oversim- the 4-year cohort likely had larger fi-
plify in its binary (either neural or hy- bers, they could achieve that same com-
pertrophic) portrayal of what is driving mon torque, yet do it at a lower EMG
strength gains? Let’s address the latter amplitude. Next, the 4-year cohort still
question first. had more fibers unrecruited when they

55
produced the same amount of torque as
the other cohorts; thus, they were able
to achieve a higher peak torque once all
motor units were recruited. This is what
the shift of the EMG-torque curve
(down and right) shows us in the ear-
lier figures. Although examining every
possible factor contributing to strength
adaptation is outside of our scope here,
some of the other factors include: length
of muscle moment arms, muscle archi-
tecture, skill and technique, and muscle
stiffness. Greg has previously written
about this in depth. Just looking at that
brief list, you should notice that things
like skill, technique, and muscle stiffness
will improve over time; therefore, these
factors will inevitably have an impact on
strength as time goes by. In the present
study, technique wasn’t a contributor
because no technique is needed to per-
form a knee extension on a dynamome-
ter (unlike a compound barbell lift), but
muscle stiffness may have played a role.
This isn’t to diminish the contribution
of hypertrophy to strength, as some data
suggests that muscle cross-sectional area
may explain about 50% of the variability
in force production (2), but the present
study is somewhat limited in the con-
clusions it can make.
An interesting point of this study is
that the 12-week cohort trained the
leg extension three times per week un-
der the supervision of the investigators
immediately prior to the study. This is
a strength because we can deduce that
NEURAL ADAPTATIONS DRIVE
STRENGTH GAINS WITHIN THE
FIRST 12 WEEKS OF TRAINING,
WHILE FROM 12 WEEKS TO
4 YEARS, FURTHER NEURAL
ADAPTATIONS ARE MINIMAL,
AND MORPHOLOGICAL
CHANGE EMERGES AS
A PROMINENT FACTOR
EXPLAINING STRENGTH GAINS.
the differences in the EMG-torque re-
lationship between the 12-week and
untrained cohorts are likely due to the
supervised training the 12-week cohort
underwent. However, it’s also a weak-
ness because it had the 12-week cohort
train the exact exercise that was used
for the test. The 4-year cohort, on the
other hand, was not accustomed to per-
forming leg extensions three times per
week, so it’s possible that greater neu-
ral adaptations would have been seen in
the 4-year cohort if they too had per-
formed leg extensions consistently in
the weeks immediately prior to testing
strength on that exercise. So when ex-
56

IF YOU AREN’T MAXIMIZING
HYPERTROPHY, OR AT LEAST
PLACING SOME FOCUS ON
IT OVER THE LONG RUN,
THEN YOU AREN’T GOING
TO MAXIMIZE STRENGTH.
amining the results, we can take a lot of
stock in the finding that neural adapta-
tions are largely responsible for the ini-
tial strength adaptation due to the 12-
week cohort performing leg extensions
prior to the study. Although not directly
assessed here, this initial neural adapta-
tion may be due to an improved firing
rate of motor units (4) or recruitment of
additional motor units that were not re-
cruited prior to the 12 weeks of training
(5). The same research group conduct-
ed another study that showed a signif-
icant relationship (r=0.58) between the
change in maximal leg extension torque
and the change in quadriceps EMG
over 12 weeks (6). That study assessed
multiple factors that could contribute
to strength gains, and changes in EMG
explained a larger proportion of the
variability in strength gains than any of
the other factors (30.6%). However, that
still leaves nearly 70% of the variance in
strength unexplained. That study also re-
ported a significant correlation between
changes in torque and changes in quad-
riceps volume (r=0.46), which accounted
for 18.7% of the variability in strength
gains in the first 12 weeks of training.
So, even though there was no significant
change in muscle size in the current
study, that doesn’t mean there isn’t some
relationship between muscle growth in
the first 12 weeks and strength adapta-
tion on the individual level. Thus, when
we state that neural adaptations are of
primary importance early in a training
career and hypertrophy becomes more
dominant later on, we need to focus on
the word primary and realize that other
factors still contribute. We are nowhere
close to explaining 100% of the variance
in strength adaptation at any point in a
training career.
A limitation of this study is that it
only examined a controlled single-joint
movement (i.e. knee extension on a dy-
namometer). Specifically, greater neural
adaptations are likely to occur over the
long term on the compound movements.
When we refer to “neural adaptations”
on heavy compound lifts, we’re general-
ly talking about a lot of factors: motor
patterns, rate coding, motor unit recruit-
ment, inter-muscle coordination, and
muscle fiber conduction velocity. As we
previously covered in MASS, it is pos-
sible that as a training career continues,
a lifter can achieve max motor unit re-
57
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
1. In the initial stages of training, EMG activity increases as strength increases, which
demonstrates that neural adaptations drive strength gains for novices. As the years
go by, EMG activity does not continue to increase despite further increases in
strength, which suggests that hypertrophy becomes a major factor driving strength
gains in experienced lifters.
2. Despite the previous point, it is clear that many factors drive strength gains. Further,
neural adaptations most likely still occur late into a training career, though to a
lesser degree than early in a training career.
3. The relationship between hypertrophy and strength has been questioned recently
(and that’s a good thing), but it still seems clear that if a lifter doesn’t focus at all on
hypertrophy as the years go by, then that lifter will inevitably leave strength gains
on the table.

cruitment more quickly in a contraction,
which may be beneficial at heavier loads.
How far into a training career can a lift-
er continue to improve the quickness of
motor unit recruitment? We don’t really
know, but we do know that a lifter can
continue to refine technique over time.
So all things considered, it certainly
seems that even though the contribution
of neural adaptations to strength will
decrease after the initial training period,
and the contribution of hypertrophy to
strength will increase, both still contrib-
ute throughout the process.
Ultimately, we should use this data to
understand how to train on a conceptual
level. If someone is untrained, the focus
should be on adherence and technique
to facilitate neural adaptations. High
volume shouldn’t be a focus in the un-
trained, not just because hypertrophy isn’t
the primary contributor for strength, but
because lots of volume isn’t needed for
hypertrophy at this stage. Further, high
volume in novices may impede recovery,
which will harm adherence and tech-
nique. Over the long term, perhaps pow-
erlifters would be better served to train
more like bodybuilders at times. Don’t
take that statement too literally; rather,
I’m just saying that if you aren’t maxi-
mizing hypertrophy, or at least placing
some focus on it over the long run, then
you aren’t going to maximize strength.
Next Steps
The dream next step is to track neural
and morphological changes over multi-
ple years. This is obviously difficult to do.
I’d also like to see what happens beyond
four years, but certainly even a dream
study can’t last that long. So for now, I
would settle for another cross-sectional

58
study, but with cohorts added at around
7 years and 10+ years of training with
similar measurements to the present
study.

