IS S U E NO .

6 SEPTEM BER 2017

MASS
MONTHLY A P P L ICATIO NS IN
STR E NG TH S P O R T

E R I C HE L MS | G R EG N U C KOLS | M IC H AEL Z OU RD OS

1
 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, and is a strength and conditioning Ph.D. candidate at
Auckland University of Technology in New Zealand. 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, is an associate professor in exercise science at
Florida Atlantic University (FAU) in Boca Raton, FL., USA, with a specialization 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. As an associate professor at FAU,
Mike is the director of the FAU Muscle Physiology Research Laboratory. 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

W
e are excited, proud, and grateful to be presenting the sixth issue of MASS.
Believe it or not, we’re at the half year mark and you’ve been a big part of
that. As subscribers who have willingly given us feedback, you’ve helped
us continually mold MASS to make it better each month. First of all, thank you!
Secondly, we’ve got more things in store to keep making MASS better, so stay
tuned!
Taking our eyes off the future and looking at the present, we’ve got a great
roundup of content in this issue. Greg reviews the latest meta-analysis on strength
development in what seems like a veritable season of meta-analytics getting pub-
lished in the area of physique and strength enhancement. Eric touches on dietary
supplements this month, discussing the nuances of caffeine tolerance and also
addressing a recent publication on the effect of capsaicin on resistance training
performance. Mike answers the question “what is ‘CNS fatigue’?” as he reviews an
article that compares heavy sets of squats to heavy sets of deadlifts to see which
one requires more recovery. In addition, we review articles that explore how time
of day and exercise type (endurance or resistance) interact, the effects of splitting
training into multiple shorter sessions per day, and whether the time course of
recovery for work capacity and maximum force production are different. To round
out the content with video, Mike goes through part two of his three-part series
on program design for strength, with a discussion of progression strategies and
autoregulation. Finally, Eric starts a two-part series on nutritional peaking for
strength and physique athletes by covering the ins and outs of changing weight
classes for strength athletes, including some emerging research on water loading.
This is a jam-packed issue full of complementary content and emerging research
that covers many topics we previously had to discuss in the absence of empirical
data. We learned a lot and had a lot of fun making this issue, so we think you’ll
enjoy reading, listening, and watching it too.

Until next time,

The MASS Team

Michael, Eric, and Greg

3
 Table of Contents

6 BY G R EG NUCKOL S

Does It Matter What Time of Day You Train, and Should You Do
Strength Training Before Cardio?
If you’re doing cardio and strength training in the same session, does it matter which
comes first? And does it matter what time of day you train if you want to make gains?
Two papers from a recent study address these questions.

20
BY M I CHAEL C. ZOUR DOS

High-Intensity Deadlifts Do Not Cause Greater Central Fatigue Than

High-Intensity Squats
Does the deadlift really cause more “central fatigue” than the squat? And what does central
fatigue even mean? This article tackles the often-asked, but rarely answered, questions.

33
BY E RI C HEL MS

Red Hot Chili Peppers: Not Just Training Music, Now a Training
Supplement
Capsaicin has been previously investigated for its weight management and fat
loss properties, but this is the first study to assess its efficacy for improving lifting
performance.

42
BY G R EG NUCKOL S

Is It Better to Split Your Workout Into Multiple Daily Sessions?

Training multiple times per day may have practical benefits for some people, but it
may not actually lead to larger gains.

4
50
BY M I CHAEL C. ZOUR DOS

High-Volume Training Decreases Both Strength and Volume Capability,

But for Different Durations
The term “volume” gets thrown around a lot. But how long does it take to recover
from a single high-volume session? Consider that too much volume in one session
may prolong recovery, resulting in less total volume per week. This article examines
the time course of recovery and provides recommendations for volume allocation to
avoid excessive fatigue.

63 BY E RI C HEL MS

Should I Stop Drinking Caffeinated Drinks So My Pre-Workout

Supplement Works Better?
Most of us drink caffeine in one form or another, and many of us also take a pre-
workout supplement with caffeine as a primary ingredient. Is the latter impeding the
effect of the former?

74
BY G R EG NUCKOL S

How Much Does Training Volume Affect the Rate of Strength Gains?
We know that training volume strongly influences hypertrophy, but low volume training
is still quite popular when training for strength. Should powerlifters also jump on the
high volume bandwagon?

84
BY M I CHAEL C. ZOUR DOS

VIDEO: Comprehensive Program Design, Part 2

In part 1 of this series, we covered the basics of integrating various types of
periodization. Part 2 takes a more in-depth approach to designing volume and
intensity blocks, progressing weekly training load, and what individual factors may
affect repetition performance. These principles set the stage to examine programs in
practice in part 3.

86
BY E RI C HEL MS

VIDEO: Nutritional Peaking for Strength and Physique Athletes Part 1

Weight class-restricted strength athletes have a tough task getting on the platform
as strong as they can possibly be, while making weight for the class they will be the
most competitive. In part 1 of this two-part series, Eric talks about the ins and out of
changing weight classes in strength sport.

5
Does It Matter What Time of Day You
Train, and Should You Do Strength
Training Before Cardio?
BY G RE G NUC KO LS

M
ost of us simply need to train
when our schedule allows
us to, so what ends up being
practical may not be optimal. However,
if you do have more flexibility in your
schedule, it’s worth asking whether your
gains will be affected based upon the time
of day you train. Similarly, if you need to
do both strength training and cardio, and
your schedule doesn’t allow you to do
them in different sessions or on different
days, it’s worth considering whether your
strength gains will be affected depend-
ing on the order in which you do your
strength work and cardio.
Studies Reviewed:
Neuromuscular Adaptations to
Combined Strength and Endurance
Training: Order and Time-of-Day
Effects Of Morning Versus Evening
Combined Strength And Endurance
Training On Physical Performance,
Muscle Hypertrophy, And Serum
Hormone Concentrations.
Küüsmaa-Schildt et al. (2016, 2017)

6
 KEY POINTS
1. If you do cardio and strength training in the same session, doing your strength
training first may be better for strength gains. However, the order of your cardio and
strength training may not matter much for hypertrophy.
2. People may experience more hypertrophy when training in the evening instead of
training in the morning.
3. Doing cardio before strength training tended to be better for improving aerobic
fitness than doing strength training first.

A recent study, summarized over two
papers, helps shed some light on these
questions. The participants were split
into four training groups: two groups
that trained in the morning, and two
groups that trained in the evening.
Within each time window, one group
performed strength training before car-
dio, and the other group performed car-
dio before strength training. The study
lasted 24 weeks, helping us see both the
shorter term (12-week) and longer term
(24-week) effects of these four configu-
rations.
Ultimately, training in the evening was
found to be superior for hypertrophy,
with most of the advantage showing up
over the last 12 weeks of the training pro-
gram. Furthermore, performing strength
training before aerobic training produced
larger gains in isometric knee extension
force, with most of the advantage occur-
ring in the first 12 weeks. There were no
significant differences between groups
for increases in one-rep max (1RM) leg
press, but the groups that trained in the
evening tended to do slightly better than
the groups training in the morning, and
the groups doing strength training first
tended to do slightly better than the
groups doing aerobic training first. Final-
ly, the groups doing aerobic training first
experienced larger gains in measures of
aerobic performance (peak wattage and
time to exhaustion during a ramped cy-
cling test) than the groups doing strength
training first.
On the whole, this study supports the
idea that training order should reflect
training priorities: If you want to prior-
itize aerobic fitness, do cardio first, and
if you want to prioritize strength, do
strength training first. Furthermore, this
study suggests that if you want to maxi-
mize hypertrophy, you may make larger
gains by training in the evening instead
of the morning, with the difference be-
coming increasingly noticeable over time.
However, you can build strength and gain
muscle if you do cardio first (and vice
versa), and you can build muscle training
in the morning, so if those configurations

7
match your schedule or preferences bet-
ter, they’re still viable options.
Purpose and Research
Questions
The researchers wanted to examine
three questions:
1. Would training adaptations differ
based on the time of day the train-
ing took place? The introduction of
the first study seemed to suggest that
the authors expected larger strength
gains for the groups training in the
evening than the groups training in
the morning.
2. Would adaptations differ based on
whether a combined cardio-and-
strength training session was initi-
ated with cardio or strength train-
ing? The authors hypothesized that
performing aerobic training be-
fore strength training would limit
strength gains, but that the ordering
of strength and endurance training
wouldn’t affect gains in aerobic per-
formance.
3. Would changes in performance be
influenced by the time of day of the
testing (i.e. would morning train-
ing cause large increases in morning
performance than evening training
would)? The authors hypothesized
that increases in performance would
show time-of-day dependency (i.e.
morning training would increas-
es morning performance more, and
evening training would increase
evening performance more).
Subjects and Methods
Subjects
72 subjects were recruited, and 52 com-
pleted the study, attending at least 90%
of training sessions. They were mostly in
their late 20s to late 30s (32.3±5.6 years
old) and were described as physically ac-
tive, though they hadn’t engaged in any
dedicated strength or aerobic training
for at least a year prior to the start of
the study. The subjects’ chronotypes (13)
were also assessed, and none had extreme
morning or evening chronotypes; none
worked night shifts or took medication
that could affect their circadian rhythms.
They were split into four groups.
Group 1, performing aerobic training
before strength training in the morning
(ASm, n=9), trained between 6:30 and
10:00 a.m.
Group 2 (SAm, n=9) trained in the
morning, performing strength training
before aerobic training.
Group 3 (ASe, n=11-12) trained in
the evening (between 4:30 and 8:00
p.m.), performing aerobic training before
strength training. Note: This group was
listed as having 11 subjects in one study,
and 12 in the other. The discrepancy is
likely due to one subject not completing
one of the tests required to be included in
8
 Table 1 Summary of the strength training program for lower extremities

Week 1-4 Week 5-8 Week 9-12 Week 13-14 Week 15-20 Week 21-24

Training Type Circuit Hypertrophic Maximal Circuit Hypertrophic Maximal

Intensity (% of 1RM) 40-70 70-85 75-95 50-75 75-85 80-95

Sets 2-3 3-4 3-5 3-4 3-4 3-5

Repetitions 10-20 10-15 3-8 10-15 10-15 3-8

Rest (min) no 1.5-2 2-3 no 1.5-2 2-3

1RM, 1-repetition maximum

the analysis for one of the studies.
Group 4 (SAe; n=12) trained in the
evening, performing strength training
before aerobic training.
Training
Training lasted for 24 weeks, making
this quite a long study. For the first 12
weeks, the participants trained twice per
week. They trained five times per two
weeks (i.e. frequency increased by 25%)
in the second 12 weeks of the study.
Strength Training
Strength training followed a linear pe-
riodized setup, using two 12-week blocks.
The first four weeks of each block used
circuit training focused on strength en-
durance, utilizing 40-70% 1RM loads for
sets of 10-20 reps. The next four weeks
of each block consisted of typical hyper-
trophy training, utilizing 70-85% 1RM
loads for sets of 10-15 reps. The final four
weeks of each block consisted of heavy
strength work, utilizing 75-95% 1RM
loads for sets of 3-8 reps. Full details of
the strength training setup can be seen
in Table 1. The exercises relevant to this
study were leg press, knee extension, and
leg curls (as all strength and hypertro-
phy measures were exclusive to the lower
body). However, the subjects also did bi-
ceps curls, triceps pushdowns, pulldowns,
seated military press, DB flyes, and trunk
flexion and extension exercises.
Aerobic Training
Aerobic training consisted of both
steady-state cardio and interval training.
The steady-state cardio involved cycling
at 65-80% of heart rate reserve for 30-50
minutes. The interval training involved
four rounds of cycling at 85-100% of
heart rate reserve for four minutes, in-
terspersed with four minutes of lower
intensity cycling at 70% of heart rate re-

9
 Figure 1 Study design and measurements

Study Measurements Procedure Measurements taken pre-training, mid-training, and post-training

36h 36h 36h 36h 36h

Venous blood Strength Strength Incremental Incremental Ultrasound
samples measurement measurement cycling test cycling test
(drawn during one day)
1 RM — Maximal Knee 1 RM — Maximal Knee Texh Texh CSA of Vastus
7:30h ± 30 min Extension Force Extension Force Lateralis
Peak Wattage Peak Wattage
9:30h ± 30 min Neuromuscular Neuromuscular (in the morning or (in the morning or
16:30h ± 30 min Testing Testing evening) evening)
18:30h ± 30 min Maximal EMG, %VA Maximal EMG, %VA
(in the morning or (in the morning or
evening) evening)

Study Timeline

Combined Training
Combined Training Weeks 13-24
Weeks 1-12
Pre-Training Mid-Training Post-Training
Measurements Measurements Measurements

1RM, 1-repetition maximum in the dynamic leg press; CSA, cross sectional area; Texh, time to exhaustion during the incremental cycling
test; %VA, knee extension force during a maximal voluntary contraction as a perfectage of force during an evoked contraction

serve (14). For the first 12 weeks of train- the study, after 12 weeks of training, and
ing, the subjects performed one session after 24 weeks of training. All perfor-
of steady-state cardio, and one session of mance tests were completed in both the
interval cardio per week. For the second morning and the evening on different
12 weeks, when training frequency was days.
increased, additional circuit training ses- The flow of the testing can be seen in
sions were added, so that every 2-week Figure 1.
period included two steady-state sessions
Hormone levels and diurnal fluctuations
and three interval sessions.
Testosterone and cortisol concentra-
Testing
tions were assessed from venous blood
A familiarization session preceded the draws that took place at four time points
initial round of testing to get the par- throughout the day.
ticipants comfortable with the proto-
Hypertrophy
cols. Since all of these results were pub-
lished over two studies, the order of the Vastus lateralis cross-sectional area was
tests isn’t entirely clear, but it’s likely the estimated using ultrasound scans of the
strength and neuromuscular testing was quads at 50% of femur length.
done together and all endurance testing Strength and neuromuscular perfor-
was done together on different days. All mance
tests were completed before the start of

10
 Strength was assessed via 1RM leg
press and maximal isometric knee exten-
sion force (measured at a knee angle of
107 degrees).
EMG was measured during the
half-second that coincided with peak
force output during the knee extension.
Percentage of voluntary activation
(%VA) was also assessed. %VA essential-
ly tells you the amount of force someone
can produce voluntarily, compared to the
amount of force they can produce when
their muscle is shocked with an electrode
that forces a “true” maximal contraction.
In other words, a %VA of 95% tells you
that when stimulated by an electrode, a
subject’s muscle could produce about 5%
more force than the subject was capable
of producing voluntarily.
Aerobic fitness
Time to exhaustion was measured on a
bike using a graded maximal cycling test.
The intensity started at 50W, and in-
creased by 25W every two minutes. Pedal
frequency was maintained at 70 rotations
per minute. The test was over at volition-
al exhaustion, or when pedal frequency
couldn’t be maintained. Peak wattage at
the end of this test was also calculated,
based on the amount of time the last
non-completed wattage was maintained
(15).
Findings
Resting hormone levels didn’t signifi-
cantly change in any of the individual
groups. When pooling the two morning
and two evening groups together, rest-
ing testosterone levels increased slightly
but significantly (p<0.05) from baseline
through the morning and afternoon over
the 24 weeks. Morning cortisol levels
also increased (again, slightly but signifi-
cantly) in both the morning and evening
groups. It’s likely that none of the hor-
monal changes are physiologically rele-
vant.
Leg press 1RM increased in all groups
during both the morning and evening,
with mean increases ranging from 13.8-
19.3% in the morning, and 17.5-23.6%
in the evening. In both cases, the largest
increase was in the SAe group, and the
smallest increase was in the ASm group,
but there were no statistically significant
differences between groups. However,
there was a medium effect size in favor
of the SAe group over the ASm group
(0.57 for evening measurements, and
0.61 for morning measurements) for per-
cent change.
Isometric knee extension force in-
creased significantly in the morning for
the SA groups, but not for AS groups;
however, there weren’t significant differ-
ences between groups. However, the SA
groups did experience significantly larg-
er increases in maximum knee extension
force in the evening than the AS groups
over both 12 and 24 weeks. Interestingly,
most of the 24-week advantage was driv-
11
 Figure 2
Relative changes in maximal unilateral knee extension force after 12
and 24 weeks of combined training

35 35

Morning Measurements Evening Measurements

*
30
* 30

25 25

20 20

Knee Extension Force (

%)

15 15
ASm+e
Knee Extension Force (

10 10
SAm+e
5
Controls # ### 5

0
# (#) * ** ** 0

*
-5 -5

%)
-10 -10

-15 -15

-20 -20

WEEKS 0 - 12 WEEKS 13 - 24 WEEKS 0 - 24 WEEKS 0 - 12 WEEKS 13 - 24 WEEKS 0 - 24

*significant within-group increase or as indicated, **<0.01; #significant difference from the control-group, (#)<0.06, #<0.05, ###<0.001.
ASm+e = combined morning and evening aerobic strength before strength training group; SAm+e = combined morning and evening strength aerobic before endurance training group.

en by vastly larger increases over the first %VA and EMG, and EMG and isomet-
12 weeks, with the AS and SA groups ex- ric knee extension strength for some of
periencing similar, nonsignificant gains the groups, at some time points, during
during weeks 13-24. some times of day. Since the correlations
Both the SA and AS groups expe- were pretty modest and inconsistent, and
rienced significant increases in vastus there’s not a physiological rationale to
lateralis EMG in the morning, with no explain why they’d appear at some points
significant differences between groups. in time and not others (and since they
However, only the SA groups experi- don’t give you practical information you
enced significant increases in vastus lat- can really apply), I’m not going to dwell
eralis EMG in the evening, and there on them in the discussion.
was a significant difference between the During the first 12 weeks, all groups
SA and AS groups. experienced significant vastus lateralis
Percentage of voluntary activation didn’t hypertrophy, with no significant differ-
significantly change in any of the groups. ences between groups. However, only the
However, on an individual level, there evening groups experienced significant
were significant, moderate correlations increases during weeks 13-24. Further-
(r=0.46-0.63) between changes in %VA more, the evening groups nearly expe-
and isometric knee extension strength, rienced significantly greater hypertro-