59
References
1. Balshaw TG, Massey GJ, Maden‐Wilkinson TM, Lanza MB, Folland JP. Neural adaptations after
4 years vs. 12 weeks of resistance training vs. untrained. Scandinavian journal of medicine & science
in sports. 2018 Nov 1.
2. Gilliver SF, Degens H, Rittweger J, Sargeant AJ, Jones DA. Variation in the determinants of power
of chemically skinned human muscle fibres. Experimental physiology. 2009 Oct 1;94(10):1070-8.
3. Sale DG. Neural adaptation to resistance training. Medicine and science in sports and exercise. 1988
Oct;20(5 Suppl):S135-45.
4. Knight CA, Kamen G. Relationships between voluntary activation and motor unit firing rate during
maximal voluntary contractions in young and older adults. European journal of applied physiology.
2008 Aug 1;103(6):625-30.
5. Folland JP, Williams AG. Morphological and neurological contributions to increased strength.
Sports medicine. 2007 Feb 1;37(2):145-68.
6. Balshaw TG, Massey GJ, Maden-Wilkinson TM, Morales-Artacho AJ, McKeown A, Appleby CL,
Folland JP. Changes in agonist neural drive, hypertrophy and pre-training strength all contribute to
the individual strength gains after resistance training. European journal of applied physiology. 2017
Apr 1;117(4):631-40.

60
Study Reviewed: Lifestyles and Mindsets of Olympic, Paralympic and World Champions: Is
an Integrated Approach the Key to Elite Performance? Burns et al. (2018)

The Mindset of
World Champions
BY E RI C HE LMS

We often focus on the quantitative science behind sport to improve

performance, since it’s tangible. However, world champions believe their
success is primarily due to the intangibles: their outlook and mindset.

61
 KEY POINTS
1. Qualitative research, such as the present study, analyzes non-numerical data
to tell us more about human behavior, motivations, beliefs, and the hows and
whys of decision-making. While qualitative research doesn’t provide statistical
generalizations about objective outcomes, it can serve as an exploratory indication
of where future research should go and can provide insight into the mindset of
coaches and athletes.
2. In the present study, an impressive collection of 10 Olympic, Paralympic, and
World Championship gold medalists were interviewed about what they believe
contributed to their competitive success. Questions covered their background
in the sport, physical and psychological attributes, motivation, strategies and
competency, lifestyle practices, support networks, and practices employed outside
of their main sport for time out, rest, and relaxation.
3. When asked why they believed they were successful, some of the themes most
common in the responses were intrinsic motivation, self-regulation and confidence,
coping strategies, a positive outlook, faith, routines or rituals, work ethic, capitalizing
on opportunities, use of sports science, nutrition, psychology, use of recovery
strategies, time off, a support network, and a coach-athlete partnership.

I
t’s easy to have a “quantitative bias”
in sports science. Quantitative data
can tell us if something works,
the degree to which it works, and what
things work better. Many of you might
not know what qualitative research is,
and many academics who do know what
it is downplay its value. However, in any
field that is supposed to inform what
humans should do (in sport or other-
wise), qualitative research (the analysis
of non-numerical information) has a
role. Decision-making is often based on
non-numerical data. For example, iron-
ically, the decision I made at the start of
my research career to primarily conduct
quantitative studies came from a quali-
tative belief. If I was to sum up that be-
lief as a statement it would be, “I enjoy
quantitative research and believe it is
important for learning how to optimize
performance, so that’s why I became a
quantitative researcher.” This fundamen-
tal belief determined an entire arc of my
career; it’s why I have a Ph.D. and do
what I do, and without it, I wouldn’t be
writing for MASS. Likewise, athletes
make decisions based on beliefs that are
crucial to their success. Is the fear of inju-
ry worth the chance of success? How do
I stay motivated and persevere through
adversity? How do I perceive myself and
my opponents? Should I focus on im-
provement or winning? Should I strive
for life balance, or let sport become my
life? The present study (1) explored these

62
questions in interviews with 10 elite
performers who had won gold medals
at the Olympic, Paralympic or World
Championship level in various sports.
While this data cannot tell us whether
the beliefs of these athletes caused their
success, it tells us what beliefs are com-
mon among the best of the best … and
as they say, “success leaves clues.”
Purpose and Research
Questions
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to ex-
plore the perspectives of elite athletes
using a qualitative approach to under-
stand which factors they attribute their
success to, in an effort to guide future
research and practice.
Hypothesis
Qualitative research is not designed to
test hypotheses, but rather to explore di-
rections for future quantitative research
or, alternatively, to explore the experi-
ence or meaning of quantitative data.
Subjects and Methods
Subjects and Study Design
One-on-one, semi-structured inter-
views were conducted with 10 Austra-
lian participants (6 female and 4 male).
THE TAKE-HOME READING
THESE INTERVIEWS WAS THAT
YOU PROBABLY SHOULDN’T
NEGLECT BEING A HUMAN IN
SERVICE OF BEING AN ATHLETE
(AT LEAST IF YOU WANT TO
BE A WORLD CHAMPION).
The sample included both able-bodied
and Paralympic athletes, and athletes
competing in both team and individual
sports. All of the participants had won a
gold medal at an Olympic, Paralympic,
or World Championship event. A sum-
mary of these participant’s competitive
results is in Table 1.
An interview guide was developed to
direct a broad line of questioning related
to the developmental background, ath-
lete profile, lifestyle practices, support
networks, and key support services of
each participant. Sample questions and
the framework of this guide are shown
in Table 2.
Standardization and Analysis
In qualitative research using inter-
views, the participant responses are cat-
egorized into “themes,” and standard-
63
Table 1 Summary of participant sample and number of key international events competed at,
along with gold medals won
World championship
Olympic / Paralympic
Athlete Gold medals / cup gold medal Gold medals
games attended
performances
Barcelona 1992
AIF2 Atlanta 1996 World championships 2x gold
Sydney 2000 Gold
Sydney 2000 3x gold
AT/IM1 World championships 11x gold
Athens 2004 2x gold
Seoul 1988
Barcelona 1992
Atlanta 1996 Gold World Cup 5x gold
AT/IM2
Sydney 2000 World championship 4x gold
Beijing 2008
London 2012
Atlanta 1996 -
PI/TM1 Sydney 2000 World championships Gold
Athens 2004
Atlanta 1996
ATF4 Sydney 2000 Gold - -
Athens 2004
Atlanta 1996 Gold
World championships
PI/TM2 Sydney 2000 2x gold Gold
1998
Athens 2004
AIF1 Not an olympic sport - World titles 7x gold
Beijin 2008 -
AIF3 London 2012 World championships Gold
Rio 2016
Lillehammer 1994 -
Nagano 1998
AIF4 Salt Lake City 2002 World titles 9x gold
Torino 2006
Vancouver 2010
ATF5 Rio 2016 Gold - -

A = able-bodied, P = paralympic, T = team sport, I = individual sport, T/I = team and individual, F = female, M = male

ized practices and researcher consensus
are used to ensure that interviews are
conducted and analyzed in a consis-
tent manner. The main researcher used
a journal to record notes, observations,
reflections, potential themes, and ques-
tions for the next interviewee and used
specific qualitative software to tran-
scribe and organize responses. Regular
meetings between researchers were held
throughout the data analysis phase to
discuss and confirm the themes and dis-
cuss how to use quotes from participants
to illustrate each theme.
Findings
Four themes emerged, each with a

64
Table 2 Sample questions from the interview guide

Interview guide structure

Interview section Aim Exemplar questions

To explain the research and identify

• Tell me about how you go involved in your sport
1. Introduction, sport sporting achievements and
• What is the highest level of competition you have achieved?
background and rapport developmental background and
• How long have you been competing at the senior international level?
building develop trust and rapport between the
• Please explain your training regimen during the peak of your career.
researcher and athlete
• To what (factors/attributes) do you attribute your success?
Identify and explore physical and
• What planning and preparation did you do leading up to a major event?
psychological attributes, motivation and
• Tell me about your ability to cope and adapt with changing circumstances?
• What recovery tools did you use during your training?
competency
• Do you use any mental imagery techniques? Can you tell me about your practice?
• Did you have an ‘extra-curricular’ training activities you implemented that were
separate to the set team training programme?
3. Lifestyle practices Explore lifestyle practices and routines
• As part of your preparation did you see any complementary health practitioners?
• Can you describe your daily diet during a precompetition and competition day?
• Do you have someone in your life who makes you laugh?
4. Support networks and
support networks both in and out of • Who provided you with support during the hard times of your sporting career?
key support services
their sport • How would you describe your relationship with your coach?
Identify practices employed outside of
5. Balance, rest, and • What did you do to relax when you weren’t training or competing?
their main sport for time out, rest, and
relaxation •
relaxation

number of sub-themes, that represent- ting distracted, meticulous preparation,

ed what the athletes perceived as critical embracing challenges, having support,
to their success. These themes and sub- and being comfortable alone.
themes are shown in Table 3.
There were quotes provided by the
authors from the participants for each Interpretation
of the themes and sub-themes, as well. I really enjoyed reading this study be-
While providing all of them would be cause it challenges a lot of preconceived
unnecessary and would be a lot to read, notions of what championship athletes
I’ve provided some exemplary quotes do to succeed, how they think, what type
that I found interesting in Table 4 so of people they are, and the lives they
you can get a feel for how qualitative re- lead. I think it’s a common perception
search is represented. that elite athletes often “miss the for-
When athletes were asked “To what est for the trees” when it comes to how
do you attribute your success?” they all much of their focus and resources are
referred to psychological aspects, with devoted to sport at the expense of oth-
none mentioning physical capacity. Fur- er aspects of life. Sometimes in media,
thermore, when asked “What advice athletes can be portrayed as obsessed,
would you give other athletes?” respons- entirely focused on winning, dominat-
es were psychological in nature. The par- ing their opponents, and being ruth-
ticipants focused their advice around less and machine-like (but not always).
self-belief, using visualization, not get- However, the present study painted an

65
Table 3 Themes and sub-themes

Theme 1 Theme 2 Theme 3 Theme 4

Psychological attributes Performance strategies Interpersonal relationships Lifestyle practices
Maximizing training and performance
Superior self-regulation Having the right support team Nutrition and hydration
opportunities

Intrinsic motivation The athlete-coach partnership Utilization of complementary therapies

Physical therapies and recovery Importance of time out

strategies
Reliance on faith, routines, or rituals

Strong work ethics

positive mindset

entirely different picture (although this lutely required to become a champion.

could be because the type of champi- However, unless you have extreme out-
on who participates in research has a lier levels of natural talent, this must be
unique mentality, or because media at- complemented with a strong work ethic.
tention is given more often to athletes And even if you are the extreme outlier,
with a certain attitude). The individuals having a successful long-term career as
in this study were intrinsically motivat- a high-level athlete requires a big-pic-
ed, enjoyed their sport, and were incred- ture, balanced perspective, such as those
ibly self-aware, including an awareness exemplified by the participants in this
of their limitations, their needs for self- study. The athletes I’ve worked with who
care, time away from sport, recovery, a trend toward all-or-nothing beliefs, re-
strong support network, and finding gardless of their natural talent, struggle
deeper meaning in sport. to succeed in the long term. While they
This is not to say that the athletes seem to be able to leverage an extreme
weren’t focused, meticulous, driven, able work ethic in the short term, they strug-
to overcome incredible adversity, and gle with adherence, happiness, or recov-
self-confident (they certainly were), but ery in the long term, as they often ne-
this was balanced with a big-picture glect self-care or let their lives fall apart
perspective. Many of these athletes fo- outside of their sport, which eventually
cused on long-term goals, like getting to begins to affect them as an athlete. For
the Olympics or Paralympics and also me, the take-home reading these inter-
having long competitive careers. Sim- views was that you probably shouldn’t
ilarly, many of the Paralympians were neglect being a human in service of be-
originally able-bodied athletes who kept ing an athlete (at least if you want to be
competing after an injury. In my expe- a world champion). With that said, a
rience as a coach, natural talent is abso- limitation of this study is that sampling
bias could have come into play; while