12
 Figure 3
Changes in vastus lateralis (‡)
35 cross-sectional area (CSA) after 12
and 24 weeks of combined training

30
%)

25
CSA of vastus lateralis (

ASm

20 SAm

* ASe

15 ‡ † SAe
* Controls

10
* †
† * *
* * *
5
* *
0

WEEKS 0 - 12 WEEKS 13 - 24 WEEKS 0 - 24

m, morning; e, evening; AS, aerobic training before strength training; SA, strength training before aerobic training
*, Within-group increase (p < 0.05); †, different from controls (p < 0.05); ‡, time-of-day (TOD) main effect (p < 0.05; for (‡), p < 0.06).

phy (p=0.06) compared to the morning nificant p=0.06 differences).

groups during weeks 13-24 and weeks
0-24. The average change in vastus lat-
eralis CSA was nearly 50% larger in the Interpretation
evening groups over the course of the The multitude of results from these
study (12% versus 17.75%), associated studies can seem a little overwhelming:
with a medium effect size (0.44). testosterone and cortisol levels for four
Time to exhaustion and peak wattage groups at three time points and four dif-
tended to increase more over the entire ferent times of day; and pre-, mid-, and
24 weeks in the AS groups than the SA post-training numbers in both the morn-
groups (some differences were signifi- ing and evening for leg press, isometric
cant, and some weren’t). Ultimately, both knee extension force, EMG, %VA, peak
morning groups wound up with quite wattage, and time to exhaustion in four
similar results, while the ASe group groups; plus pre-, mid-, and post- train-
tended to get considerably better results ing vastus lateralis CSA in four groups;
than the SAe group (with some near-sig- and several correlations between %VA,
EMG, and isometric knee extension

13
 Figure 4
Relative changes in maximal power output during cycling after 12
and 24 weeks of combined training

Morning Measurements Evening Measurements

35 35

*
30 30

25 25

Peak Wattage (
%)

ASm+e
20 20
Peak Wattage (

SAm+e
*
15 15
Controls

10 10

%)
###
5
## ## (#) ### ### ## ## ## ### ### 5

*** *** *** * *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
0 0

-5 -5

WEEKS 0 - 12 WEEKS 13 - 24 WEEKS 0 - 24 WEEKS 0 - 12 WEEKS 13 - 24 WEEKS 0 - 24

*significant within-group increase or as indicated, **<0.05, ***<0.001; #significant different from the control-group, (#)<0.06, #<0.05, ##<0.01, ###<0.001.
ASm+e = combined morning and evening aerobic strength before strength training group; SAm+e = combined morning and evening strength aerobic before endurance training group.

force. gains may be time-of-day-specific to

Once you add in the various ways some degree. Specifically, most people
you can combine the groups for analy- tend to be naturally stronger in the af-
sis as well, there are probably over 100 ternoon and evening, but training in the
discrete comparisons between groups in morning can smooth out those differenc-
these studies. With that in mind, I’m not es so that morning performance is more
even going to attempt to address them similar to afternoon and evening perfor-
all individually for the sake of my fingers, mance (3, 4, 5).
for the sake of your attention span, and This may be relevant to powerlifters
simply because at least a few of the dif- who typically train in the evening and
ferences noted are bound to be false pos- worry that they won’t be able to perform
itives due to the sheer number of possible well in a meet that starts in the morn-
comparisons. Rather, let’s examine some ing. Getting stronger in the evening will
of the overall trends: make you stronger in the morning as well,
1) Strength gains didn’t seem to be specific but it may not hurt to get in a few morn-
to the time of day training took place. ing squat sessions leading up to the meet.
This may boost your performance on a
In other words, if you train in the eve-
physiological level, and practically, it’ll
ning, your performance gains will carry
give you a better idea of how your body
over to the morning as well, and vice ver-
responds to lifting heavy in the morning
sa. However, this finding contrasts with
and help inform the amount of warm-up
other research showing that strength
time you need before your first attempt.

14
A lot of lifters are surprised at how many
extra warmup sets they need to feel good
squatting at 9 a.m. when they’re accus-
tomed to squatting at 5 p.m.
2) Gains in strength and aerobic perfor-
mance seem to be influenced by the order
they’re placed within a training session, at
least to some degree.
This finding isn’t overly surprising, as
you simply have more energy to devote
to the type of training you do first in a
session. However, I’ve heard it argued
that lifters should perform cardio first,
as the catabolic aerobic training stimu-
lus may negate the post-exercise anabol-
ic signaling from lifting if you do cardio
after strength training. This study seems
to support the simpler specificity-based
argument: If you want to prioritize im-
proving a given physical quality (wheth-
er that’s strength or endurance), train it
when you’re fresh.
These findings contrast with those of
Eklund et al (6), in which a group per-
forming strength training before aerobic
training gained non-significantly more
strength in the leg press than a group per-
forming aerobic training first (17% versus
13% increase; not enough information
provided to calculate a between-group
effect size), but the group performing
aerobic training first didn’t have an edge
for increases in wattage during a cycling
test. However, similar sets of studies by
Chtara et al (7, 8) did find that perform-
ing endurance training before strength
training led to larger gains in aerobic
GETTING STRONGER IN THE
EVENING WILL MAKE YOU
STRONGER IN THE MORNING AS
WELL, BUT IT MAY NOT HURT
TO GET IN A FEW MORNING
SQUAT SESSIONS LEADING UP
TO THE MEET. THIS MAY BOOST
YOUR PERFORMANCE ON A
PHYSIOLOGICAL LEVEL, AND
PRACTICALLY, IT’LL GIVE YOU
A BETTER IDEA OF HOW YOUR
BODY RESPONDS TO LIFTING
HEAVY IN THE MORNING.
performance than performing strength
training first, but that the difference in
strength gains was minimal. Two more
studies on the same topic – one by Grav-
elle and Blessing and one by Schumann
et al (9, 10) – also found minimal dif-
ferences in adaptations based on whether
training sessions started with strength or
aerobic training. The totality of the lit-
erature suggests that it may not matter
whether you perform strength training
or aerobic training first within a session,
but it also suggests that starting with the
15
quality you most want to improve is the
“better safe than sorry” approach.
3) Rates of hypertrophy may be higher
when training in the evening, but it may
take a few months for the effect to be notice-
able.
Over the first three months, changes
in vastus lateralis CSA were similar be-
tween the morning and evening groups.
However, the evening groups experienced
substantially more hypertrophy over the
second three months.
This finding jibes with a study by
Sedliak et al (11) in which a group that
trained in the evening for 20 weeks in-
creased quad volume and CSA slightly
more than a group that trained in the
evening for 10 weeks, and then trained
in the morning for 10 weeks (3.5% versus
2.7%). While the difference wasn’t signif-
icant, the between-group ES for percent-
age increase was large (d = 1.2), indicat-
ing there was likely a difference that the
study simply wasn’t adequately powered
to detect. Furthermore, in unpublished
research from Scheett et. al (12), a group
of young men training in the evening in-
creased lean body mass by 3.21%, while a
group training in the morning only expe-
rienced a 0.64% increase (though, again,
this difference didn’t reach significance).
Ultimately, for both strength and aer-
obic performance, this study, combined
with the extant literature, indicates that
the time of day you train and order you
perform your strength training and car-
dio may impact rates of progress to some
IF YOU WANT TO PRIORITIZE
IMPROVING A GIVEN PHYSICAL
QUALITY (WHETHER THAT’S
STRENGTH OR ENDURANCE),
TRAIN IT WHEN YOU’RE FRESH.
degree, but the overall difference is rather
small. If you’re trying to maximize your
rate of strength gains, training in the eve-
ning and performing your strength work
before your cardio (if you need to do both
in the same session) may lead to slightly
faster progress, but the difference prob-
ably isn’t worth rearranging your whole
schedule for if you’re not a competitive
athlete, especially if it’s inconvenient or
doesn’t fit your preferences. Furthermore,
it may be worth trying to get in some
early morning squat sessions leading up
to a meet, as strength gains may be time-
of-day-specific to some degree.
On the other hand, if you’re training to
maximize muscle growth, there may be
a meaningful benefit to training in the
afternoon. These studies were the first in
the literature to demonstrate such a clear
effect, but two other studies have found
non-significant (likely due to low statis-
tical power) differences in favor of after-
noon training as well.
16
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
1. If you need to perform strength training and cardio in the same training session,
do your strength training first (assuming you’re subscribed to MASS because you
primarily care about getting strong).
2. Strength gains may be time-of-day specific, so it may be beneficial to do some
morning squat training leading up to a meet, where the first flight of squats generally
starts before 9 a.m.
3. If you’re aiming to maximize hypertrophy, you’ll probably make more gains by
training in the afternoon rather than in the morning.

Next Steps
It would be great to see the
time-of-day-specificity concept applied
directly to powerlifting. In my dream
study, one group would always train squat
at 9 a.m., bench press at 12 p.m., and
deadlift at 4 p.m. throughout the week
to mimic the flow of a typical powerlift-
ing meet, while another group would al-
ways train at a standardized time in the
afternoon or evening. Furthermore, the
hypertrophy effect seems like an ideal ef-
fect to try to replicate in advanced lifters,
as the effect got larger over the course of
this study as the subjects started moving
beyond their “noob” gains.

17
References
1. Küüsmaa-Schildt M, Eklund D, Avela J, Rytkönen T, Newton R, Izquierdo M, Häkkinen K. Neu-
romuscular Adaptations to Combined Strength and Endurance Training: Order and Time-of-Day.
Int J Sports Med. 2017 Sep;38(9):707-716. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-101376. Epub 2017 Jul 13.
2. Küüsmaa M, Schumann M, Sedliak M, Kraemer WJ, Newton RU, Malinen JP, Nyman K, Häkkinen
A, Häkkinen K. Effects of morning versus evening combined strength and endurance training on
physical performance, muscle hypertrophy, and serum hormone concentrations. Appl Physiol Nutr
Metab. 2016 Dec;41(12):1285-1294.
3. Sedliak M, Finni T, Peltonen J, Häkkinen K. Effect of time-of-day-specific strength training on max-
imum strength and EMG activity of the leg extensors in men. J Sports Sci. 2008 Aug;26(10):1005-
14. doi: 10.1080/02640410801930150.
4. Chtourou H, Driss T, Souissi S, Gam A, Chaouachi A, Souissi N. The effect of strength training at
the same time of the day on the diurnal fluctuations of muscular anaerobic performances. J Strength
Cond Res. 2012 Jan;26(1):217-25. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31821d5e8d.
5. Souissi N, Gauthier A, Sesboüé B, Larue J, Davenne D. Effects of regular training at the same time
of day on diurnal fluctuations in muscular performance. J Sports Sci. 2002 Nov;20(11):929-37.
6. Eklund D, Pulverenti T, Bankers S, Avela J, Newton R, Schumann M, Häkkinen K. Neuromuscular
adaptations to different modes of combined strength and endurance training. Int J Sports Med. 2015
Feb;36(2):120-9. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1385883. Epub 2014 Sep 26.
7. Chtara M, Chamari K, Chaouachi M, Chaouachi A, Koubaa D, Feki Y, Millet GP, Amri M. Effects
of intra-session concurrent endurance and strength training sequence on aerobic performance and
capacity. Br J Sports Med. 2005 Aug;39(8):555-60.
8. Chtara M, Chaouachi A, Levin GT, Chaouachi M, Chamari K, Amri M, Laursen PB. Effect of
concurrent endurance and circuit resistance training sequence on muscular strength and power de-
velopment. J Strength Cond Res. 2008 Jul;22(4):1037-45. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31816a4419.
9. Gravelle BL, Blessing DL. Physiological Adaptation in Women Concurrently Training for Strength
and Endurance. J Strength Cond Res. 2000 Feb.
10. Schumann M, Küüsmaa M, Newton RU, Sirparanta AI, Syväoja H, Häkkinen A, Häkkinen K.
Fitness and lean mass increases during combined training independent of loading order. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 2014 Sep;46(9):1758-68. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000303.
11. Sedliak M, Finni T, Cheng S, Lind M, Häkkinen K. Effect of time-of-day-specific strength train-
ing on muscular hypertrophy in men. J Strength Cond Res. 2009 Dec;23(9):2451-7. doi: 10.1519/
JSC.0b013e3181bb7388.
12. T.P. Scheett, B.M. Stednitz, M. Moore. Effect of Training Time of Day on Body Composition, Mus-
cular Strength and Endurance. NSCA 2005 Conference Abstracts.
13. A chronotype is an individual’s inclination to go to sleep, feel the most energetic, perform best, etc.,
at different times in the day; someone with a morning chronotype naturally wakes up and goes to
sleep early and feels best early in the day, while someone with an evening chronotype naturally wakes
up and goes to bed later and feels best later in the day.

18
14. Heart rate reserve is calculated by first measuring resting and maximal heart rate. For example, if
someone’s resting heart rate is 60 beats per minute and their maximum heart rate is 180 beats per
minute, their heart rate reserve would be 120 beats per minute. Then, if you wanted to exercise at 75%
of heart rate reserve, you’d calculate 75% of 120 (90 beats per minute), and add that to resting heart
rate (60+90=150 beats per minute, in this example).
15. Peak wattage was calculated using this formula: Wpeak=Wcom+(t/120)×25 where Wpeak is peak
wattage, Wcom is the wattage of the hardest completed stage during the graded exercise test, and t
is the time (in seconds) spent in the last stage of the graded exercise test prior to volitional exhaus-
tion. Just to walk you through this formula, if someone completed the two-minute stage at 250W
and stopped 80 seconds into the subsequent stage at 275W, their peak wattage would be recorded
as 250+(80/120)×25=266.67 watts. Since they would have completed ⅔ (80/120) of the two-minute
stage with 25 additional watts, their peak wattage was ⅔ of the difference between the last stage they
completed (250W) and the stage they failed (275W).

19
 High-Intensity Deadlifts Do Not
Cause Greater Central Fatigue Than
High-Intensity Squats
Study Reviewed: Acute Neuromuscular and Endocrine
Responses to Two Different Compound Exercises: Squat
Versus Deadlift. Barnes et al. (2017)

BY MICHAE L C . ZO URD O S

I
n general, I think it’s safe to say that the case because people believe the dead-
lifters deadlift with a lower frequen- lift is inherently more fatiguing. It is often
cy than they squat. This is usually assumed that the deadlift causes greater

20
 KEY POINTS
1. High-intensity squats and deadlifts both cause significant central, peripheral, and
neuromuscular fatigue; however, there is little difference in the amount of fatigue
between exercises.
2. This study utilized well-trained lifters with a squat max of around 160kg and a deadlift
max of around 190kg, which is a high training status for the available scientific
literature.
3. This study provides excellent insight into the acute fatigue caused by high intensity
squatting and deadlifting; however, we do not know if the same results would be
found for high-volume hypertrophy-type training.

“central fatigue” and neuromuscular fa- VA decreased from pre- to post-train-

tigue, requiring longer recovery times and
lower deadlift frequencies. While fatigue
in this way has never been compared be-
tween the squat and deadlift, data have
indicated similar increases in squat and
deadlift one-repetition maximum (1RM)
in the same study when squat was trained
three times per week, while the deadlift
was only trained once per week. There-
fore, this study had trained lifters per-
form 8 sets of 2 reps at 95% of 1RM on
the squat and deadlift in a crossover de-
sign. Maximal voluntary isometric con-
traction (MVIC) of the knee extensors,
central fatigue and peripheral fatigue
(voluntary activation-VA, surface electro-
myography-EMG, and control stimulus
force), and salivary testosterone and cor-
tisol (endocrine responses) were assessed
at pre-training, 5 minutes post-training,
and 30 minutes post-training. Most im-
portantly, there were no significant dif-
ferences between groups for any measure
at any time point. Specifically, MVIC and
ing, but there were no group differenc-
es (p>0.05). Peripheral fatigue (control
stimulus force) actually decreased from
pre- to post-training in the squat, but
not in the deadlift; however, again, there
was not actually a significant difference
between groups. There was decreased
EMG activity five minutes after deadlift
training with no change after the squat;
however, the decline in EMG after dead-
lift was not significantly different than
EMG activity post-squat training. There
was no change in either condition at any
time point for either endocrine marker
(p>0.05). These results suggest that the
acute central, peripheral, and neuromus-
cular fatigue of squat and deadlift train-
ing are similar. However, it is essential to
point out that this study did not analyze
the time course of muscle damage and
fatigue throughout a week. Thus, more
data are needed to make definitive state-
ments regarding the time course of re-
covery from squats and deadlifts.

21
 Table 1 Subject Characteristics

Number of Body Mass Squat 1RM Deadlift

Subjects Age (years) Height (cm) (kg) Training Age (kg) 1RM (kg)

At Least
10 24.0 ± 3.6 176 ± 5.7 96.5 ± 22.2 158.2 ± 23.4 191.5 ± 31.4
2 Years

Data are Mean ± SD

Subjects characteristics from Barnes et al. 2017

Further, the authors hypothesized that

Purpose and Research the magnitude of both fatigue and the
Questions endocrine response would be greater af-
Purpose ter the deadlift session compared to the
squat session.
The purpose of this study was to de-
termine if there was a difference in the
acute fatigue and endocrine responses
to high-intensity training between squat
Subjects and Methods
and deadlift. Subjects
Research Question 1 There were 10 males in this study, all
with a pretty solid training background.
Does acute central, peripheral, and
The specific descriptive statistics of the
neuromuscular fatigue differ between
subjects can be seen in Table 1. All sub-
high-intensity squats and deadlifts?
jects had trained for at least two years and
Research Question 2 were training at least three times per week
Is the acute endocrine response, as prior to the study. It was also explicitly
measured by salivary testosterone and stated that all subjects were used to squat-
cortisol, different between high-intensity ting to depth. The subjects were not elite
squats and deadlifts? lifters by any means, but for the scientific
Hypotheses literature, the training status of these sub-
jects was relatively high.
The authors hypothesized that signif-
icant fatigue would occur and that tes- Overall Study Procedures
tosterone and cortisol would increase The lifters completed this study over four
following both the squat and deadlift. days. The first two days were familiariza-

22
 Table 2 Study Procedures

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4

Familiarization Familiarization 8 sets of 2 @95% 8 sets of 2 @95%

and 1RM and 1RM on squat or dead- on squat or dead-
lift. All outcome lift. All outcome
measures tested measures tested
pre-training, 5, pre-training, 5,
and 30 minutes and 30 minutes
post-training post-training

Note: There was an average of 2.7 days between days 1 and 2, and an average of 1.1 weeks between days 3 and 4.

tion sessions and were used to test 1RMs briefly explain what these measures are
– one day for the squat and one day for the and how they were obtained so we have a
deadlift. Then, a week later, subjects per- full understanding of terminology going
formed either squats or deadlifts for 8 sets forward. First, the more familiar measures:
of 2 reps at 95% of 1RM with five minutes MVIC, EMG, testosterone and cortisol. A
of rest between sets. Then, one week after dynamometer was used for MVIC, which
the first training session, the lifters re- measured peak isometric force (strength).
peated the training procedures, but for the EMG (electrodes on the quadriceps) was
other lift. All fatigue and endocrine mea- determined as muscle activity during 200
sures (MVIC, VA, control stimulus force, milliseconds of peak MVIC. Testosterone
EMG, and testosterone and cortisol) were and cortisol, in this case, were measured
tested during both training sessions at the from saliva rather than from blood collec-
following time points: 1) pre-training, 2) tion.
5 minutes post-training, and 3) 30 min- However, VA and control stimulus force
utes post-training. were obtained in a unique way. For these
Explanation of Outcome Measures measures, voltage was delivered via elec-
In this study, some of the outcome mea- trodes attached to the muscle. The muscle
sures are unique to what we typically see will then “pulse” or respond to the applied
in applied exercise science literature, so I’ll voltage. The voltage was applied at two

23
points, first during a plateau in the MVIC
and then five seconds after the conclusion
of an MVIC test. The muscle’s “response”
at the time point five seconds post-MVIC
was noted as the control stimulus force,
which is an indirect measure of peripheral
fatigue. The VA was measured as: (muscle
response during MVIC plateau / control
stimulus force) X 100, which was used as
an indirect measure of central fatigue.
Dietary and Exercise Control and Log
Subjects did not exercise for 48 hours
prior to each testing or training day in the
study. Also, subjects were asked to not eat
any food or take any stimulants for two
hours before the start of each session.
Subjects were allowed to train during
the week between the squat and deadlift
training sessions, but there was no control
of this training.
Findings
MVIC and EMG
There was a significant decrease in
MVIC at 5 minutes post-training in both
exercises and at 30 minutes post-training
for the deadlift, but not the squat. How-
ever, there were no significant differences
between conditions for MVIC at either
time point. For EMG, there was no sig-
nificant change for the squat at 5 or 30
minutes post-training, but there was a de-
crease in EMG at 5 minutes post-training
in the deadlift condition. However, there
were no differences between conditions
(p>0.05) for the decline in EMG. In sum-
mary, fatigue, as measured by MVIC and
EMG, was the same after squat and dead-
lift training. Figure 1A and 1B show bar
graphs with percentage changes from pre-
to post-training from MVIC and EMG.
Voluntary Action and Control Stimulus
Force
There was a decrease in VA in both con-
ditions from pre-training to both 5 and
30 minutes post-training (p=0.0001), but
there was no difference between groups
(p=0.765). For control stimulus force,
mean values decreased for the squat, but
not for the deadlift; however, there was
not a difference between groups for the
mean change (p=0.109). However, in
terms of percentage decrease from pre-
to post-training, there was a significantly
greater decline in squat at both time points
compared to the deadlift (p=0.034). Bar
graphs depicting percentage changes for
VA and control stimulus force can be seen
in Figure 1C and 1D.
Testosterone and Cortisol
There were no significant changes or
differences between groups for testos-
terone and cortisol. In fact, the pre- to
post-training within-condition effect siz-
es (ES) were small in all cases except for
a moderate effect (ES=0.79) for a corti-
sol increase at five minutes after deadlift
training; however, this was not a statisti-
cally significant change. In short, high-in-
tensity squat and deadlift training did not
elicit a significant endocrine response.
24

Interpretation
Overall, the findings are pretty
straightforward in that the acute neu-
romuscular fatigue, indirect markers of
central and peripheral fatigue, and ana-
bolic and catabolic hormone responses
were not significantly different between
high-intensity squat and deadlift train-
ing. Unfortunately, the lack of significant
difference between groups doesn’t shed
too much light on training implications.
However, these findings are in conflict
with the commonly held belief that
25
deadlift training is more fatiguing than
squat training. Nonetheless, this study
did not measure the time course of fa- THESE FINDINGS ARE IN
tigue and recovery throughout the week;
thus, we still do not know if it takes lon- CONFLICT WITH THE COMMONLY
ger over the course of a week to recover
from deadlift training than squat train-
HELD BELIEF THAT DEADLIFT
ing. Ultimately, let’s answer the following
questions to help us decipher a practical
TRAINING IS MORE FATIGUING
benefit from these findings: THAN SQUAT TRAINING.
• What actually is “central fatigue”?
• Can we extrapolate the acute find-
part by central fatigue, but central fatigue
ings to predict the time course of
is influenced by cortical transmissions
fatigue?
(within the cerebrum) or within the spi-
• What are the implications of the nal cord, rather than being dependent on
lack of endocrine response? local muscular factors alone (2). In truth,
• And why is there a scarcity of long- defining central fatigue is a huge under-
term deadlift data in the scientific taking since almost all fatigue is encom-
literature? passed under central fatigue, but a simple
Central and Peripheral Fatigue with definition is the decrease in strength and
Training frequency of neuronal impulses, resulting
in diminished muscle activity and force
How many times have you heard some- production (3). However, the measures
one say “my central nervous system is in this study which assessed force pro-
fried” after a training session? Probably duction and muscle activity do not di-
a few times. However, how many times rectly assess central fatigue because these
have you heard someone provide an ac- measures do not directly measure cortical
curate description of what that means? transmissions or the magnitude of neu-
Probably never. It’s one of those things rotransmitter release. Thus, a decrease in
people say without being prepared for a strength could be directly related to cen-
follow-up question. Peripheral fatigue, tral fatigue, or it could be due to one of
on the other hand, is more simply de- the other factors mentioned above relat-
fined as reduced ability of muscle fibers ed to peripheral fatigue. In the present
to produce force (2), which could be due study, when voltage was delivered to the
to a variety of reasons: metabolic, hor- muscles to determine VA (as discussed in
monal, cardiovascular, and neurological the methods) and a subsequent force was
(3). Peripheral fatigue is influenced in evoked from the muscle (control stimu-

26
lus force), this happened because the ap-
plied voltage stimulated the motor cor-
tex in the brain, which activated cortical
impulses (4). Therefore, testing the mag-
nitude of those evoked cortical impuls-
es in the target muscle, in this case the
quadriceps, is an indirect test of central
fatigue. So, if VA and control stimulus
force decrease (which they did from pre-
to post-training in this study), then that
indirectly shows lower activation of cor-
tical neurons, and thus decreased central
(and peripheral) fatigue.
OK, that’s a long explanation, but
hopefully it allows you to explain this
concept (at least in part) next time some-
one asks. In short, this study showed that
indirect measures of central fatigue were
similar after squatting and deadlift, thus
the deadlift does not cause greater acute
central fatigue than the squat. However,
this study only measured fatigue follow-
ing high-intensity training (i.e. 95% of
1RM), so we do not know if high-vol-
ume training would have differential
effects on cortical activity between the It is also possible that many people have
squat and deadlift.
Implications of Acute Changes for Week- that is what they have adapted to. When
ly Programming
With any study that looks at an acute
response, the ultimate question is: “How
can this actually help with long-term
programming?” Well, I’m not sure this
study provides a lot of answers in that re-
spect. As stated previously, it’s commonly
noted that the deadlift is more fatiguing
than the squat (although this study is in
disagreement); thus, the deadlift should
be trained with lower frequency than the
squat. In fact, the limited data that exist
on this topic are in support of this no-
tion. Specifically, powerlifters in a recent
study increased squat 1RM by 9.21% and
deadlift 1RM by 7.14% over eight weeks
despite training the squat three times per
week and the deadlift once per week (5).
The authors of the present study note
that periodization and tapering practices
do not need to be different for the squat
and deadlift, and while I do not disagree
with this statement, it is possible to have
different training frequencies, yet still
have the same periodization strategy.
In other words, periodization stipulates
long-term changes in training variables
(5, 6), but weekly frequency or configura-
tion is a programming strategy. Thus, just
because long-term trends in volume and
intensity are the same between squat and
deadlift throughout a macrocycle, that
doesn’t mean that training frequency has
to be the same between the lifts.
a lower deadlift frequency simply because
training frequency is increased, the lifter
will adapt over time despite significant
muscle damage from the initial training
session (7, 8). Therefore, as frequency and
volume are gradually increased, it is likely
the lifter will adapt over time. Also, the
statement from this study that periodiza-
tion strategies do not need to be differ-
ent for the squat and deadlift does not
27
mean that the deadlift should be mostly
removed from a program. To illustrate,
Hales et al., (2009) performed a kine- POWERLIFTERS IN A RECENT
matic analysis of the squat and deadlift
during an actual powerlifting meet and STUDY INCREASED SQUAT 1RM
noted important kinematic differences,
including the observation that the knee,
BY 9.21% AND DEADLIFT 1RM
hip, and ankle joints were at different an-
gles during the sticking point for the squat
BY 7.14% OVER EIGHT WEEKS
and deadlift. Hales et al., also observed DESPITE TRAINING THE SQUAT
that barbell velocity was different during
the sticking point between lifts (9). This THREE TIMES PER WEEK AND
led the authors to note that the “cross-
over” effect of the squat to the deadlift THE DEADLIFT ONCE PER WEEK.
was a “misconception” and that “the best
way to improve the deadlift is to deadlift.”
While I certainly agree with the second ing all muscle groups.
point (in fact, that’s one of the best lines
Future studies should analyze the
ever written in a scientific paper), I think
time course of fatigue and recovery to
it is a stretch to say that a crossover effect
high-volume squat and deadlift training.
between the lifts doesn’t exist. Since the
When this study is carried out, we can
current study demonstrated similar acute
make recommendations regarding the
fatigue and similar EMG activity of the
amount of time someone should rest be-
quadriceps, there is likely a crossover to
fore repeating a deadlift and if it differs
some degree. However, a limitation of
from the squat.
the current study is that the back muscu-
lature and hamstrings were not analyzed Endocrine Response
to fully uncover if similar fatigue exists A simple look at the protocol – 8 sets of
in all muscle groups trained. For exam- 2 at 95% – makes the lack of testosterone
ple, while the deadlift does activate the and cortisol increase unsurprising. As we
quadriceps, it is not typically known as a know from a MASS video in the May
quad-dominant exercise, but the squat is 2017 issue, acute hormone elevations oc-
a quad-dominant exercise. So the present cur as a result of high-volume training
results actually demonstrate that fatigue with short rest intervals (10, 11). In the
of the quadriceps is similar between the present study, only two reps per set were
two lifts; therefore, it is still possible that performed, and there was five minutes
the totality of fatigue due to the deadlift of rest between sets; thus, the protocol
is greater than the squat when consider- doesn’t coincide with the typical criteria

28
that would cause a transient testosterone
or cortisol increase. Also, while this was a
valid measure – only one previous study
(12) (to my knowledge) has analyzed the
acute endocrine response to the dead-
lift – it may not be all that important in
the grand scheme of things since we now
know that the acute hormonal response
is not a causative factor of hypertrophy
(13, 14).
Research Limitations of the Deadlift
As previously mentioned, long-term
research is quite limited on the deadlift.
While the lack of deadlift research isn’t
necessarily too important for analyzing
the present data at hand, it is important
for understanding why we can’t make very
specific recommendations regarding the
time course of recovery from the dead-
lift. There is actually a decent amount of
literature on acute deadlift analysis, such
as looking at conventional versus sumo
technique (15, 16) and kinetic and ki-
nematic analyses (9, 17), but little long-
term data exists. As a researcher, I have
been a part of seven “long-term” training
studies, between three and eight weeks.
However, I have only included the dead-
lift in two of these studies. Most stud-
ies do not use strength athletes; rather,
studies typically use university students,
who have substantial experience with the
bench press, decent experience with the
squat, and little-to-no experience with
the deadlift. Therefore, including the
deadlift in a long-term training study is
often problematic for three reasons:
The injury risk to subjects is high be-
cause they are not trained on it; thus,
technique is usually poor.
If included, strength increases would
be extremely rapid. If the study is de-
signed to compare two different training
programs, it would be hard to see if one
is actually better for the deadlift. This is
because the subjects would improve the
deadlift rapidly in response to any pro-
gramming because it’s a novel exercise.
The deadlift adds further time commit-
ment for both the subjects and investiga-
tors.
Next Steps
As noted earlier, a logical follow-up is a
crossover design with high-volume train-
ing that also looks at fatigue and muscle
damage at 24, 48, 72, and 96 hours follow-
ing training to compare the time course
of recovery between squat and deadlift.
The next step beyond that is to have a
group of lifters do two consecutive weeks
of high-volume deadlifting and measure
fatigue throughout both weeks, and then
do the same with squat. This study would
demonstrate if the repeated bout effect
(RBE) – the attenuation of muscle dam-
age when a stimulus is repeated (6) – oc-
curs to the same magnitude in the dead-
lift as it does with the squat. Therefore, if
the RBE does occur to the same extent
in the deadlift as in the squat, perhaps
lifters simply need to deadlift with great-
er volume and frequency for a few weeks
29
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
1. The deadlift does not cause greater acute central and peripheral fatigue than the
squat.
2. High-intensity and low-rep squat and deadlift training do not elicit a significant
testosterone and cortisol response.
3. Overall, long-term training data on the deadlift is scarce, so it is difficult to
recommend if training frequency should be lower on the deadlift versus the squat
(as commonly advocated), despite similar fatigue in the present study. Overarching
periodization strategies can likely be similar between the squat and deadlift, but
weekly programming (i.e. frequency and total volume) may vary between the two
lifts depending on individual biomechanical considerations and what the lifter is
adapted to.

to adapt to it, rather than to abandon a

high-frequency deadlift strategy after
the first sign of fatigue. To counter the
previous statement, it must also be noted
that different individual biomechanical
considerations (i.e. limb lengths) or pre-
vious injury may subject some lifters to
greater fatigue and injury risk on certain
exercises, which is a good reason to use
lift variations and be cautious regarding
volume and frequency. Therefore, indi-
vidual biomechanics, training age, avail-
ability to train, and preference should
be taken into account when dictating a
training frequency.

30
References
1. Barnes MJ, Miller A, Reeve D, Stewart RJ. Acute neuromuscular and endocrine responses to two
different compound exercises: squat versus deadlift. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Re-
search. 2017 Jul 12.
2. Gandevia SC. Spinal and supraspinal factors in human muscle fatigue. Physiological reviews. 2001
Jan 10;81(4):1725-89.
3. Batson G. Exercise-induced central fatigue: a review of the literature with implications for dance
science research. Journal of Dance Medicine & Science. 2013 Jun 15;17(2):53-62.
4. Brocke J, Irlbacher K, Hauptmann B, Voss M, Brandt SA. Transcranial magnetic and electrical stim-
ulation compared: does TES activate intracortical neuronal circuits? Clinical neurophysiology. 2005
Dec 31;116(12):2748-56.
5. Zourdos MC, Jo E, Khamoui AV, Lee SR, Park BS, Ormsbee MJ, Panton LB, Contreras RJ, Kim
JS. Modified daily undulating periodization model produces greater performance than a tradi-
tional configuration in powerlifters. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2016 Mar
1;30(3):784-91.
6. Williams TD, Tolusso DV, Fedewa MV, Esco MR. Comparison of Periodized and Non-Periodized
Resistance Training on Maximal Strength: A Meta-Analysis. Sports Medicine. 2017 May 12:1-8.
7. Hyldahl RD, Chen TC, Nosaka K. Mechanisms and Mediators of the Skeletal Muscle Repeated
Bout Effect. Exercise and sport sciences reviews. 2017 Jan 1;45(1):24-33.
8. Zourdos MC, Dolan C, Quiles JM, Klemp A, Jo E, Loenneke JP, Blanco R, Whitehurst M. Efficacy
of daily one-repetition maximum training in well-trained powerlifters and weightlifters: a case se-
ries. Nutrición Hospitalaria. 2016;33(2).
9. Hales ME, Johnson BF, Johnson JT. Kinematic analysis of the powerlifting style squat and the
conventional deadlift during competition: is there a cross-over effect between lifts? The Journal of
Strength & Conditioning Research. 2009 Dec 1;23(9):2574-80.
10. Hakkinen K, Pakarinen A. Acute hormonal responses to two different fatiguing heavy-resistance
protocols in male athletes. Journal of Applied Physiology. 1993 Feb 1;74(2):882-7.
11. McCaulley GO, McBride JM, Cormie P, Hudson MB, Nuzzo JL, Quindry JC, Triplett NT. Acute
hormonal and neuromuscular responses to hypertrophy, strength and power type resistance exercise.
European journal of applied physiology. 2009 Mar 1;105(5):695-704.
12. Fahey TD, Rolph R, Moungmee P, Nagel J, Mortara S. Serum testosterone, body composition, and
strength of young adults. Medicine and science in sports. 1976;8(1):31-4.
13. Schroeder ET, Villanueva M, West DD, Phillips SM. Are acute post-resistance exercise increases
in testosterone, growth hormone, and IGF-1 necessary to stimulate skeletal muscle anabolism and
hypertrophy? Medicine and science in sports and exercise. 2013 Nov 1;45(11):2044-51.
14. Morton RW, Oikawa SY, Wavell CG, Mazara N, McGlory C, Quadrilatero J, Baechler BL, Baker
SK, Phillips SM. Neither load nor systemic hormones determine resistance training-mediated hy-
pertrophy or strength gains in resistance-trained young men. Journal of Applied Physiology. 2016
Jul 1;121(1):129-38.