66
Table 4 Representative quotes of selected themes and sub-themes

Participant: “My earliest memory of what drove me to run was just feeling
Strong intrinsic motivation rather than extrinsic
happy when I ran. I felt so free…so untouchable. I was never the type of
reward and recognition was evident. A hunger for
Intrinsic motivation person who needed to be watched. I didn’t need to have an audience. I just
self-challenge and being the best was prevalent,
behind me. It made me
along with a connection to something meaningful.
happy to take notice of nature.”
When asked “how mentally strong did you feel on the day of competition?”
Self-assurance resounded strongly across all
a participant responded: “Unbeatable, most of the time.” Another participant
a result of accrued experience in both training and
were studying me. I never ever wasted the time in thinking about anybody
competition.
else, ever.”
Mental strength and competition experience were
used to enhance the athletes’ ability to cope with
and adapt to changing circumstances. Whilst
A participant described her response after a career-changing injury: “Instead
through seemingly negative chance events, their
of just going, ‘Well, just wait and see what happens’ I put a plan together. I put
ability to cope, by adopting a pragmatic yet
dates on it, then when I couldn’t do one thing, I’d miss it and go to the next
one. Because it was written on a ball, it was in front of me every single day,
evident. Some athletes had minimal or virtually no
it was a reminder; ‘This is what I’m going for.’ It wasn’t something that was
injuries, whereas others had life-changing injuries
positive mindset deep in the back of my mind, it kept me accountable to do the work, to do
that culminated in major operations, extensive
the rehab, to keep trying, pushing to the next step. Then other people saw it
and we talked about it. They’d come into the house and see the ball and we’d
program. The Paralympians who had rehabilitation
chat about it. So that was good, by having the goal out there, it helped people
and management as a result of their impairment
support me.
showed incredible mental fortitude and positivity,
with a big picture attitude and clear goals that
helped their rehabilitation and resilience.

“escaping,” and creating balance between rest

A participant described how she would relax: “Movies and get into bed …
and relaxation and the rigors of training and
You’re watching a movie – it’s escapism, you’re lying down, you’re warm, you
Importance of time out competition. These strategies included taking
a bath, shopping, catching up with friends,
a jump at 70K an hour.”
interacting with nature, watching movies, reading,
and listening to music.

I don’t think it’s likely, it’s possible the on the outcome of exercise, rather than
more balanced, easy-going, and altruis- on the process of exercise, actually un-
tic athletes may have been the only ones dermines the achievement of goals (4).
willing to participate, and that in reali- While this is a qualitative study, I think
ty, these attitudes are rare among world the existing quantitative research I just
champions. cited does seem to suggest that some of
If you watch my MASS video on sus- these perspectives are probably related
tainable motivation, you’ll find a link to success in sport.
between my anecdotal observations of What does this mean for you practi-
success among the athletes I’ve worked cally? Well, I would recommend taking
with, the themes in the present study, and some time to reflect on your approach
some quantitative research. From what to sport and exercise (or your athletes’
we know from self-determination theo- approach if you’re a coach). In general,
ry about human motivation (2), having a I think it’s important to not dwell too
sense of autonomy, competence, and hu- much on the immediate. Think about
man connection are all important – not whether your strategies, mindset, and
only for happiness, but also for success overall approach are sustainable in the
in sport and exercise (3). Also, ironically, long run. Also, consider what you might
it’s been shown that focusing exclusively be sacrificing in the pursuit of your ath-

67
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
1. Champions attribute their success primarily to their mental strengths and
perspective. Elite athletes have a way of life that integrates mindset, performance,
lifestyle, and relationship factors.
2. Elite performance may occur when a strong psychology exists in concert with
a strong support network, effective performance strategies, and a lifestyle that
meshes with each of these aspects.
3. The champion athletes in this study also seemed to be able to transition between
immediate, performance-focused mindsets and long-term, balanced perspectives
in service of a successful athletic career. This skill is developed over time via exposure
to training and competition; eventually, through self-regulation, it becomes habitual.

letic goals. Are there aspects of your life
or your relationships outside of sport
that you could attend to more effective-
ly with additional planning or thought?
It’s often easier to make broad, sweep-
ing, or black-and-white decisions, put
things on the back burner, and cut out
aspects of life that conflict in some way
with your athletic goals. For example,
consider the bodybuilder who decides
it’s easier to simply become a hermit
during prep than to learn the skills which
would allow him or her to eat out while
still meeting their competition nutrition
needs. Or, consider the strength ath-
lete who decides it’s easier to not travel
during a meet prep rather than setting
up a more flexible training plan. In the
short term, it takes less thought, energy,
and there is less ambiguity by making
the easier decision. However, in the long
run, this may result in stunted growth
as a human, a less supportive social net-
work, competitive burn out, less resil-
ience and ability to make up lost ground
when things don’t go according to plan,
and struggling with life transitions in
and out of sport (e.g. becoming a mas-
ters athlete, injury, retirement, etc).
Finally, as a researcher, it was both
cool and humbling to read the athletes’
thoughts. While they did value sports
science, nutrition, recovery strategies,
and coaching from a quantitative per-
spective, they put much greater empha-
sis on the psychological and emotional
aspects of training, competition, life, and
overcoming adversity. While we can’t say
for sure that these are the most import-
ant factors for becoming a champion
athlete (it’s possible elite athletes focus
more on psychological aspects of sport
because everyone they compete against
has good training, genetics, and resourc-
es), they probably shouldn’t be ignored
or undervalued.