31
15. Escamilla RF, Francisco AC, Fleisig GS, Barrentine SW, Welch CM, Kayes AV, Speer KP, Andrews
JR. A three-dimensional biomechanical analysis of sumo and conventional style deadlifts. Medicine
and science in sports and exercise. 2000 Jul;32(7):1265-75.
16. Escamilla RF, Francisco AC, Kayes AV, Speer KP, Moorman CT. An electromyographic analysis
of sumo and conventional style deadlifts. Medicine and science in sports and exercise. 2002 Apr
1;34(4):682-8.
17. Galpin AJ, Malyszek KK, Davis KA, Record SM, Brown LE, Coburn JW, Harmon RA, Steele JM,
Manolovitz AD. Acute effects of elastic bands on kinetic characteristics during the deadlift at mod-
erate and heavy loads. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2015 Dec 1;29(12):3271-8.

32
 Red Hot Chili Peppers:
Not Just Training Music,
Now a Training Supplement
Study Reviewed: Acute Capsaicin Supplementation
Improves Resistance Training Performance in Trained
Men. Conrado de Freitas et al. (2017)

BY E RI C HE LMS

C
apsaicin, the active ingredient in
chili peppers, may have a poten-
tial role for enhancing muscular
performance based on animal studies.
Researchers in this study examined the
possibility of capsaicin having an er-
gogenic effect on weight lifting for the
first time by having 10 healthy, resis-
tance-trained males (age = 22.7 ± 4.0
years, weight = 82.3 ± 9.6kg, height =
1.75 ± 0.1m) perform two randomized,
double-blind trials, 45 minutes after
taking either a placebo or 12mg of pu-
rified capsaicin powder.

33
 KEY POINTS
1. This is the first human trial recording the effect of capsaicin on resistance training
performance. While this study and previous animal studies show promise, one study
on humans failed to show a performance enhancing effect on sprint ability, and the
capsaicin caused stomach distress.
2. Capsaicin may enhance performance through increasing pain tolerance and possibly
by enhancing calcium release in the sarcoplasmic reticulum, increasing contraction
strength.
3. Given previous research showing gastrointestinal (GI) distress, the dosage and
form of supplementation may be important in order to avoid negative side effects of
supplementation.

Following supplementation with the icin on lifting performance, rating of per-

placebo or capsaicin, participants per-
formed as many repetitions as possible
with 70% of their one-repetition maxi-
mum (1RM) back squat over four con-
secutive sets with 90 second rest inter-
vals. Rating of perceived exertion (RPE),
total volume load, and total repetitions
performed were higher in the capsaicin
condition than the placebo condition.
These results suggest that acute capsa-
icin ingestion may allow for increases in
per-session training volume, which could
have long-term implications for hyper-
trophy and strength.
Purpose and Research
Questions
Purpose
The purpose of the present study was placebo-controlled, crossover trial. The
to investigate the acute effect of capsa- participants performed four sets of squats
ceived exertion, and blood lactate con-
centrations in resistance-trained males.
Hypothesis
The researchers hypothesized that cap-
saicin supplementation would indeed
enhance performance.
Subjects and Methods
Subjects
Ten males with 3.5±1.5 years of train-
ing experience and an average training
frequency of 5.3±0.6 days per week par-
ticipated in this study. See Table 1 for
participant characteristics.
Overall Design, 1RM Testing, and Per-
formance Assessment
This was a randomized, double-blind,

34
 1st 2nd 3rd
1 Week 1 Week

12mg of CAP 12mg of CAP

Test of 1RM
or Placebo or Placebo

Warm-up Warm-up
5’ walking 5’ walking
1 x 30% 1 RM 1 x 30% 1 RM

45 minutes 45 minutes

Figure 1 Squat Exercise Squat Exercise

4 x 70% 1 RM 4 x 70% 1 RM
Study Outline 90s rest interval 90s rest interval

with 70% 1RM to failure 45 minutes af-
ter consuming either 12mg of purified
capsaicin powder or a placebo in capsule
form, in a random order. Neither the par-
ticipants nor researchers knew whether
they were receiving the placebo or cap-
saicin treatment prior to exercise testing.
Before the initial test, subjects had two
familiarization sessions to become ac-
customed to the 1RM test and testing
equipment. Then, the first of two trials
was performed, either with a placebo or
with capsaicin. The trial was repeated
seven days later with the opposite treat-
ment. Figure 1 is a diagrammatic repre-
sentation of the study protocol.
During the experimental sessions, the
subjects warmed up by walking for five
minutes, followed by 15 repetitions at
30% of 1RM. Then, the subjects rested
for five minutes before performing four
consecutive sets with 70% of 1RM with
90 seconds between sets. A normal lift-
ing speed was used and depth was con-
trolled by touching a wooden seat with
adjustable height (although the specific
depth used was not reported).
Subject Characteristics
The descriptive characteristics of the
volunteers are outlined in Table 1.

35

Blood Lactate and Rating of Perceived
Exertion
Blood draws were taken from the ear
lobe after each set, and 3, 5, and 30 min-
utes post-exercise to assess lactate con-
centration. The 6-20 Borg RPE scale was
used to assess exertion, with a single RPE
score recorded at the end of each testing
session.
Body Composition, Supplement Proto-
col, and Dietary Intake Testing
Height, weight, and skinfold thickness-
es were measured to estimate fat mass,
body fat percentage, and lean mass based
on a two-compartment density equation.
Participants were instructed to refrain
from consuming chili peppers, spicy food,
alcohol, or any stimulant for 12 hours
prior to each assessment. The Brazilian
food composition table database, abbre-
viated “TACO” in Portuguese, was used
to record intake of food and beverages in
the 24 hours prior to testing and to en-
sure food intake standardization between
trials (yes, I chuckled when I saw that a
database called TACO was used in a trial
on chili peppers).
A previous pilot study on four volun-
teers was used to ensure that the dose and
form of capsaicin in this study (12mg of
purified powder) was well-tolerated, in
that it caused minimal gastrointestinal
distress. Since capsaicin reaches peak
concentrations after 45 minutes (2), ex-
ercise testing was performed 45 minutes
after administration of the placebo or
supplement.
Findings
Volume load (repetitions x weight lift-
ed) was greater (p = 0.004) in the capsa-
icin condition (3919.4 ± 1227.4kg) com-
pared to the placebo condition (3179.6
± 942.4kg). Given this was a crossover
(i.e. the same participants with the same
1RM performed both trials), this is a
valid comparison. Had these been two
different groups of subjects, this would
not be a valid metric to compare unless
strength was counterbalanced. Rather,
you would assess differences in relative
volume load (repetitions x percent 1RM)
or total repetitions. On that note, total
repetitions were also higher (p = 0.002) in
the capsaicin condition (42.6 ± 12.6 reps)
compared to the placebo condition (35.1
± 12.3 reps). For both volume load and
total repetitions performed, the Cohen’s
d effect size indicated there was a “mod-
erate” difference between groups (0.68
36
 Figure 2
Volume load differences between conditions

5000
p = 0.004
Total Weight Lifted (kg)

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
Placebo Capsaicin

and 0.60, respectively). Figures 2 and 3 increased volume load and total repeti-
display these performance outcomes. tions performed over four sets of squats
There were no significant differences in to failure by ~20% while simultaneously
blood lactate levels between conditions; decreasing RPE by ~1 point on a 6-20
however, RPE was lower (p= 0.048) in scale. The primary ingredient in chili pep-
the capsaicin (17.2 ± 1.0) compared to pers, capsaicin, is most commonly known
the placebo (18.3 ± 1.7) condition, which as a thermogenic or “fat burner” in the
was described as a “large” difference (ef- supplement industry. However, given its
fect size 0.80). small effect on energy expenditure and
fat oxidation and inconsistent effects on
appetite and overall weight loss (3), one
Interpretation might consider capsaicin as a better acute
At face value, this study is a slam dunk ergogenic rather than as a fat loss agent.
for capsaicin as a supplement to enhance Before we start bulk ordering capsa-
lifting performance. Supplementation icin powder, though, we have to consider
with 12mg of purified capsaicin acutely a few things. First, this is the first and

37

25
23
21
19
17
Repetition
15
13
11
1
Set 1
only trial on resistance training perfor-
mance and capsaicin supplementation
in humans. In fact, there has only been
one other study on capsaicin and mus-
cular performance, which was done in
mice (4). While positive effects were re-
ported in both, we should remember that
we only have a single human study and a
single animal study showing the poten-
tial ergogenic effect of capsaicin on re-
sistance training. On the other hand, in
2012, Opheim and Rankin conducted a
study on repeated sprints (15x30 meter
sprints with 35-second rest intervals) in
which they reported no differences in
performance, RPE, or muscle soreness
after seven days of consuming a place-
Figure 3
Repetitions performed per set
Placebo
Capsaicin
Set 2 Set 3 Set 4
bo or 3g of cayenne pepper (containing
25.8mg of capsaicin). Unfortunately, the
athletes supplementing with cayenne
pepper reported a 6.3-fold increase in
gastrointestinal distress (5).
In the present study, no athletes report-
ed any GI distress. Given the limited
data available, it is unknown whether the
disparity in GI distress and performance
between Opheim and Rankin’s study and
the present study is due to the dosage
(25.8mg versus 12mg), the form (cay-
enne pepper versus purified capsaicin), or
the difference in testing (resistance versus
sprint performance). Additionally, we have
to consider that perhaps the reason repeat-
ed sprint performance didn’t improve was
38
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
1. Consumption of 12mg of purified capsaicin powder 45 minutes prior to resistance
training increased the repetitions performed while simultaneously lowering RPE.
2. However, a previous study on repeated sprints showed no performance benefit
from capsaicin supplementation in the form of cayenne pepper and a substantial
increase in stomach discomfort.
3. While capsaicin supplementation may eventually prove to be a useful ergogenic aid,
given the potential to cause GI distress, I would recommend waiting until further
research is published before supplementing with it.

because of the GI distress itself; meaning, it
is possible cayenne pepper would have in-
creased sprint ability had it not also caused
GI distress, and the two effects canceled
one another out.
The authors of the present study propose
two mechanisms by which capsaicin could
elicit a performance enhancing effect: 1)
by reducing the perception of pain and/or
2) increasing the release of calcium from
the sarcoplasmic reticulum, enhancing ac-
tin and myosin filament binding, thereby
improving force production (6). Applied
topically, capsaicin is a known pain reliever
(7) and could plausibly have analgesic ef-
fects when consumed orally (8, 9). Given
the lower RPE scores observed with cap-
saicin in this study in combination with an
increase in volume, it’s possible both mech-
anisms are at play.
Nonetheless, caution should be used be-
fore jumping into supplementation. To
sum it up, we have 1) a plausible mecha-
nism, 2) animal studies showing favorable
outcomes, 3) one human study showing
substantial gastric upset and no change in
performance, and 4) another human study
showing no gastric issues and an improve-
ment in performance. Therefore, I’d rec-
ommend waiting until additional research
comes out that confirms the findings of
the present study. When there is nothing
to risk except money, I’m fine with trying
a new supplement with initial supporting
evidence so long as it’s also proven to be
safe. But in this case, there is a strong possi-
bility you could give new meaning to John-
ny Cash’s song “Ring of Fire” rather than
improving your lifting performance.
Finally, if you do decide to put your GI
tract at risk in the potential pursuit of gains,
consider the capsaicin form that you sup-
plement with. From what I’ve seen, most
supplements available are in the form of
cayenne pepper extract (the form that
caused substantial GI distress in the study
on sprinting). Given there was a 6.3-fold
increase in GI discomfort, I would think
even cutting the dosage of cayenne pepper
in half to achieve roughly the dose used in
the present study would still prove prob-
lematic. Thus, I would seek out a purified

39
powder form to hopefully avoid any is-
sues.

Next Steps
Given this is the only study in existence
measuring the effects of capsaicin on
resistance training performance in hu-
mans, plenty of additional research needs
to be carried out. First, it simply needs to
be replicated by another lab to confirm
the findings; however, in this replication
study, another supplemental group con-
suming the same dosage of capsaicin via
cayenne pepper would be helpful to elu-
cidate whether the GI issues observed in
previous research were due to the dose or
the form of supplementation.

40
References
1. de Freitas, M.C., et al., Acute capsaicin supplementation improves resistance training performance
in trained men. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 2017.
2. Chaiyasit, K., W. Khovidhunkit, and S. Wittayalertpanya, Pharmacokinetic and the effect of capsa-
icin in Capsicum frutescens on decreasing plasma glucose level. J Med Assoc Thai, 2009. 92(1): p.
108-13.
3. Ludy, M.-J., G.E. Moore, and R.D. Mattes, The effects of capsaicin and capsiate on energy balance:
critical review and meta-analyses of studies in humans. Chemical senses, 2011. 37(2): p. 103-121.
4. Hsu, Y.-J., et al., Capsaicin supplementation reduces physical fatigue and improves exercise perfor-
mance in mice. Nutrients, 2016. 8(10): p. 648.
5. Opheim, M.N. and J.W. Rankin, Effect of capsaicin supplementation on repeated sprinting perfor-
mance. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 2012. 26(2): p. 319-326.
6. Kazuya, Y., et al., A single intake of capsiate improves mechanical performance and bioenergetics
efficiency in contracting mouse skeletal muscle. American Journal of Physiology - Endocrinology
And Metabolism, 2014. 306(10): p. E1110-E1119.
7. Derry, S., et al., Topical capsaicin (high concentration) for chronic neuropathic pain in adults. Co-
chrane Database Syst Rev, 2017. 1: p. Cd007393.
8. Frias, B. and A. Merighi, Capsaicin, Nociception and Pain. Molecules, 2016. 21(6): p. 797.
9. Lebovitz, E.E., et al., Positive allosteric modulation of TRPV1 as a novel analgesic mechanism. Mol
Pain, 2012. 8: p. 70.

41
Is It Better to Split Your Workout
Into Multiple Daily Sessions?
Study Reviewed: Effects of Single versus Multiple
Bouts of Resistance Training on Maximal Strength and
Anaerobic Performance. Shiau et al. (2017)
BY G RE G NUC KO LS

T
raining multiple times per day has
both benefits and drawbacks. On
one hand, splitting your training
into multiple, smaller workouts can al-
low you to complete your scheduled
training if you don’t have a big enough
chunk of time in your day to do it all in
one shot.

42
 KEY POINTS
1. In a recent study, performing the entirety of one’s strength training in a single session
versus splitting it up into three sessions per training day didn’t affect gains in lean
body mass, upper body strength, or upper body anaerobic fitness.
2. It’s possible that multiple training sessions per day may lead to larger strength gains
and simply be more feasible when per-session training loads start to become very
challenging. However, when training sessions are still manageable, splitting them
into multiple daily sessions is unlikely to lead to larger strength gains.
3. For most people, training once per day versus multiple times per day should simply
be a decision based on preference and practicality.