68
Next Steps
Qualitative research is valuable, as it
gives insight into what people think and
do. For that reason, it can inform future
quantitative research. I would love to see
if the themes that emerged in this study
could be experimentally tested in longi-
tudinal coaching research. For example,
a random sample of athletes receiving no
changes to their coaching could be com-
pared as controls to a random sample
of athletes who received specific coach-
ing strategies based on the perspectives
exemplified by the elite athletes in this
sample. Over time it would be interest-
ing to see if greater success, longer ca-
reers, or superior physical performance
were observed in the intervention group.
Obviously this would need to have a
very large sample size and be a long-
term study, but hey, we can all dream.

69
References
1. Burns, L., Weissensteiner, J.R., Cohen, M., Lifestyles and mindsets of Olympic, Paralympic and
world champions: is an integrated approach the key to elite performance? Br J Sports Med, 2018
[epub ahead of print].
2. Deci, E.L. and R.M. Ryan, The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personal-
ity. Journal of Research in Personality, 1985. 19(2): p. 109-134.
3. Teixeira, P.J., et al., Exercise, physical activity, and self-determination theory: A systematic review.
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 2012. 9(1): p. 78.
4. Fishbach, A. and J. Choi, When thinking about goals undermines goal pursuit.Organizational Be-
havior and Human Decision Processes, 2012. 118(2): p. 99-107.

70
 Study Reviewed: Effects of Short-Term Rhodiola Rosea (Golden Root Extract)
Supplementation on Anaerobic Exercise Performance. Ballmann et al. (2018)

Does a Popular “Adaptogen”

Increase Anaerobic Performance
as Much as Caffeine?
BY G RE G NUC KO LS

Rhodiola rosea is a popular supplement, touted for its ability to decrease

perceptions of fatigue. A new study found that it also improves anaerobic
exercise performance, which may make it useful for lifters.

71
 KEY POINTS
1. Rhodiola rosea is an herb that’s primarily been studied for its ability to reduce
perceptions of fatigue.
2. Some research indicates that rhodiola supplementation is able to improve aerobic
exercise performance.
3. This study indicates that rhodiola is also capable of improving anaerobic exercise
performance. In fact, its effects seem to be comparable to those of caffeine.

R
hodiola rosea, also known as
“golden root,” is an herb used in
traditional medicine in Eastern
Europe. Unlike many “alternative me-
dicinal” compounds, rhodiola actually
has a growing body of literature support-
ing its use as an anti-fatigue supplement.
However, there’s little research into its
effects on exercise, and the research that
does exist is focused on aerobic exercise.
The presently reviewed study (1)
blazed new trails by testing the effects of
rhodiola supplementation on anaerobic
performance. Eleven women performed
three half-Wingate tests (15 second all-
out cycle sprints against substantial re-
sistance) with two minutes between tests
after consuming either 500mg of rhodi-
ola or a placebo pill. Multiple measures
of anaerobic performance, including
mean power, peak power, and anaerobic
capacity, were increased after rhodiola
supplementation. In fact, it seems that
rhodiola supplementation improves an-
aerobic performance at least as much as
caffeine does, which is surprising. So,
while we can’t yet know if rhodiola sup-
plementation improves lifting perfor-
mance, the results of this study are very
promising.
Purpose and Research
Questions
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to in-
vestigate whether rhodiola supplemen-
tation would affect anaerobic exercise
performance.
Hypotheses
No hypotheses were directly stated.
However, the wording of the introduc-
tion makes it sound like the authors
expected that rhodiola supplementa-
tion would improve anaerobic exercise
performance, due to possible effects on
ATP resynthesis or stimulatory effects.
Subjects and Methods
Subjects
Eleven young (18-24 years old), phys-
72
Table 1 Subject characteristics
Subjects Age (years) Height (cm)
11 females 19.4 ± 0.8 155.1 ± 5.1
Data are mean ± SD
ically active women volunteered to par-
ticipate in this study. Details about the
participants can be seen in Table 1.
Methods
This crossover study took place over
two visits: a supplemental trial and a
placebo trial. The order of the trials was
counterbalanced and randomized. The
subjects were given 500mg of either
rhodiola (standardized to a minimum of
3% rosavins and 1% salidroside, which
are believed to be the biologically active
components of rhodiola) or an inert pla-
cebo three times per day for three days
prior to each testing session. On each
day of testing, the subjects were given
another 500mg dose of either rhodiola
or the placebo 30 minutes before the ex-
ercise testing.
The exercise testing consisted of three
consecutive half-Wingate tests on a cy-
cle ergometer, with two minutes between
tests. In other words, the participants
pedaled as hard as they could against a
resistance equal to 7.5% of their body
mass for 15 seconds, rested for two min-
utes, then repeated the process two more
times. This may not sound like much,
Weight (kg) BMI
66.2 ± 8.5 23.3 ± 2.5
but I can assure you that this was a very
strenuous anaerobic test.
Mean and peak power, mean anaero-
bic capacity, mean anaerobic power, total
work, and fatigue index were calculated
for each half-Wingate test. Fatigue in-
dex is a measure of the degree to which
power output decreases from its high-
est point (generally at the very start of
a test) to its lowest point (generally at
the very end of a test). A higher fatigue
index means a greater relative decrease
in performance.
Findings
When averaging the data from all three
half-Wingate tests, mean power output,
peak power output, anaerobic capacity,
anaerobic power, and total work were all
significantly higher during the rhodiola
trial than the placebo trial. However, av-
erage fatigue index did not significant-
ly differ between conditions. Average
performance differences were 6.2% for
mean power, 6.4% for peak power, 4.0%
for anaerobic capacity, 8.6% for anaero-
bic power, and 4.9% for total work.
Data for each individual half-Win-
73
 Figure 1 Overview of each testing visit
Half-Wingate Test
500mg of
rhodiola rosea 30 minutes
15 second all-out
extract or placebo sprint against 7.5%
of body weight
gate test tells a broadly similar story,
but the between-condition comparisons
weren’t significant, likely because statis-
tical power was lower. In terms of effect
sizes, the difference between conditions
was large (d=0.96-1.07) for anaero-
bic power and anaerobic capacity, and
small-to-medium for all other measures
(d=0.39-0.55). Of note, fatigue index
was actually slightly (non-significantly)
higher during the rhodiola condition,
but that may just be an artifact of peak
power being higher. For example, if peak
power output was 1,000 watts during
the placebo condition and 1,100 watts
during the rhodiola condition, and min-
imum power output was 500 watts for
the placebo condition and 525 watts for
the rhodiola condition, the fatigue index
would be greater following the rhodiola
condition (52.3% vs. 50%), even though
performance was higher throughout the
entire test.
Interpretation
Rhodiola is an interesting supplement.
It’s often used in “traditional medicine,”
and my bias is that most “traditional
Half-Wingate Test Half-Wingate Test
2 minutes 2 minutes
15 second all-out 15 second all-out
sprint against 7.5% sprint against 7.5%
of body weight of body weight
medicine” is bunk (in most cases, if it
worked, it would just be called “medi-
cine”). However, rhodiola has a growing
body of literature supporting its use as
an anti-fatigue supplement (2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7). It seems to reduce perceptions of fa-
tigue (both mental and physical fatigue)
and improve mental performance under
fatigued or stressful conditions. These ef-
fects seem to be pretty large and notice-
able. And if you’re interested in non-hu-
man studies, it looks like a wonder drug:
it may improve nerve regeneration and
protect against nerve damage, improve
memory, decrease symptoms of depres-
sion (there’s some human evidence for
this effect; 14), exert cardioprotective
effects, attenuate bone loss, help with
nicotine withdrawals, and extend lifes-
pan by almost 20% – although it would
definitely be unwise to assume that all of
these findings will apply to humans.
The biggest problems with rhodiola
research are that most of the studies are
rodent studies, and the direct mecha-
nisms aren’t well understood. It may in-
crease serotonin levels in the brain, exert
a mild stimulatory effect, and function as
an antioxidant, but the ways that its bio-
74
 Figure 2 Mean anaerobic performance variables over three half-Wingate tests

A 900 B 1400 C 12
800 Placebo

Mean anaerobic capacity

1200 10
Rhodiola
Mean power (Watts)

Peak power (Watts)

700
1000
600 8

(Watts/kg)
500 800
6
400 600
300 4
400
200
200 2
100
0 0 0

D 18 E 14000 F 70
16
Mean total work (joules)
Mean anaerobic power

12000 60

Mean fatigue index

14
10000 50
12
(Watts/kg)

10 8000 40
8 6000 30
6
4000 20
4
2000 10
2
0 0 0

Data are presented as mean ± SD

* = significantly different from placebo (p < 0.05)

active compounds actually exert those ola supplementation decreased circulat-

effects aren’t fully elucidated (check out ing free fatty acid levels without affect-
the Examine.com page for more infor- ing blood glucose levels, and following
mation). So, we know that it tends to do the test, blood lactate levels were low-
good stuff (primarily reducing percep- er after rhodiola supplementation (8).
tions of fatigue and maintaining mental Lower levels of circulating free fatty ac-
performance when fatigued or stressed), ids may suggest that uptake of free fatty
but it’s not entirely clear how it does acids by the muscles was improved, and
good stuff. lower lactate levels suggest a decreased
Regarding exercise, rhodiola may im- reliance on glucose metabolism during
prove fatty acid metabolism; one study the VO2max test. A rodent study also
found that during a VO2max test, rhodi- found that rhodiola supplementation
increased mitochondrial levels of ATP

75
Table 2 Cohen’s d effect sizes and percent differences for mean performance measures
Performance measure
Power
Peak power
Anaerobic capacity
Anaerobic power
Total work
Fatigue index
Positive values indicate superior results for the rhodiola condition
post-exercise, suggesting that rhodiola
may improve ATP resynthesis follow-
ing exercise (9). However, other research
has found that rhodiola supplementa-
tion had no effect on carbohydrate or
fat metabolism during exercise, and that
phosphocreatine recovery post-exercise
(which generally follows a similar pat-
tern to ATP resynthesis) was unaffected
by rhodiola supplementation (10, 11).
In general, rhodiola supplementation
seems to improve aerobic exercise per-
formance, but it’s not entirely clear how
it exerts its effects. The most plausible
mechanisms, at this point, seem to be its
mild stimulatory effects and its ability to
decrease perceived fatigue (10).
The results of the present study seem
to support this idea. Increases in peak
power are consistent with stimulatory
effects, and the ability to sustain higher
power outputs over three half-Wingate
tests could suggest decreased percep-
tions of fatigue. Even though it’s a short
Interpretation
6.2% 0.55 Medium
6.4% 0.46 Small
4.0% 0.96 Large
8.6% 1.07 Large
4.9% 0.49 Small
-9.0% -0.39 Small
test, it’s hard to force yourself to give an
absolute, all-out effort for the entire test,
for multiple rounds.
Now, you may be thinking that I’m
making a mountain out of a molehill
with the results of this study. After all,
while there were significant differenc-
es for multiple measures of anaerobic
performance, all of the differences were
quite small. However, the effects of
rhodiola supplementation in this study
seem to be slightly larger than the effects
of caffeine, which is well-known for its
beneficial effects on anaerobic perfor-
mance. A recent meta-analysis found
that caffeine supplementation improves
Wingate performance by ~3-4% (12);
measures of anaerobic performance were
improved by ~4-8.5% with rhodiola
supplementation in this study. Further-
more, if a small effect is still a significant
effect, that tells you that the effect is very
consistent – detecting a significant, het-
erogeneous effect in a relatively small
76