Furthermore, you may be fresher for
secondary or assistance exercises if you
can perform them separately, instead of
being wiped out after completing your
main exercises for the day and still need-
ing to do accessory lifts. On the oth-
er hand, getting to the gym (especially
if you don’t work in the gym or have a
home gym) multiple times per day may
be more onerous than just knocking all
your training out in one session.
To address the concept of multiple
training sessions per day, this study had
two groups of untrained subjects per-
form the same training program, consist-
ing of three sets of a variety of exercises,
with intensity increasing over the course
of the program. One group did all of the
sets of all of the exercises in one session,
while the other group did just one set of
each exercise per session. Over 12 weeks
of training, their results were essentially
identical, indicating that both training
configurations are viable options. How-
ever, one proposed benefit of multiple
training sessions per day is that you may
be able to tolerate higher training vol-
umes since you’d be fresher, on average,
for each set; volume was matched in this
study, so this shouldn’t be taken as the fi-
nal word on the subject.
Purpose and Research
Questions
The purpose of the study was to com-
pare the results of performing all training
in one session versus splitting training
into three sessions on each training day,
with volume matched.
The authors hypothesized that since
training volume was matched:
1. Both daily training configurations
would lead to similar improvements
in upper body strength, assessed via
one-rep max (1RM) bench press.
2. Both training configurations would

43
 lead to similar improvements in
upper body anaerobic performance
(assessed via an upper body Win-
gate test using an arm ergometer).
Subjects and Methods
Subjects
The subjects were in their third year in
a military college and had no prior re-
sistance training experience. They were
in their early 20s (22.0±1.0 years old),
participated in extracurricular sports 3-4
times per week, and had no musculoskel-
etal injuries.
Testing
Height, body mass, and body composi-
tion were assessed pre- and post-training
in the morning after an overnight fast.
Body composition (body-fat percentage
and fat-free mass) was estimated using
bioelectrical impedance. While bioelec-
trical impedance certainly isn’t the best
way to assess body composition, the re-
searchers used a machine whose results
have previously been shown to correlate
quite strongly with those of DXA (2).
Strength was assessed via the 1RM
bench press pre- and post-training. Up-
per body anaerobic performance was as-
sessed pre- and post-training via an up-
per body Wingate test, which involves a
30-second all-out “sprint” on an arm er-
gometer. Peak power (the highest power
output observed over a five-second pe-
riod), average power, and fatigue index
(the drop in power from the start to the
end of the test) were assessed to measure
changes in anaerobic performance. Blood
lactate levels were measured along with
the Wingate test, with blood samples
taken from a finger prick directly before
the test, immediately after the test, and 3,
5, 15, and 30 minutes post-test.
Training
Training took place on three noncon-
secutive days per week for 12 weeks. The
exercises consisted of lateral delt raises,
pull-downs, shoulder press, biceps curls,
triceps extensions, pec flyes, back exten-
sions, and crunches. The participants did
three sets of each exercise on each train-
ing day. The training program followed
a linear periodized setup. Weeks 1-4
involved 50-55% 1RM loads for sets of
12-15 reps, progressing to sets of 10 with
65% of 1RM for weeks 5-8, and sets of 8
with 75% of 1RM for weeks 9-12.
The participants were split into two
groups. One group performed all of their
training on each day in a single training
session (SB; n=10), while one group split
the training into three sessions on each
training day (TB; n=10). The SB group
did all three sets of each exercise before
moving onto the next exercise. They rest-
ed 30 seconds between sets and 60 sec-
onds between exercises. All training ses-
sions for the SB group took place at 5
p.m. The TB group did one set of each
exercise in each training session, with 30
seconds of rest between exercises. The
three training sessions for the TB group
44
 Table 1

Week 1-4 Week 5-8 Week 9-12

Load 50 - 55% of 1RM 65% of 1RM 75% of 1RM

Sets 3 3 3

Repetitions 12-15 10 8

Rest 30s 30s 30s

Exercises Lateral delt raises, pull-downs, shoulder press, biceps curls, triceps extensions, pec flyes, back
extensions, and crunches

Notes Rest was 30 seconds between sets and 60 seconds between exercises for the once-daily group, and
30 seconds between exercises for the thrice-daily group.
Both groups did all exercises in each session. The once-daily group did three sets of one exercise
before moving on to the next exercise. The once-daily group did one set of each exercise per session

took place at 8 a.m., 5 p.m., and 9 p.m. nificant differences between groups.
Nutrition and physical activity Body-fat percentage decreased non-sig-
nificantly in both groups, with no differ-
Diet logs (two weekdays and one week-
ences between groups.
end day) were collected before the start
of training, during the 6th week of the Both groups significantly increased
training program, and during the 12th bench press strength (+33% and +37%
week of the program. Physical activity for the SB and TB groups, respective-
questionnaires were administered as well, ly), with no significant differences be-
and the participants were instructed to tween groups. Increases in Wingate test
maintain their habitual physical activity peak power, average power, and fatigue
and refrain from strength training out- index were also similar between groups.
side of the study protocol. Blood lactate levels were similar between
groups at all time points both pre- and
post-training. Furthermore, blood lactate
Findings levels didn’t change pre- to post-training
within either group.
Average caloric intake was similar be-
tween groups and increased significant- Finally, changes in fat-free mass were
ly over the course of the study in both significantly correlated with changes in
groups by roughly 300-400kcal/day, from bench press 1RM (r=0.80-0.81), chang-
~2500kcal/day to ~2800-2900kcal/day. es in Wingate test peak power (r=0.75-
Both groups experienced significant in- 0.78), and changes in Wingate test aver-
creases in lean body mass, with no sig- age power (r=0.72-0.78).

45
 Table 2
Once-daily
Body fat percentage -0.60%
Lean body mass 2.3kg increase
Bench Press 1RM 22.6kg increase (+33%)
Wingate peak power 15% increase
Wingate average power 11% increase
Wingate fatigue index 28% increase
Interpretation
There were two important method-
ological drawbacks to this study:
1. Unless they just forgot to mention
it, the subjects didn’t actually train
the bench press.
2. The training sessions weren’t incred-
ibly low-volume, but based on the
rest periods provided and the load/
rep combos used, the sessions prob-
ably weren’t overly fatiguing.
The first drawback actually lends some
interesting perspective to the extant lit-
erature on the subject. Specifically, Häk-
kinen et al (3) found that in female ath-
letes, training once per day didn’t cause
significant hypertrophy or knee exten-
sion strength gains, while subsequent
twice-daily training did. A similar study
in males had similar findings: no change
in knee extension strength during a
three-week period of once-daily sessions,
but a significant increase in knee exten-
Thrice-daily Significant Difference?
-0.60% no
2.4kg increase no
23.7kg increase (+37%) no
19% increase no
2% increase no
22% increase no
sion strength during a three-week period
of twice-daily sessions, with volume and
intensity matched (5). A follow-up study
by Hartman et al (4) found that in well-
trained male weightlifters, twice-daily
training led to non-significantly larg-
er increases in isometric knee extension
strength and maximal quadriceps EMG.
All three of these studies were very short-
term (three weeks per training phase),
used trained athletes, and used a very
simple exercise for testing. The present
study, on the other hand, was longer (12
weeks), used untrained subjects, and used
a more complex exercise for testing.
It’s plausible that the previous studies
found benefits from training multiple
times per day because the athletes in the
studies needed more frequent stimuli for
further neural adaptations. In support
of that speculation, both of them found
significant correlations between changes
in quad EMG and changes in isometric
knee extension strength. In this study, on
the other hand, the untrained lifters were
46
bound to get large neural improvements
simply from commencing strength train-
ing, and any possible additional neu-
ral effects from training a lift more fre-
quently wouldn’t have affected the results
since they didn’t train the lift used to test
strength (the bench press).
Taken in light of the previous research
on the topic, this study lends support to
the idea that additional strength gains
due to splitting strength training into
multiple sessions per day would likely be
driven by neural adaptations.
The other drawback of this study (short
workouts that likely weren’t incredi-
bly challenging) unfortunately limits
its utility for serious lifters. One of the
proposed benefits of training multiple
times per day is that it would allow for
either higher training volume or higher
training loads: you’ll have some time to
partially recover (reduce acute percep-
tions of fatigue) from your first session
of the day, so you’ll have more energy to
devote to your second session of the day.
For example, if you just needed to do 3
sets of 5 squats with 75% of 1RM, you
could easily knock that out in a single
session. However, if you had 8 sets of 5
squats with the same load, followed by
six sets of RDLs at an 8-9 RPE, you may
not be able to complete all of the volume
in a single session. If you did, execution
of some of the later sets of RDLs would
likely be very shaky. However, if you did
4 sets of squats and 3 sets of RDLs split
into a morning and afternoon session, or
TAKEN IN LIGHT OF THE
PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON THE
TOPIC, THIS STUDY LENDS
SUPPORT TO THE IDEA THAT
ADDITIONAL STRENGTH
GAINS DUE TO SPLITTING
STRENGTH TRAINING INTO
MULTIPLE SESSIONS PER DAY
WOULD LIKELY BE DRIVEN
BY NEURAL ADAPTATIONS.
did the squats and RDLs in two separate
sessions, the total training load would
likely be more manageable, and training
quality would probably be higher.
Ultimately, this does show us that
there’s nothing magical about splitting
training into multiple sessions. If it’s
training you could comfortably do in one
session, you don’t lose anything by split-
ting it up if that’s more convenient for
you, but you probably won’t gain any-
thing either. However, based on prior
research, there may be some benefit to
splitting very challenging workouts into
multiple sessions per day. Furthermore,
if there is a benefit to splitting up your
47
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
1. Whether you do all of your training in a single session or split it up into multiple
sessions throughout a day depends primarily on feasibility and practicality.
2. It may be beneficial to split very challenging workouts into multiple daily sessions if
your schedule permits, but there’s likely not a big advantage if you can comfortably
do all of your training in a single session.

workouts, those benefits are likely neural,

and thus more likely to be meaningful
for advanced lifters (for whom rates of
neural adaptations have slowed consider-
ably).

Next Steps
While we now have four papers look-
ing at the effects of splitting training into
multiple daily sessions, none of them do
a great job of investigating the subject;
three were very short-term, and one used
untrained lifters and tested a lift that
wasn’t trained. An ideal study on this
topic would use well-trained lifters (for
whom split sessions would likely have
the most practical benefit), last at least
three or four months, employ a challeng-
ing training program (perhaps regulated
using an RPE-based system to also see if
split sessions naturally allow for higher
daily and weekly training volumes), and
take a variety of measurements (perfor-
mance, blood, muscle biopsies, EMG,
etc.) to see what factors affect the out-
come.

48
References
1. Shiau K, Tsao TH, Yang CB. Effects of Single Versus Multiple Bouts of Resistance Training on
Maximal Strength and Anaerobic Performance. Journal of Human Kinetics. 2017 Aug.
2. Ling CH, de Craen AJ, Slagboom PE, Gunn DA, Stokkel MP, Westendorp RG, Maier AB. Accu-
racy of direct segmental multi-frequency bioimpedance analysis in the assessment of total body and
segmental body composition in middle-aged adult population. Clin Nutr. 2011 Oct;30(5):610-5.
doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2011.04.001. Epub 2011 May 8.
3. Häkkinen K, Kallinen M. Distribution of strength training volume into one or two daily ses-
sions and neuromuscular adaptations in female athletes. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1994
Mar;34(2):117-24.
4. Hartman MJ, Clark B, Bembens DA, Kilgore JL, Bemben MG. Comparisons between twice-dai-
ly and once-daily training sessions in male weight lifters. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2007
Jun;2(2):159-69.
5. Häkkinen K, Pakarinen A. Serum hormones in male strength athletes during inten-
sive short term strength training. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1991;63(3-4):194-9.

49
 High-Volume Training Decreases
Both Strength and Volume Capability,
But for Different Durations
Study Reviewed: Dissociated Time Course Between Peak
Torque and Total Work Recovery Following Bench Press
Training in Resistance Trained Men. Ferreira et al. (2017)

BY MIC HAE L C . ZO URD O S

O
ver the past few years, there has been
constant talk about training volume
influencing both muscle growth and
strength. However, is it possible this concept
has been taken too far? Many lifters have
taken this principle as a guideline to pack as
much volume as possible into one session,
which may not be the best strategy.
50
 KEY POINTS
1. High-volume bench press training to failure decreases strength for 72 hours and the
ability to perform volume for at least 96 hours.
2. Muscle soreness may be increased for up to 72 hours in trained individuals following
a very high-volume training session.
3. Because a single session of high-volume training to failure may compromise strength
and volume capabilities for at least 72 hours, it may be advantageous to perform less
volume in one session to allow for quicker recovery, increased training frequency,
and greater total weekly volume.

Rather, greater attention needs to be en immediately before and after training,

paid to the dissemination of weekly
training volume. If volume is disseminat-
ed appropriately throughout two or three
training sessions per week on a specific
exercise, then there might be less vol-
ume performed in one session, but lower
session volume will result in less muscle
damage per session and faster recovery
to allow for greater weekly volume. The
presently reviewed study provides ev-
idence for this concept. This study ex-
amined the time course of recovery in
trained males after performing eight sets
of bench press to failure in previously
trained males. To measure recovery at all
time points, both peak torque (PT) and
total work (TW) were measured by test-
ing horizontal shoulder adduction force
during 2 sets of 4 repetitions and 1 set
of 20 repetitions. Further, delayed onset
muscle soreness of the pectoralis major
was assessed, and subjective physical fit-
ness (perception of recovery) was rated
on a Likert scale to gauge muscle damage
and recovery. All measurements were tak-
then repeated at 24, 48, 72, and 96 hours
following training. Both PT and TW
decreased, as expected, immediately after
training. However, even though both PT
and TW gradually recovered throughout
the week, there was a significantly great-
er decrease in TW than in PT at 24, 48,
and 96 hours. Additionally, at 96 hours,
PT had statistically recovered (-2.46%),
while TW was still significantly lower
(-8.89%) than it was at the pre-training
time point. Further, DOMS was signifi-
cantly increased for 72 hours, but was
back to baseline at 96 hours following
training, and subjective physical fitness
was recovered at 72 hours.
The important take home from these re-
sults is that following a damaging bench
press training session, maximal force out-
put recovers more quickly than the abili-
ty to perform training volume. Therefore,
when training in a volume block, it may
be wise to not pack too much volume into
one session; doing so will impede recovery

51
 Table 1 Subject Characteristics

Number of
Subjects Age (years) Height (cm) Body Mass (kg) Training Age

26 23.7 ± 3.7 176 ± 5.7 79.65 ± 7.61 4.2 ± 2.9

Data are Mean ± SD

Subjects characteristics from Ferreira et al. 2017

and possibly impede total training vol-
ume and frequency for the remainder of
the week. Further, a lifter may consider
a lower volume power-type session fol-
lowing a high-volume session since force
output returns to baseline more quickly
than the ability to effectively perform
high-repetition sets.
Purpose and Research
Questions
Purpose
The aim of this study was to examine
the time course of recovery throughout
one week following a high-volume bench
press session in which all sets were taken
to failure by assessing PT, TW, DOMS,
and subjective physical fitness.
Research Question 1
How many days does it take for maxi-
mal force production, the ability to per- Subjects
form volume, muscle damage, and per- There were 26 trained men in this study.
ception of recovery (as measured by PT, To be included, subjects had to have
TW, DOMS, and subjective physical
fitness respectively) to recover follow-
ing a damaging training session of bench
press?
Research Question 2
Are the time courses of recovery for
PT and TW similar following a damag-
ing training session, or do these measures
recover at different rates?
Hypotheses
There was no hypothesis regarding ex-
actly how quickly PT and TW would re-
cover; however, it was hypothesized that
recovery of PT and TW throughout the
week would be dissociated. Also, while
not explicitly stated in the hypothesis,
reading the introduction indicates the
authors expected PT to recover more
quickly than TW.
Subjects and Methods

52
trained continuously for one year prior to
the study and must have been perform-
ing the bench press regularly. Although,
training age was – on average – higher
(four years) than the minimum criteria.
Specific subject characteristics are pro-
vided in Table 1.
Overall Study Procedures
Subjects completed the study over sev-
en days. On day 1, the participants were
familiarized with the protocol, anthro-
pometric measurements were taken, and
10-repetition maximum (RM) bench
press was tested. On day 2, which was 72
hours after day 1, a retest of the 10RM
occurred to ensure accuracy of the mea-
surement. Subjects then completed the
study over five consecutive days (i.e.
Monday-Friday), with the next session
occurring 72 hours after day 2. On Mon-
day, subjects were tested on all recovery
measures immediately before training,
then performed the bench press training
session. The recovery measurements were
re-assessed immediately after training.
Over the next four days, which were 24,
48, 72, and 96 hours post-training, test-
ing was repeated on all recovery measures
with no further bench press training. A
timeline of the study procedures can be
seen in Figure 1.
Resistance Training Protocol
The training session was eight sets of
bench press to failure. The load used for
the first four sets were at 90% of the sub-
jects’ 10RMs, and the load was reduced
by 20% for the last four sets. Participants
rested for two minutes between each set.
An example of the loading scheme can
be seen in Table 2, using the example of
an individual with a 10RM bench press
of 100kg. After looking at Table 2, we
can roughly determine that sets 1-4 were
at 67.5% of 1RM and sets 5-8 were at
54% of 1RM. We can do this because a
10RM is roughly 75% of a 1RM. So, in
53
 Table 2 Bench Press Load Determination
Sets 1-4
Actual 10RM (90% of 10RM)
100 kg 90 kg
Calculations determined from Ferreira et al. 2017
this example, if 100kg is 75% of 1RM,
then the 1RM would be 133.33kg. With
that projected 1RM, the loads of 90kg
and 72kg (Table 2) would correspond to
the aforementioned 67.5% and 54% of
1RM. Obviously, repetitions performed
at a given intensity are individualized
(repetitions allowed), and we are pro-
jecting a 1RM, so these percentages are
not exact; however, they do provide us
with an approximation to gauge how
many reps were performed in each set,
which will help us to interpret the find-
ings.
Recovery Measures
The four recovery measures assessed at
each time point were PT, TW, DOMS,
and subjective perception of fitness
(SPF). A dynamometer was used to test
PT and TW of the shoulders’ adduc-
tor muscles. To do this, subjects laid on
Sets 5-8: 20%
reduction of load in sets 1-4
72 kg
their backs and attempted to produce
the greatest force output possible for
each repetition by horizontally adduct-
ing their arm from 90° to 0°. For refer-
ence, 90° of shoulder adduction would
be holding your arm out to your side
so that it is parallel to the floor, and 0°
would be holding your arm straight up
from your body so that it is perpendicu-
lar to the floor (parallel to the wall) For
a clear description of the previous sen-
tence, please view Figure 1 (the starting
point) and Figure 2 (the ending point)
in this related paper. For PT, subjects
performed 2 sets of 4 reps at 60°.s-1, and
the highest torque of all 8 reps was used
for analysis. For TW, the subjects per-
formed 1 set of 20 reps at 120°.s-1, and
TW of the entire set was calculated.
Participants rested for two minutes be-
tween sets of PT, as well as between the
last set of PT and the TW test. To test
54
DOMS, the investigators palpated the
pectoralis major in different spots and
the subjects indicated their level of sore-
ness between 0 and 100. Subjects also
rated SPF between 0 and 100, in which
a score of 0 indicated “maximum fatigue
and not recovered,” while a score of 100
indicated “maximum physical fitness re-
covery.”
Findings
Peak Torque and Total Work
The time courses of recovery for PT
and TW are displayed in Figure 2. The
important message is that recovery for
PT and TW are dissociated: PT had
already recovered more than TW at 24
hours following training, and PT was
fully recovered at 96 hours while TW
was still not fully recovered (-8.89% ver-
sus pre-training) at 96 hours. The exact
percentage declines in PT and TW were
not reported in the manuscript; however,
since mean data were reported for each
55
 Table 3 Time Course of Change in DOMS

24 Hours 48 Hours 72 Hours 96 Hours

Pre-Training Post-Training Post-Training Post-Training Post-Training

DOMS 0±0 + 38%* + 38%* + 13%* + 3%

*Significantly greater than pre-training.