REDUCED PERCEIVED
FATIGUE SEEMS TO BE
THE MOST CONSISTENT
EFFECT OF RHODIOLA
SUPPLEMENTATION, SO
IT SHOULD MAKE HIGH-
VOLUME TRAINING
SESSIONS MORE TOLERABLE
AND ENJOYABLE.
sample requires a large mean difference,
while a small mean difference is detect-
able only if heterogeneity is lower. A
supplement that has a small, beneficial
effect for almost everyone may not get
you all hot and bothered, but it’s a safer
general recommendation than a supple-
ment with more heterogeneous effects
(which may be very beneficial for some
people, but harmful for others).
So, the question on everyone’s mind at
this point is probably: “will this actually
improve my lifting performance?” After
all, a half-Wingate test is relatively sim-
ilar to lifting (maximal output, against
resistance, over a short period of time),
but it’s not exactly the same thing. As-
suming that the most important mecha-
nisms are a slight stimulatory effect and
reductions in perceived fatigue, I can’t
see a good reason to think that rhodi-
ola supplementation wouldn’t improve
training performance. At the very least,
reduced perceived fatigue seems to be
the most consistent effect of rhodio-
la supplementation, so it should make
high-volume training sessions more
tolerable and enjoyable. Until rhodiola
is tested during resistance training, we
can’t know for sure if it would be ben-
eficial, but I suspect that it would be. It
probably won’t make a night-and-day
difference, but it should feasibly increase
volume tolerance, due to its effects on
fatigue. Moreover, even if it doesn’t im-
prove lifting performance, it seems to be
a generally beneficial supplement in the
first place, especially if you have a fatigu-
ing or stressful job, and it’s not incredibly
expensive. So, even if it doesn’t improve
your training, it will still probably have
other beneficial effects.
If you choose to take rhodiola, it seems
to be most effective at doses ranging
from 288-680mg, according to Exam-
ine.com. Larger doses than 680mg may
actually have smaller effects. One study
found that a lot of commercial rhodiola
supplements don’t have adequate levels
of the biologically active compounds
(13), so it may be wise to stick with the
brand used in this study (NOW Foods),
since it seems to work (15). I general-
ly just take 500mg in the morning, and
77
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
In general, rhodiola is a good supplement for anyone who lives a fatiguing life, whether
that’s due to school work, job demands, young children, etc. It’s still premature to
recommend rhodiola for the purposes of improving lifting performance, but I think it’s
worth a shot for people who are looking for a small potential edge.

500mg pre-workout. In the present

study, the subjects took it 30 minutes
pre-workout, but the pharmacokinetics
of rhodiola’s active compounds haven’t
been studied in humans. In mice, peak
blood levels of salidroside are attained
20-25 minutes post-supplementation,
and the half-life is 40-80 minutes (16,
17), though the rates of absorption and
clearance in humans may be different.

Next Steps
The obvious next step is to test the ef-
fects of rhodiola supplementation on re-
sistance training performance and, ide-
ally, chronic training outcomes. For an
acute study, I’d also want to see a more
thorough examination of the mecha-
nisms by which it exerts its effects. Bi-
opsies to get a full work-up on gene ex-
pression and signaling pathways would
be ideal, but even basic measurements
like blood lactate and effort-based RPE
ratings would be valuable. I’d also like to
see a study examining whether rhodiola
mitigates subjective feelings of fatigue
during a period of overreaching.

78
References
1. Ballmann CG, Maze SB, Wells AC, Marshall MM, Rogers RR. Effects of short-term Rhodiola Ro-
sea (Golden Root Extract) supplementation on anaerobic exercise performance. J Sports Sci. 2018
Oct 29:1-6.
2. Darbinyan V, Kteyan A, Panossian A, Gabrielian E, Wikman G, Wagner H. Rhodiola rosea in stress
induced fatigue--a double blind cross-over study of a standardized extract SHR-5 with a repeated
low-dose regimen on the mental performance of healthy physicians during night duty. Phytomedi-
cine. 2000 Oct;7(5):365-71.
3. Schutgens FW, Neogi P, van Wijk EP, van Wijk R, Wikman G, Wiegant FA. The influence of adapto-
gens on ultraweak biophoton emission: a pilot-experiment. Phytother Res. 2009 Aug;23(8):1103-8.
4. Edwards D, Heufelder A, Zimmermann A. Therapeutic effects and safety of Rhodiola rosea extract
WS® 1375 in subjects with life-stress symptoms--results of an open-label study. Phytother Res.
2012 Aug;26(8):1220-5.
5. Hung SK, Perry R, Ernst E. The effectiveness and efficacy of Rhodiola rosea L.: a systematic review
of randomized clinical trials. Phytomedicine. 2011 Feb 15;18(4):235-44.
6. Spasov AA, Wikman GK, Mandrikov VB, Mironova IA, Neumoin VV. A double-blind, place-
bo-controlled pilot study of the stimulating and adaptogenic effect of Rhodiola rosea SHR-5 extract
on the fatigue of students caused by stress during an examination period with a repeated low-dose
regimen. Phytomedicine. 2000 Apr;7(2):85-9.
7. Shevtsov VA, Zholus BI, Shervarly VI, Vol’skij VB, Korovin YP, Khristich MP, Roslyakova NA,
Wikman G. A randomized trial of two different doses of a SHR-5 Rhodiola rosea extract versus
placebo and control of capacity for mental work. Phytomedicine. 2003 Mar;10(2-3):95-105.
8. Parisi A, Tranchita E, Duranti G, Ciminelli E, Quaranta F, Ceci R, Cerulli C, Borrione P, Sabatini S.
Effects of chronic Rhodiola Rosea supplementation on sport performance and antioxidant capacity
in trained male: preliminary results. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2010 Mar;50(1):57-63.
9. Abidov M, Crendal F, Grachev S, Seifulla R, Ziegenfuss T. Effect of extracts from Rhodiola rosea
and Rhodiola crenulata (Crassulaceae) roots on ATP content in mitochondria of skeletal muscles.
Bull Exp Biol Med. 2003 Dec;136(6):585-7.
10. Duncan MJ, Clarke ND. The Effect of Acute Rhodiola rosea Ingestion on Exercise Heart Rate,
Substrate Utilisation, Mood State, and Perceptions of Exertion, Arousal, and Pleasure/Displeasure
in Active Men. J Sports Med (Hindawi Publ Corp). 2014;2014:563043.
11. Walker TB, Altobelli SA, Caprihan A, Robergs RA. Failure of Rhodiola rosea to alter skeletal mus-
cle phosphate kinetics in trained men. Metabolism. 2007 Aug;56(8):1111-7.
12. Grgic J. Caffeine ingestion enhances Wingate performance: a meta-analysis. Eur J Sport Sci. 2018
Mar;18(2):219-225. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2017.1394371.
13. Booker A, Jalil B, Frommenwiler D, Reich E, Zhai L, Kulic Z, Heinrich M. The authenticity and
quality of Rhodiola rosea products. Phytomedicine. 2016 Jun 15;23(7):754-62.
14. Darbinyan V, Aslanyan G, Amroyan E, Gabrielyan E, Malmström C, Panossian A. Clinical trial of
Rhodiola rosea L. extract SHR-5 in the treatment of mild to moderate depression. Nord J Psychia-
try. 2007;61(5):343-8.