DOMS = Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness

time point, I was able to calculate the maximal strength and the ability to per-
percentage declines in PT and TW from form volume – recovered at different rates
pre-training to each time point. There- following a high-volume bench press
fore, the time course of recovery along session. Further, there was still signifi-
with percentage changes compared to cant DOMS at 72 hours post-training,
pre-training for PT and TW can be seen yet strength performance had recovered.
in Figure 2. To frame this interpretation, let’s first
Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness and discuss why recovery was different for
Subjective Physical Fitness strength and volume performance, then
analyze what implications these results
There was a significant increase
have for configuring a training week.
in DOMS at 24, 48, and 72 hours
post-training, while SPF was decreased Why Did This Happen?
significantly at 24 and 48 hours. DOMS We cannot be 100% sure why the dis-
and subjective physical fitness returned sociated recovery responses occurred, but
to baseline at 72 and 96 hours respective- the high-volume protocol likely caused
ly. The time course of percentage increase significant muscle damage, which is as-
in DOMS compared to pre-training is sociated with reduced muscle glycogen
provided in Table 3. (2). This possible reduction in glycogen
is likely to affect volume capability more
than maximal strength performance, and
Interpretation the authors of the paper state that this is
These results are interesting for lifters likely the primary mechanism to explain
on a few levels. First, it seems that PT these results. In fact, data have shown de-
and TW – which can be translated to creased leg press repetition performance

56
in a low glycogen state (3). However, it is
necessary to point out that muscle glyco-
gen is replenished after 24 hours of de- RESEARCH HAS SHOWN THAT
pletion, assuming adequate carbohydrate
consumption (4); therefore, it is difficult THE ABILITY TO PERFORM
to rectify this as the sole mechanism for
TW to still be suppressed at 96 hours VOLUME ON THE SQUAT AND
following training.
BENCH PRESS WAS GREATER AT
Another explanation for the dissociat-
ed recovery of PT and TW is impaired 96 HOURS FOLLOWING A HIGH-
calcium handling due to fatigue. In short,
calcium (Ca2+) is stored in the sarcoplas- VOLUME TRAINING SESSION
mic reticulum of skeletal muscle and its
release allows for the contractile proteins
WHEN A LIGHT SESSION WAS
(actin and myosin) to interact as the final
step for muscle contraction, and there is
PERFORMED AT 48 HOURS
a direct relationship between the mag- POST-TRAINING COMPARED
nitude of Ca2+ release and the degree of
contraction force. Importantly, proteins TO DOING BACK-TO-BACK
within muscle continually cause Ca2+ re-
uptake into the sarcoplasmic reticulum VOLUME SESSIONS WITHIN
to prepare for another possible contrac-
tion; however, reuptake can be impaired
48 HOURS OF EACH OTHER.
when damage is present (5). Therefore, it
is possible that in the present study, there
was enough Ca2+ stored in the sarcoplas- would be a direct measure (7). Thus, mus-
mic reticulum to perform a few contrac- cle damage may have still been present
tions, but the impaired reuptake harmed despite the lack of DOMS at 96 hours.
the continual contractions required to Ultimately, the damage theory is spec-
optimize TW; thus, compromised Ca2+ ulation and the “why” of the extended
handling is a plausible explanation for recovery of TW remains equivocal. Nev-
the dissociated recovery. ertheless, the dissociated time course of
Additionally, despite DOMS fully re- recovery does exist, so let’s now turn our
covering at 96 hours, TW was still de- attention to how we can use these results
creased by 8.89%. However, DOMS is to influence our weekly program design.
an indirect measure of muscle damage Implications for Weekly Program Con-
(6), as opposed to a muscle biopsy, which figuration

57
 Let’s first discuss the obvious takeaway
for program design, then we’ll tackle a
more nuanced analysis. The obvious take-
away is that following a very high-vol-
ume training session, you may want to
wait 96 hours to perform heavy work and
perhaps about a week to perform anoth-
er high-volume training session for the
same muscle group. Although, as we’ll
discuss later, it is likely that recovery for
both PT and TW would happen more
quickly than in the present study if low-
er volume was performed in the train-
ing session. Therefore, we should under-
stand these findings conceptually, which
means the time frames mentioned above
(96 hours and 1 week) aren’t as import-
ant as understanding that it is difficult to
perform high-volume sessions back-to-
back. In fact, research has shown that the
THESE RESULTS SUGGEST
THAT LESS VOLUME IN ONE
SESSION MAY ACTUALLY ALLOW
FOR MORE VOLUME WITHIN
A WEEK, AND THAT TAKING
ALL SETS IN A HIGH-VOLUME
SESSION TO FAILURE MAY ALSO
DIMINISH WEEKLY VOLUME.
ability to perform volume on the squat
and bench press was greater at 96 hours
following a high-volume training session
when a light session was performed at 48
hours post-training compared to doing
back-to-back volume sessions within 48
hours of each other (8).
The obvious takeaway discussed above
brings us to a more nuanced discussion
of disseminating volume appropriately
throughout a week. In the example from
Table 2, an individual in this study with a
10RM bench press of 100kg would have
completed 6,480kg of volume during the
study’s training session if he averaged
10 repetitions per set, which is feasible
based upon the estimated percentages
above. To put it simply, that’s a lot of vol-
ume. So, we have to ask ourselves, “How
quickly would recovery have occurred if
only half the volume was performed in
that session?” While it’s difficult to say
exactly at what time point performance
would be restored, it’s safe to say that
full recovery would have occurred soon-
er than observed in the present study –
perhaps 48-72 hours following training.
Additionally, all eight sets were taken
to failure during the training session in
the present study; however, as we know
from a meta-analysis (9) and recent
MASS article, training to failure is not
necessary to maximize strength. More-
over, it’s likely that performing all sets to
failure exacerbated the damage response
and prolonged the recovery time. These
results suggest that less volume in one
58
 Table 4A Inappropriate Dissemination of Volume
Exercise Monday
Bench 8 x Max Reps @70%
Training is expressed in sets X reps at percentage of one-repetition maximum.
session may actually allow for more vol-
ume within a week, and that taking all
sets in a high-volume session to failure
may also diminish weekly volume. Table
4A illustrates an inappropriate dissem-
ination of volume, as performed in this
study, while Table 4B presents a training
week in which daily volume is lower than
in Table 4A, but total weekly volume is
consequently greater due to appropriate
allocation of volume.
Consistent with our discussion, the
tables above demonstrate that less vol-
ume in one day can result in more vol-
ume throughout a given week compared
to excessive volume in one day. Further,
the appropriate dissemination of volume
(Table 4B) does not utilize failure train-
ing as to not impede recovery. Rather,
failure training could be incorporated on
assistance exercises or during the Friday
Wednesday Friday
Possible Training,
No Training, but volume
Still Fatigued capabilities still
affected.
session, since it has the lowest volume
and is followed by two full rest days. Spe-
cifically, Table 4B keeps the lifter training
in a rating of perceived exertion (RPE)
range of about 5-8 (2-5 repetitions in re-
serve) (10, 11). Finally, data have indicat-
ed that a frequency of 2-3 times per week
on a muscle group is superior to one ses-
sion per week for hypertrophy (12); thus,
performing excessive volume in one day
might harm training frequency as out-
lined in Table 4A. Consequently, the di-
minished frequency could drop the lifter
below the 2-3 time per week frequency
recommendation, which could in turn re-
sult in lower-than-adequate weekly volume.
Despite our suggestion above that eight
sets of max reps at a decent load is too
much volume in one session, it must also be
stressed that how much volume someone
can perform, how quickly they can recover
59
 Table 4B Appropriate Dissemination of Volume

Exercise Monday Wednesday Friday

Bench 4 x 8 @ 70% 4 x 6 @ 75% 5 x 4 @ 80%

Training is expressed in sets X reps at percentage of one-repetition maximum.

from it, and ultimately how much volume sions. This programming strategy also war-
they should do at a specific phase of theirrants mention in this interpretation as a way
training (and at different stages of long- to increase training frequency and, subse-
term training development) is individual- quently, volume. If we think about DOMS
ized. This means that well-trained lifters being elevated and performance being low-
can likely handle more volume than mod- er at 48 hours post-training in this study, it
erately trained individuals. So, if the present
becomes apparent that it would be difficult
protocol was repeated, it is also likely that a
to train with high-volume again. Howev-
lifter would adapt to the volume over time,er, a low volume power session (3 sets of 1
which would eventually result in an accel- @80%, for example) could be used at the
erated rate of recovery. Therefore, it is quite
48-hour time point as a way to maintain fre-
difficult to give a set recommendation of quency, and then more challenging training
how much volume should be done in one could be performed again at 96 hours after
day; it will vary for each person. However,the first session. Remember, you don’t have
for intermediate lifters, Table 4B provides a
to absolutely crush yourself every time you
solid option, while novice lifters could pos-
train, and perhaps a mid-week low volume
sibly cut the volume in Table 4B by at least
session can help manage fatigue and even
half (if not more). improve performance for a session 24-48
Previously, MASS has covered the idea hours later (13).
of performing a low volume power-type It is necessary to point out a limitation
session in the middle of the week, between of this study: During the recovery days,
high volume and high intensity-type ses- subjects performed 28 total contractions

60
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
1. Following high-volume training to failure, maximal strength is decreased for 72
hours, while volume capability is decreased for at least 96 hours.
2. Performing very high volume in one training session may create excessive muscle
damage and actually decrease weekly training volume and frequency.
3. Volume should be allocated appropriately throughout a week, which includes being
careful about how often and when failure training is used. Thus, if recovery takes
more than 48-72 hours, it is advisable to decrease single-session volume and
disseminate volume across 2-3 days per week.

on horizontal shoulder adduction, which
may have attenuated the rate of recovery by
causing minimal amounts of muscle dam-
age. While this limitation would not affect
the differential rate of recovery of PT and
TW, it could affect the duration of recovery
for both measures. Thus, it is possible that
both PT and TW would have recovered
more quickly without these contractions
during the recovery days.
Next Steps
I think a few things could be done to fol-
low this up. First, it would be nice to gather
feedback on subjects’ training volume prior
to the beginning of the study. If we knew
this information, we could provide more
specific recommendations to individualize
training volume. Ideally, we would have a
study that collected information regarding
the exact training program a subject was do-
ing prior, and then researchers could report
individual subject data for strength/volume
recovery and DOMS. Reporting the indi-
vidual data would allow us to see if there
was a relationship between the training vol-
ume they were doing prior to the study and
the magnitude of damage they experienced;
I suspect there would be a relationship. Ac-
tually, gathering greater details regarding
previous training experience is something
that would vastly advance the applicabili-
ty of training studies as a whole. Further, a
follow-up study should be done using the
training session exercise – in this case bench
press – as the testing exercise, instead of a
minor movement such as shoulder adduc-
tion. Last, it would be interesting to see an-
other study with equivalent volume on the
training day, but with individuals stopping
each set between a 5-8 RPE to see if dam-
age is lower in the non-failure condition
and if the non-failure condition results in
more rapid recovery.

61
References
1. Ferreira DV, Gentil P, Ferreira-Junior JB, Soares SR, Brown LE, Bottaro M. Dissociated time course
between peak torque and total work recovery following bench press training in resistance trained
men. Physiology & Behavior. 2017 Oct 1;179:143-7.
2. Asp S, Richter EA. Decreased insulin action on muscle glucose transport after eccentric contractions
in rats. Journal of Applied Physiology. 1996 Nov 1;81(5):1924-8.
3. Sporer BC, Wenger HA. Effects of aerobic exercise on strength performance following various peri-
ods of recovery. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2003 Nov 1;17(4):638-44.
4. Ivy JL. Glycogen resynthesis after exercise: effect of carbohydrate intake. International journal of
sports medicine. 1998 Jun;19(S 2):S142-5.
5. Summermatter S, Thurnheer R, Santos G, Mosca B, Baum O, Treves S, Hoppeler H, Zorzato F,
Handschin C. Remodeling of calcium handling in skeletal muscle through PGC-1a: impact on force,
fatigability, and fiber type. American journal of physiology-cell physiology. 2012 Jan 1;302(1):C88-
99.
6. Nosaka K, Newton M, Sacco P. Delayed‐onset muscle soreness does not reflect the magnitude of
eccentric exercise‐induced muscle damage. Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports.
2002 Dec 1;12(6):337-46.
7. Barash IA, Peters D, Fridén J, Lutz GJ, Lieber RL. Desmin cytoskeletal modifications after a bout
of eccentric exercise in the rat. American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Com-
parative Physiology. 2002 Oct 1;283(4):R958-63.
8. Zourdos MC, Jo E, Khamoui AV, Lee SR, Park BS, Ormsbee MJ, Panton LB, Contreras RJ, Kim
JS. Modified daily undulating periodization model produces greater performance than a tradi-
tional configuration in powerlifters. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2016 Mar
1;30(3):784-91.
9. Davies T, Orr R, Halaki M, Hackett D. Effect of training leading to repetition failure on muscular
strength: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine. 2016 Apr 1;46(4):487-502.
10. Zourdos MC, Klemp A, Dolan C, Quiles JM, Schau KA, Jo E, Helms E, Esgro B, Duncan S, Me-
rino SG, Blanco R. Novel resistance training–specific rating of perceived exertion scale measuring
repetitions in reserve. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2016 Jan 1;30(1):267-75.
11. Helms ER, Cronin J, Storey A, Zourdos MC. Application of the repetitions in reserve-based rat-
ing of perceived exertion scale for resistance training. Strength and conditioning journal. 2016
Aug;38(4):42.
12. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Effects of resistance training frequency on measures of muscle
hypertrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine. 2016 Nov 1;46(11):1689-97.
13. Tsoukos A, Veligekas P, Brown LE, Terzis G, Bogdanis GC. Delayed effects of a low volume, pow-
er-type resistance exercise session on explosive performance. The Journal of Strength & Condition-
ing Research. 2017 May 25.

62
Should I Stop Drinking Caffeinated
Drinks So My Pre-Workout
Supplement Works Better?
Study Reviewed: Dispelling the Myth That Habitual Caffeine
Consumption Influences the Performance Response to Acute
Caffeine Supplementation. Goncalves et al. (2017)

BY E RI C HE LMS

C
affeine is one of the most well-researched
performance-enhancing compounds in
existence, and likely one of the most
commonly used drugs worldwide. However,
some of the effects of caffeine diminish with
regular use as one develops a tolerance. The
authors of this study sought to determine
whether habitual caffeine consumption at
low, moderate, and high levels would nega-
tively impact its ergogenic effects.

63
 KEY POINTS
1. Groups of low (2-101 mg/day), moderate (104-183 mg/day), and high (190-583 mg/
day) habitual caffeine consumers experienced similar ergogenic effects on cycling
performance after taking 6mg/kg of caffeine prior to testing.
2. The effects between groups were not statistically different; however, probability-based
analysis might indicate high habitual consumers had a less consistent performance
increase (possibly due to the wide range of intakes that were considered high). This
agrees with some previous research in this area.
3. Tolerance does not completely remove caffeine’s ergogenic effects. Likely, the
degree it is diminished is relative to how much is habitually consumed. Additionally,
some of the proposed mechanisms by which caffeine improves resistance training
performance may not be impacted by tolerance.

To do so, a double-blind, crossover, coun- er the longstanding notion holds true

terbalanced study was performed. Forty that habitual intake of caffeine (at low,
male cyclists were allocated into groups ac- moderate, and high levels) influences the
cording to their daily caffeine intake: low effects of acute caffeine supplementation
(58 ± 29 mg/d), moderate (143 ± 25 mg/d), on cycling time trial performance.
and high (351 ± 139 mg/d). Participants Hypothesis
completed three tests in which they per-
The researchers hypothesized that ha-
formed cycling time trials after ingesting
bitual caffeine intake would influence the
6 mg/kg of caffeine, a placebo, or nothing
ergogenic effects of caffeine supplemen-
(control). Analysis revealed that caffeine
tation, with greater aerobic exercise per-
increased performance relative to both pla-
formance gains in individuals with lower
cebo and control, and that there were no
regular consumption of caffeine.
differences in performance between groups,
indicating that caffeine tolerance does not
degrade the ergogenic effect of caffeine on
cycling time trial performance.
Subjects and Methods
Subjects
Forty competitive cyclists at either
Purpose and Research an amateur or a professional level, who
Questions trained at least four times per week and
cycled at least 150 kilometers per week
Purpose participated in this study. The exclusion
This study aimed to investigate wheth- criteria included 1) the use of any dietary

64
supplement (except carbohydrate and
proteins) for at least six months before
the study and 2) any prior use of anabolic
steroids.
Overall Design
This was a double-blind, counterbal-
anced, placebo-controlled trial, meaning
neither the participants nor researchers
knew whether they were receiving the
placebo or caffeine treatment prior to ex-
ercise testing. Additionally, groups were
balanced such that a similar VO2max was
present among low, moderate, and high
caffeine consumption groups. Finally, in
addition to a placebo and caffeine trial, a
non-supplemented control trial was per-
formed.
Participants visited the lab six times.
In the first visit, the researchers assessed
descriptive characteristics and VO2max,
and they administered a food frequency
questionnaire that determined habitual
caffeine intake (Table 1). On the second
and third visits, participants were famil-
iarized with the cycling time trial test to
eliminate the learning effect of test per-
formance. Then, for the final three lab
visits (at least seven days apart), the par-
ticipants performed the time trial after
consuming 6 mg/kg of caffeine, a placebo,
or no supplement (the control) in a ran-
domized order, at the same time of day,
after a six-hour fasting period, 60 min-
utes after supplement ingestion. Food
and training conditions in the prior 24
hours to each test were tightly controlled,
and researchers ensured no caffeine was
consumed in the day prior to the test or
day of the test (beyond the supplemental
caffeine provided).
Subject Characteristics
The descriptive characteristics of the vol-
65
 Figure 1
Control

Placebo

2250 Caffeine

2000
Time to complete cycling time-trials

1750

1500

1250

1000

750

500

250

0
Low Caffeine Consumer Moderate Caffeine Consumer High Caffeine Consumer

unteers are outlined in Table 1.

Findings
Cycling Time Trial Testing
Performance Differences
For performance testing, participants had
to complete an individualized amount of The authors of this study performed a
work on a cycle ergometer, as quickly as comprehensive analysis, using not only
possible, calculated using their baseline per- null hypothesis testing (mixed mod-
formance. Participants were not informed el analyses with habitual caffeine intake
of their performance; they were only told as a covariate), but also effect size and
when they had completed 25, 50, 75, 90, probability analysis, individual differenc-
and 100% of the required work. Finally, the es analysis, and correlations to determine
lab personnel present were kept the same if habitual caffeine intake was related to
throughout the study and verbal encour- change in performance (see our inter-
agement was not provided to standardize preting research document for informa-
all testing occasions. tion on some of these concepts).

66
 Table 2 Magnitude-based inferences for time-trial performance by caffeine intake

Chances of Chances of Chances of

treatment being treatment being treatment being
Difference, % positive, % trivial, % negative, %

Low
CAF vs. CON - 3.71 ± 7.62 82 17 1
CAF vs. PLA 1.57 ± 4.25 51 49 0
PLA vs. CON 1.50 ± 15.25 53 44 3

Moderate
CAF vs. CON - 4.57 ± 3.63 99 1 0
CAF vs. PLA - 3.69 ± 4.65 93 6 1
PLA vs. CON - 0.28 ± 9.83 40 53 7

High
CAF vs. CON 0.88 ± 7.85 49 46 5
CAF vs. PLA - 1.40 ± 7.68 55 43 2
PLA vs. CON - 1.38 ± 13.77 14 66 20

CAF, caffeine; CON, control; PLA, placebo; Low, moderate, and high - habitual caffeine intake

Overall, caffeine produced a signifi- est worthwhile change), negative (equal

cant improvement in time trial perfor- to or greater than the smallest harmful
mance in all groups, without differences change), or trivial (less than both the
between groups when assessing caffeine smallest worthwhile negative or positive
as a covariate. Figure 1 displays the time change) effect was observed in each ha-
to complete the trials in each condition: bitual consumption group (low, moder-
caffeine, control, and placebo (remember ate, or high), in each condition (caffeine,
a lower bar means faster completion). placebo, or control).
Additionally, there was no significant When analyzing individual improve-
correlation (r = 0.011, p = 0.524) betweenments during the caffeine condition rela-
habitual caffeine intake and performance. tive to the control, it was found that 8/14
Table 2 shows the probability-based (57.1%) low, 7/12 (58.3%) moderate,
analysis of the likelihood that a posi- and 5/14 (35.7%) high habitual caffeine
tive (equal to or greater than the small- consumers performed above the typical

67
 Figure 2

Placebo
140
Caffeine
Absolute change from control (s)

95

50

-40

-85

-130

-175

-220
Low Caffeine Consumer Moderate Caffeine Consumer High Caffeine Consumer

variation of the test. The remaining par- tion group in Figure 2 (this is the stan-
ticipants performed within the typical dard deviation, which is the variability
variation, except for two in the low and in response), the probabilities in Table 2
two in the high group that performed be- for the high caffeine consumption group,
low it. However, a statistical comparison and the number of individuals who re-
found there was not a significant differ- sponded above the typical test variance,
ence in the number of responses above, as these outcomes will be relevant in the
within, or below the typical test variance interpretation.
between groups.
Finally, Figure 2 displays the absolute
change in seconds from the control time Interpretation
trial compared to the placebo and caffeine Caffeine, along with creatine, is one of
conditions, stratified by habitual caffeine the most widely studied performance-en-
consumption. Take note of the size of the hancing supplements on the market. Un-
error bar for the high caffeine consump- like creatine, caffeine is a stimulant, and

68
thus, some (but not all) of its ergogenic
effects may fade with habitual use as tol-
erance develops. Indeed, while caffeine
modifies brain blood flow, electrical activ-
ity, and subjective perceptions of fatigue
and energy, caffeine tolerance seems to
primarily negate some of the subjective
perceptions while the neurophysiological
alterations remain (2).
Specifically relevant to readers of
MASS is how caffeine impacts resistance
training performance. On the whole,
while caffeine does not reliably increase
maximal strength (although this lack of
reliability may be due to caffeine having
a more consistent effect on lower, rather
than upper body maximal strength [3]),
consistent increases in resistance training
work capacity have often been observed
(4). In one study, caffeine supplementa-
tion improved repetitions to failure with
60% of 1RM by one rep (on average)
on the squat, bench press, deadlift, and
prone row, while participants reported
lower pain and exertion levels (5).
The reason I’m reviewing the current
study, despite it being on aerobic train-
ing, is because it specifically tackles the
issue of caffeine tolerance. Nearly 90%
of adults in the United States consume
caffeine in one form or another (6), and
the US is certainly not alone in its wide-
spread consumption of caffeine by adults.
If caffeine tolerance occurs from habit-
ual consumption, and tolerance specifi-
cally reduces its ergogenic effect on ex-
ercise, that means 90% of people taking
IT SEEMS THAT HABITUAL
INTAKE OF CAFFEINE PARTIALLY,
BUT NOT COMPLETELY,
DIMINISHES ITS PERFORMANCE-
ENHANCING EFFECTS ON
ENDURANCE EXERCISE.
pre-workout supplements are probably
getting a diminished benefit since caf-
feine is in nearly all pre-workout concoc-
tions. So, the question becomes: If a tol-
erance does build, how much does that
diminish the acute effects of caffeine?
And are the slightly diminished effects of
caffeine enough to reduce performance?
Second, how often can we supplement
with caffeine prior to training without
developing tolerance? While this study
doesn’t answer all of these questions, it
answers some of them, and the outcome
will likely be a relief to regular caffeine
consumers.
First, let’s talk about the work that’s al-
ready been done in this area, which actu-
ally paints us a murky picture, as some of
the findings don’t align with the findings
of the present study. In 2002, Bell and
McLelan found that while both caffeine
nonusers (less than 50mg per day) and
habitual users (at least 300mg per day)
69
 had a longer time to exhaustion after low (2–101 mg/day), moderate (104–183
taking 5 mg/kg of caffeine versus place- mg/day), and high (190–583 mg/day)
bo prior to a cycling trial, the magnitudecaffeine consumers had similar improve-
of performance enhancement was great- ments in cycling performance after con-
er in nonusers (7). Similarly, a more re- suming 6 mg/kg prior to testing. Howev-
cent study confirmed these findings, as er, as is often the case, the devil is in the
low-caffeine consumers (less than 75mg details. In the two prior studies I cited,
per day) improved their performance to there were smaller dosage gaps between
a greater degree when consuming 3 mg/ habitual versus pre-test caffeine intakes.
kg prior to a cycling test, compared to Specifically, Bell and McLelan gave 5
taking this dose after three weeks of con-mg/kg of caffeine to habitual consum-
suming 3 mg/kg daily (8). Thus, it seems ers who had an average body mass of
that habitual intake of caffeine partially,
77.3kg; this was an intake of ~390 mg,
but not completely, diminishes its per- which was quite close to their habitual
formance-enhancing effects on endur- intake of at least 300 mg/day (7). Simi-
ance exercise. larly, Beaumont provided the same dose
The present study appears to go against for habituation as they did prior to ex-
the findings showing habitual consump- ercise testing, of 3 mg/kg (8). In con-
tion diminishes the ergogenic effect, as trast, the researchers in the present study
supplied ~432mg to the low, ~450mg to
the moderate, and ~456mg to the high
habitual caffeine consumers (on aver-
TOLERANCE TO CAFFEINE DOES age based on body mass). For both the
low and moderate groups, these dosages
HAVE A SMALL IMPACT ON were more than four and two times the
highest habitual intakes, respectively, to
ITS SUBSEQUENT ERGOGENIC qualify for these groups. In the high ha-
bitual intake group, the regular caffeine
EFFECTS WHEN TAKEN PRE- intake range was much broader, ranging
from 190-583 mg/day, meaning the dose
TRAINING, BUT PROBABLY they received prior to performance test-
ONLY IN INDIVIDUALS ing was anywhere from 2.4 times their
habitual intake, to only 78% of it. Conse-
WITH A HIGH HABITUAL quently, while the differences as assessed
by null hypothesis testing and correlation
CONSUMPTION OF CAFFEINE. showed no differences between groups in
performance enhancement and no asso-
ciation between habitual intake and per-

70
formance, there was greater variability in
the time trial performance enhancement
in the high habitual group after taking
caffeine (Figure 2). Additionally, there
was a smaller percentage of high habit-
ual individuals who performed above
the normal test variability, and probabil-
ity-based analysis showed greater like-
lihoods that low and moderate habitual
consumers experienced a positive ergo-
genic effect compared to high habitual
users (Table 2). In totality, this seems to
indicate that the closer the habitual dose
is to the pre-exercise dose, the less consis-
tent the beneficial effects of caffeine will
become. However, the ergogenic effects
are unlikely to be completely washed out,
as some ergogenic benefits remain even
when habitual intake levels are similar to
pre-exercise intake levels.
Where things get really interesting is
when you dig into the research regarding
caffeine’s mechanisms of action. Surpris-
ingly, not all of the mechanisms by which
caffeine exerts ergogenic effects are fully
understood. However, reducing the per-
ception of pain and increasing calcium
mobilization in muscle cells are thought
to be the two mechanisms contribut-
ing to improved lifting performance (9).
(Quick physiology lesson: by binding to
troponin in the muscle cell, calcium caus-
es tropomyosin to move from its rest-
ing position blocking the binding sites
on actin filaments, so the actin-myosin
crossbridge can form; thus, increased cal-
cium mobilization is thought to enhance
contractile force.)
The good news is habitual users of caf-
feine do not appear to develop tolerance
to the pain-reducing effects of caffeine,
even when the pre-testing dosage is sim-
ilar to habitual intake (10). Even more
intriguing is a study that found higher
muscle torques in two groups taking 6
mg/kg of caffeine compared to a place-
bo during low frequency electrical stim-
ulation of the tibialis anterior; one group
habitually consumed at least 500mg of
caffeine per day while the other group
consumed less than 50mg per day (11).
The finding of higher torque values
during electrical stimulation indicates a
local ergogenic effect (likely enhanced
calcium mobilization) independent of
the central stimulation caused by caf-
feine, and the fact that this occurs in us-
ers habitually consuming at least 500mg
of caffeine per day (more than they were
given prior to testing!) shows this is not
diminished by tolerance.
On the whole, we can conclude that
tolerance to caffeine does have a small
impact on its subsequent ergogenic ef-
fects when taken pre-training, but proba-
bly only in individuals with a high habit-
ual consumption of caffeine. This effect is
likely to impact endurance training more
so than resistance training, and the de-
gree to which the ergogenic effect is di-
minished probably depends on how close
your habitual intake is to your pre-train-
ing intake.
71
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
1. If you regularly consume caffeine in the low to moderate range of ~1-2 mg/kg/day
(50-150 mg for most women, 75-200 mg for most men, or 1-3 cups of coffee), you
will likely get the majority of ergogenic effects from consuming at least a moderate
size dose of caffeine pre-training (3 mg/kg+) for both aerobic and resistance training.
2. If you habitually consume high amounts of caffeine (3 mg/kg/day+ or 4+ cups of
coffee), a large dose of caffeine in the range of 5-6 mg/kg will still provide some
ergogenic effect, but probably not as much as if you consumed less caffeine
habitually.
3. Tolerance likely reduces the ergogenic effect of caffeine for aerobic training more
so than resistance training. Thus, habitual caffeine users can probably avoid large
pre-training caffeine doses, which can have unpleasant side effects (elevated
heart rate, anxiety, insomnia, GI distress), while still enjoying ergogenic benefits
supplementing in the 3-5 mg/kg range.

study that shows caffeine increases pre-

Next Steps
I’ve had to do a fair amount of spec-
ulation as to how tolerance impacts re-
sistance training performance based on
the available literature. There is a lot of
general research on caffeine as a perfor-
mance-enhancing compound, but there
isn’t as much research on how tolerance
impacts caffeine’s ergogenic effect. Even
within the area of caffeine tolerance, the
majority of research on performance is
specific to how tolerance impacts caf-
feine’s effect on endurance rather than
resistance training. Thus, the next step
would be to conduct a study similar to
the one I’ve just reviewed, yet to measure
some form of resistance versus aerobic
training performance to assess the im-
pact of caffeine tolerance on performance
enhancement. Additionally, there's one
to post-exercise mood state (12), but that
could be a side effect of improved per-
formance. There is another similar study
that shows caffeine increases readiness to
invest physical effort pre-training (13),
which could be another mechanism that
causes increased performance. It would
be nice to see a survey of habitual caf-
feine users and non-caffeine users to
see if mood state before, during, or after
training was different, and if subsequent-
ly, training adherence was different. This
would disentangle the mood state effects
of caffeine from their potential impact
on performance and also inform us as to
the potential relevance of mood state al-
teration for training adherence.

72
References
1. Gonçalves, L.d.S., et al., Dispelling the myth that habitual caffeine consumption influences the per-
formance response to acute caffeine supplementation. Journal of Applied Physiology, 2017.
2. Sigmon, S.C., et al., Caffeine withdrawal, acute effects, tolerance, and absence of net beneficial effects
of chronic administration: cerebral blood flow velocity, quantitative EEG, and subjective effects. Psy-
chopharmacology, 2009. 204(4): p. 573-585.
3. Grgic, J. and P. Mikulic, Caffeine ingestion acutely enhances muscular strength and power but not
muscular endurance in resistance-trained men. European Journal of Sport Science, 2017. 17(8): p.
1029-1036.
4. Astorino, T.A. and D.W. Roberson, Efficacy of acute caffeine ingestion for short-term high-inten-
sity exercise performance: a systematic review. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research,
2010. 24(1): p. 257-265.
5. Duncan, M.J., et al., Acute caffeine ingestion enhances strength performance and reduces perceived
exertion and muscle pain perception during resistance exercise. European journal of sport science,
2013. 13(4): p. 392-399.
6. Fulgoni, V.L., D.R. Keast, and H.R. Lieberman, Trends in intake and sources of caffeine in the diets
of US adults: 2001–2010. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2015. 101(5): p. 1081-1087.
7. Bell, D.G. and T.M. McLellan, Exercise endurance 1, 3, and 6 h after caffeine ingestion in caffeine
users and nonusers. Journal of Applied Physiology, 2002. 93(4): p. 1227-1234.
8. Beaumont, R., et al., Chronic ingestion of a low dose of caffeine induces tolerance to the perfor-
mance benefits of caffeine. Journal of Sports Sciences, 2017. 35(19): p. 1920-1927.
9. Davis, J.K. and J.M. Green, Caffeine and Anaerobic Performance. Sports Medicine, 2009. 39(10): p.
813-832.
10. Gliottoni, R.C., et al., Effect of caffeine on quadriceps muscle pain during acute cycling exercise in
low versus high caffeine consumers. International journal of sport nutrition and exercise metabolism,
2009. 19(2): p. 150-161.
11. Tarnopolsky, M. and C. Cupido, Caffeine potentiates low frequency skeletal muscle force in ha-
bitual and nonhabitual caffeine consumers. Journal of Applied Physiology, 2000. 89(5): p. 1719-
1724.
12. Duncan, M.J. and S.W. Oxford, The effect of caffeine ingestion on mood state and bench press per-
formance to failure. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 2011. 25(1): p. 178-85.
13. Duncan, M.J., et al., The acute effect of a caffeine-containing energy drink on mood state, readiness
to invest effort, and resistance exercise to failure. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research,
2012. 26(10): p. 2858-65.