79
15. Full disclosure: I take rhodiola, and NOW Foods is the brand I use. I have no financial or commer-
cial interests in either NOW Foods or rhodiola supplemention.
16. Yu-Xian HE, Xiao-Dong LIU, Xin-Ting WANG, Xiang LIU, Guang-Ji WANG, Lin XIE. Sodi-
um-dependent Glucose Transporter Was Involved in Salidroside Absorption in Intestine of Rats.
Chinese Journal of Natural Medicines. 2009;7(6):444-8.
17. Guo N, Hu Z, Fan X, Zheng J, Zhang D, Xu T, Yu T, Wang Y, Li H. Simultaneous determination
of salidroside and its aglycone metabolite p-tyrosol in rat plasma by liquid chromatography-tandem
mass spectrometry. Molecules. 2012 Apr 23;17(4):4733-54.

80
 VIDEO: Training During
Meet Week
BY MIC HAE L C . ZO URD O S

The goal during the week of a powerlifting meet is usually to not mess
things up. But, what if you could still get stronger during the week? One
strategy is to “train into a meet” instead of fully tapering. This video will
examine that concept and some other nuances of structuring training
during the week of a powerlifting competition.
Click to watch Michael's presentation.

81
References
1. Pritchard HJ, Tod DA, Barnes MJ, Keogh JW, McGuigan MR. Tapering practices of New Zealand’s
elite raw powerlifters. Journal of strength and conditioning research. 2016 Jul 1;30(7):1796-804.
2. Grgic J, Mikulic P. Tapering practices of Croatian open-class powerlifting champions. The Journal
of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2017 Sep 1;31(9):2371-8.
3. Tsoukos A, Veligekas P, Brown LE, Terzis G, Bogdanis GC. Delayed Effects of a Low-Volume,
Power-Type Resistance Exercise Session on Explosive Performance. The Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research. 2018 Mar 1;32(3):643-50.

82
 VIDEO: Nutrition for
the Aging Lifter
BY E RI C HE LMS

Mike covered training and the aging process in his two-part series in Volume
2 Issues 5 and 6, and in this video, Eric goes over the nutrition-specific
changes that occur due to age, and what lifters can do about them.
Click to watch Eric's presentation.

83
MASS Videos
1. Training and the Aging Process, Part 1.
2. Training and the Aging Process, Part 2.

References
1. Landi, F., et al., Protein Intake and Muscle Health in Old Age: From Biological Plausibility to Clin-
ical Evidence. Nutrients, 2016. 8(5): p. 295.
2. Fry, C.S., et al., Skeletal muscle autophagy and protein breakdown following resistance exercise are
similar in younger and older adults. The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and
medical sciences, 2013. 68(5): p. 599-607.
3. Moore, D.R., et al., Protein ingestion to stimulate myofibrillar protein synthesis requires greater rel-
ative protein intakes in healthy older versus younger men. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci, 2015. 70.
4. Liao, C.D., et al., Effects of Protein Supplementation Combined with Exercise Intervention on
Frailty Indices, Body Composition, and Physical Function in Frail Older Adults. Nutrients, 2018.
10(12).
5. Phillips, S.M., Nutritional supplements in support of resistance exercise to counter age-related sar-
copenia. Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2015. 6(4): p. 452-460.
6. Morton, R.W., et al., A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of the effect of protein
supplementation on resistance training-induced gains in muscle mass and strength in healthy adults.
Br J Sports Med, 2018. 52(6): p. 376-384.
7. Beyer, I., T. Mets, and I. Bautmans, Chronic low-grade inflammation and age-related sarcopenia.
Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care, 2012. 15(1): p. 12-22.
8. Xin, W., W. Wei, and X. Li, Effects of fish oil supplementation on inflammatory markers in chronic
heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2012.
12: p. 77-77.
9. Trappe, T.A., et al., Influence of acetaminophen and ibuprofen on skeletal muscle adaptations to re-
sistance exercise in older adults. American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Com-
parative Physiology, 2011. 300(3): p. R655-R662.

84
 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.

• Matos et al. Effect of Rest Interval Between Sets in the Muscle Function During
a Sequence of Strength Training Exercises for the Upper Body
• Waldman et al. Effects of a 15-Day Low Carbohydrate, High-Fat Diet in
Resistance-Trained Men
• Bernard et al. Dose response association of objective physical activity with
mental health in a representative national sample of adults: A cross-sectional
study
• Xu et al. Relationship between pre-exercise muscle stiffness and muscle
damage induced by eccentric exercise
• Kubo et al. Influence of Different Loads on Force-Time Characteristics during
Back Squats
• Martínez-Cava et al. Velocity- and power-load relationships in the half, parallel
and full back squat
• Shimkus et al. Responses of skeletal muscle size and anabolism are reproducible
with multiple periods of unloading/reloading
• Stutz et al. Effects of Evening Exercise on Sleep in Healthy Participants: A
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
• Bezerra et al. Effect of exercise order with barbell and machine modalities on
upper body volume load and myoelectric activity
• Dhahbi et al. Kinetic analysis of push-up exercises: a systematic review with
practical recommendations
• Gabbett. Debunking the myths about training load, injury and performance:
empirical evidence, hot topics and recommendations for practitioners
• Ekstrand et al. Elite football teams that do not have a winter break lose on
average 303 player-days more per season to injuries than those teams that do:
a comparison among 35 professional European teams

85
 Thanks for
reading MASS.
The next issue will be released to
subscribers on February 1.

Graphics by Katherine Whitfield, and layout design by Lyndsey Nuckols.

86