73
How Much Does Training Volume
Affect the Rate of Strength Gains?
Study Reviewed: Effect of Weekly Set Volume on Strength
Gain: A Meta-Analysis. Ralston et al (2017)

BY G RE G NUC KO LS

T
his is apparently meta-analysis sea-
son, which, incidentally, is my new
favorite season. The recently reviewed
meta-analysis about periodization, a me-
ta-analysis on protein intake (2), and the
study being reviewed in this article – a me-
ta-analysis looking at the effects of training
volume on strength gains – were all pub-
lished within a few months of each other,
and are all very relevant to MASS readers.

74
 KEY POINTS
1. The results of this meta-analysis (a quantitative overview of multiple studies)
indicate that performing five or more sets per exercise per week was associated
with larger strength gains than performing fewer than five sets per exercise per
week.
2. While overall strength gains, strength gains in multi-joint exercises, and strength
gains in single-joint exercises were significantly larger with higher training volumes,
the effect sizes were “trivial” to “small” (0.14-0.23). Training volume doesn’t seem
to have the same relative impact on strength that it has on hypertrophy, but the
absolute impact is actually similar.
3. This meta-analysis indicates that you can make strength gains with a variety of
training volumes, but progress tends to be ~20-25% faster with higher volumes.

This isn’t the first meta-analysis ex-
amining the effects of training volume
on strength gains, but it does have the
strictest inclusion criteria and most rig-
orous statistics of any meta-analysis on
the topic. Also, since it’s the most recent,
it includes studies that weren’t yet pub-
lished when the last meta-analytic study
of this topic – Kreiger’s 2009 meta-re-
gression (3) – came out. With eight more
years of research in the books, this was a
topic due for an updated meta-analysis.
This meta-analysis found that high-
er weekly set volumes (five or more sets
per exercise per week) produced larg-
er strength gains than lower weekly set
volumes (fewer than five sets per exercise
per week) in trained and untrained lifters.
The difference in rate of strength gains
was surprisingly (and perhaps deceptive-
ly) small, with effect sizes in the “trivial”
and “small” range. From this meta-anal-
ysis, we can see that higher training vol-
umes are required to maximize strength
gains but that novice and intermediate
lifters can still make good progress with
training volumes that are quite low.
Purpose and Research
Questions
The main purpose of this meta-anal-
ysis was to determine whether there’s
a dose-response relationship between
training volume (measured in number of
sets per week) and strength gains. Sec-
ondary purposes included determining
whether the dose-response relationship
was different for single-joint and multi-
joint movements, and whether training
age affected the dose-response relation-
ship.
The authors hypothesized that there
would be a dose-response relationship,

75
 Table 1 Inclusion Criteria

The training program used in the study needed to last at least 4 weeks

The training program needed to focus on at least one major muscle group (i.e. they excluded studies that
may have looked at gains in finger muscle strength)

The subjects in the study needed to be adult males, aged 18-60 years old.

The study needed to compare single versus multiple sets of each exercise on a per-session basis

The subjects needed to be free from musculoskeletal injuries or physical limitations (i.e. they excluded
rehab studies)

Strength needed to be measured with 1 rep max tests

The study needed to report descriptive characteristics of the subjects

The study needed to report enough data to determine the weekly volume and load of the exercises studied,
and to calculate effect sizes for strength gains.

with higher training volumes leading to ria, so even though the nine studies that
larger strength gains than lower training made the cut included five studies that
volumes. They didn’t offer hypotheses re- weren’t yet published when Kreiger’s
garding the effects of training age or sin- meta-regression came out, Kreiger’s me-
gle-joint versus multi-joint exercises on ta-regression actually had more studies
the dose-response relationship. (14) included.
The authors didn’t explicitly follow the
PRISMA guidelines (considered the gold
Subjects and Methods standard) for conducting and reporting
The studies included in this meta-anal- meta-analyses, but the actual meta-an-
ysis needed to meet eight criteria that alytic procedures themselves were thor-
can be seen in Table 1. ough and appropriate, including some of
These were quite strict inclusion crite- the more important tests that are occa-

76
sionally overlooked (i.e. heterogeneity,
bias assessment, and screening for outli-
ers).
The effects were grouped based on the
number of sets per week the participants
performed. Low weekly sets (LWS) was
defined as ≤5 sets per week for the ex-
ercise being tested, medium weekly sets
(MWS) was defined at 5-9 sets per week,
and high weekly sets (HWS) was defined
as ≥10 sets per week. For most of the anal-
yses, MWS and HWS were combined,
and there were no comparisons of MWS
versus HWS. The reason is simple: All of
the studies had at least one LWS group,
but many of them had just one MWS or
HWS group, so there were enough data
for a robust comparison between <5 sets
per week and ≥5 sets per week, but not
enough to split out 5-9 sets per week and
≥10 sets per week for separate analyses.
From here on out in this article, LWS
will refer to <5 sets per week, and HWS
will refer to ≥5 sets per week.
Findings
Of the nine studies included in the me-
ta-analysis, four used trained participants
and five used untrained participants. The
mean age of the subjects was 23.4±2.2
years old. Training periods of the studies
included ranges from 8-26 weeks with
a mean training frequency of 2.8±0.3
sessions per week, a mean intensity of
78.2±4.1% of 1RM, and weekly volumes
ranging from 1-12 sets.
THIS META-ANALYSIS SUPPORTS
THE CONVENTIONAL VIEW
THAT TRAINING VOLUME
SIGNIFICANTLY INFLUENCES
STRENGTH GAINS.
Two measures (elbow extension and
shoulder flexion) from one study (4)
were identified as outliers and were not
included in further analysis. There was no
evidence of publication bias – evidence
that significant results were getting pub-
lished more often than null results (p =
0.393 in Egger’s test). Heterogeneity of
effects was moderate in the main analysis
with single-joint and multi-joint exer-
cises, and trained and untrained partici-
pants all included (I2 = 45%) and tended
to be larger in the sub-analyses.
Overall, HWS led to significantly
(p = 0.003) larger strength gains than
LWS (ES = 1.01 and 0.82, respective-
ly) This was considered a trivial effect
(ES = 0.18±0.06). Sub analyses revealed
very similar results. Comparing LWS to
HWS, the ES for multi-joint exercis-
es was 0.18±0.085 (p=0.04), the ES for
single-joint exercises was 0.23±0.085
(p=0.008), and the ES for exercise-spe-
cific 1RM was 0.14±0.075 (p=0.06). All
of these effects were classified as either
77
 Figure 1
Funnel plot of standard error (SE) by mean difference (MD) for assessment of publication bias

0.2

0.4
SE (MD)

0.6

0.8

1
-2 -1 0 1 2

(MD)

Each open circle denotes a study included in the meta-analysis. The dashed vertical line represents the overall effect calculated
with the random-effects model.

Since the differences in each individual study cluster around the mean difference and are evenly distributed on both sides of the
mean difference, there’s little evidence of publication bias.

trivial or small but were all significant significantly influences strength gains.
(p<0.05), except for exercise-specif- However, the advantage of higher-vol-
ic 1RM, which was nearly significantly ume training may not be as large as many
(p=0.06). The authors didn’t report ESs people expect, at least in the short-to-me-
for studies using trained versus untrained dium term.
subjects. Before going any further, I need to ex-
plain a couple of things about effect siz-
es. An effect size helps tell you how large
Interpretation an effect is, as the name implies. You can
This meta-analysis supports the con- calculate effect sizes in various ways, but
ventional view that training volume what they all boil down to is a change or

78
 Figure 2
Forest plot of LWS vs. HWS (MWS and HWS combined) on multi-joint and isolation exercise by study

Mean difference
Day 1 Day 2 IV, Random, 95% Cl

Sooneste et al [25] 0.34 [-1.14, 1.82]

Mashall et al [20] 0.09 [-0.77, 0.95]
Paulsen et al [19] 0.15 [-0.42, 0.72]
Rhea et al [13] 0.51 [0.07, 0.95]
Reid [24] 0.02 [-0.33, 0.37]
Baker et al [21] -0.10 [-0.41, 0.21]
Bottaro et al [23] 0.29 [0.08, 0.50]
Ostrowski et al [18] 0.09 [-0.03, 0.21]
Radaelli et al [22] 0.30 [0.20, 0.40]

Total (95% Cl) 0.18 [0.06, 0.30]

-2 -1 0 1 2

Heterogeneity. Tau2 = 0.01; Chi2 = 14.63, df = 8 (P = 0.07); I2 = Favors LWS Favors HWS
45%
Test for overall effect: Z = 3.02 (P = 0.003)

The vertical line indicates the overall estimate of combined multi-joint and isolation studies mean effect size. The horizontal line indicates 95% CI, squares indi-
cate estimates, whereas square size is proportional to sample size, and rhombus indicates meta-analytically pooled estimates 95% CI. 95% CI 95% confidence
interval, HWS high weekly sets per exercise (>10), IV inverse variance, LWS low weekly sets per exercise (<5), MWS medium weekly sets per exercise (5-9)

a difference divided by a measure of vari- helps to contextualize how important

ability (generally a standard deviation). an effect is, and it generally does a pretty
For example, if a training intervention good job. If there’s an effect size of 0.1
is associated with an effect size of 0.5, comparing two interventions, that means
that tells you that it makes people half the “better” intervention only gave peo-
a standard deviation better. In non-nerd ple an edge of 1/10 of a standard devi-
speak, that means if someone was per- ation, which is generally a truly “trivial”
fectly average before and better than 50% difference. On the other hand, an effect
of people, after this training intervention, size of 1.0 would mean that the better
you could expect them to be better than invention boosted people by an entire
~70% of people. This website provides standard more than the inferior inter-
an interactive tool to help you visualize vention, which is generally a truly “large”
these differences and better understand difference.
effect sizes. However, you can’t always put your
The classification system of “trivial,” faith in these classifications. For exam-
“small,” “medium,” and “large” effects ple, let’s say you have a population of

79
high-level sprinters who run a 100m
sprint in 10.5±0.6 seconds. If you find an
intervention that reliably decreases sprint
time by 0.1 seconds, that would have
an effect size of 0.17 (0.1/0.6). That's a
"trivial" effect, but shaving a tenth off of
a 100m sprint when you're already that
fast is huge. On the other hand, some-
times a sample randomly has a very small
standard deviation, so even a tiny, unim-
portant change could produce a large ef-
fect size.
In this meta-analysis, the difference
between low volume and higher volume
for strength gains may have been small
or trivial by traditional effect size classi-
fications, but the difference is still very
practically meaningful. In a statistical
model that pools effect sizes, the effect
sizes are proportional to the actual ob-
served change. In this case, the effect siz-
es for higher weekly volumes were ~20-
25% larger than the effect sizes for lower
weekly volumes, which means 20-25%
faster strength gains. The traditional clas-
sification system may call that a “small”
or “trivial” effect, but making progress
20-25% faster is pretty huge if you ask
me, especially for competitive lifters.
I think it’s helpful to compare the re-
sults of this meta-analysis to the results
of the recent Schoenfeld et al (5) me-
ta-analysis on the effects of volume on
hypertrophy. When looking at all of the
studies included in the analysis, 10+ sets
per week was associated with an effect
size of 0.52, while <5 sets per week was
IN THIS META-ANALYSIS, THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LOW
VOLUME AND HIGHER VOLUME
FOR STRENGTH GAINS MAY
HAVE BEEN SMALL OR TRIVIAL
BY TRADITIONAL EFFECT SIZE
CLASSIFICATIONS, BUT THE
DIFFERENCE IS STILL VERY
PRACTICALLY MEANINGFUL.
associated with an effect size of 0.31, for
a difference of 0.21. After removing a
highly influential outlier (6), the differ-
ence was reduced to 0.40 versus 0.30, for
a difference of 0.10. In other words, the
absolute advantage of higher volumes for
strength gains is similar to, if not larg-
er than, the absolute advantage of high-
er volumes for hypertrophy. However,
the relative advantage for hypertrophy
is larger; higher volumes were associated
with 33-60% larger effects. This discon-
nect between relative and absolute differ-
ences is due to the fact that all of the ef-
fects for hypertrophy were smaller (0.52
for 10+ sets per week with the outlier
study included) than any of the effects
for strength gains (0.8+ for <5 sets per
week) in these metas. Basically, with low
80
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
1. While a meta-analysis can never fill in all of the fine details, this does provide
very strong evidence that higher training volumes are beneficial and necessary to
maximize rates of strength gains.
2. It’s still absolutely possible for most people to make strength gains with relatively
low training volumes, at least in the short term, so you don’t absolutely need to
handle high training volumes all the time. This is invaluable knowledge for times
when life gets crazy and for non-competitive lifters.
3. It’s likely that higher training volumes become increasingly important as training
status increases, since hypertrophy tends to play a progressively larger role in
strength development as training age increases.

training volume, you’ll gain quite a bit of volume and hypertrophy.

strength (at least in the short term) but Furthermore, while this meta-analysis
not much muscle mass. If you add train- demonstrates that higher training vol-
ing volume, both strength gains and rate umes are superior for strength gains, it
of hypertrophy will increase to roughly also shows that it’s possible to make solid
the same absolute degree, but it may be progress with lower training volumes as
the difference between good versus great well. If your schedule curtails your ability
strength progress, and minimal versus to train as much as you’d like to, you can
solid rates of hypertrophy. still probably make some strength gains
I also think it’s important to note that (at least for a while) with lower training
about half of the studies included in this volumes.
meta-analysis were performed on un- Finally, I think it’s important to keep the
trained subjects. Early in the training limitations of this meta-analysis in mind,
process, neural adaptations explain the along with the limitations of meta-anal-
majority of the strength gains that occur, yses in general. The highest set grouping
with hypertrophy playing an increasing in this meta-analysis was 10+ sets. There
role as training status increases (7, 8, 9). are plenty of successful programs and
As such, I wouldn’t anticipate that the coaches that prescribe more than 10 sets
absolute advantage of higher volumes per week for each exercise (bench press
would change much with increasing and squat especially), but the scientific
training age, but I’d expect the relative data don’t adequately address higher lev-
advantage to increase to more closely re- els of volume yet. We know that exces-
semble the relationship between training sive volume can actually decrease rates

81
of strength gains, but this meta-analysis
can’t tell us where that “tipping point”
lies. Furthermore, training volume de-
pends on individual responsiveness, ca-
pacity to recover from training, proclivity
to resist injury, training age, and so much
more – so any meta-analysis should be
taken as a rough start point rather than a
specific recommendation.

Next Steps
The past ~5 years have seen meta-anal-
yses published on almost every facet of
training that strength and hypertrophy
nerds care about. What we really need
now are more studies that move beyond
group averages and that are designed to
investigate ways to customize training
programs to maximize results on an in-
dividual level.

82
References
1. Ralston GW, Kilgore L, Wyatt FB, Baker JS. The Effect of Weekly Set Volume on Strength Gain: A
Meta-Analysis. Sports Med. 2017 Jul 28. doi: 10.1007/s40279-017-0762-7.
2. 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. 2017 Jul 11. pii: bjsports-2017-097608. doi:
10.1136/bjsports-2017-097608.
3. Krieger JW. Single versus multiple sets of resistance exercise: a meta-regression. J Strength Cond
Res. 2009 Sep;23(6):1890-901. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181b370be.
4. Weight training and strength, cardiorespiratory functioning and body composition of men. Reid
CM, Yeater RA, Ullrich IH. Br J Sports Med. 1987 Mar;21(1):40-4.
5. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Dose-response relationship between weekly resistance train-
ing volume and increases in muscle mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sports Sci. 2017
Jun;35(11):1073-1082. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2016.1210197.
6. Radaelli R, Fleck SJ, Leite T, Leite RD, Pinto RS, Fernandes L, Simão R. Dose-response of 1, 3, and
5 sets of resistance exercise on strength, local muscular endurance, and hypertrophy. J Strength Cond
Res. 2015 May;29(5):1349-58. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000758.
7. Ahtiainen JP, Walker S, Peltonen H, et al. Heterogeneity in resistance training-induced muscle
strength and mass responses in men and women of different ages. Age. 2016;38(1):10. doi:10.1007/
s11357-015-9870-1.
8. Appleby B, Newton RU, Cormie P. Changes in strength over a 2-year period in professional rugby
union players. J Strength Cond Res. 2012 Sep;26(9):2538-46. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31823f8b86.
9. I promise I’m not trying to use MASS to shill my website, but I have an article that addresses this
exact topic very thoroughly.

83
 VIDEO: Comprehensive
Program Design, Part 2
BY MIC HAE L C . ZO URD O S

In part 1 of this series, we covered the basics of integrating various types

of periodization. Part 2 takes a more in-depth approach to designing
volume and intensity blocks, progressing weekly training load, and what
individual factors may affect repetition performance. These principles
set the stage to examine programs in practice in part 3.
Click to watch Michael's presentation.

84
References
1. Mann JB, Thyfault JP, Ivey PA, Sayers SP. The effect of autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise
vs. linear periodization on strength improvement in college athletes. The Journal of strength & con-
ditioning research. 2010 Jul 1;24(7):1718-23.
2. Zourdos MC, Klemp A, Dolan C, Quiles JM, Schau KA, Jo E, Helms E, Esgro B, Duncan S, Me-
rino SG, Blanco R. Novel resistance training–specific rating of perceived exertion scale measuring
repetitions in reserve. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2016 Jan 1;30(1):267-75.
3. Helms ER, Cronin J, Storey A, Zourdos MC. Application of the repetitions in reserve-based rat-
ing of perceived exertion scale for resistance training. Strength and conditioning journal. 2016
Aug;38(4):42.
4. Zourdos MC, Henning PC, Jo E, Khamoui AV, Lee SR, Park YM, Naimo M, Panton LB, Nosaka
K, Kim JS. Repeated bout effect in muscle-specific exercise variations. The Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research. 2015 Aug 1;29(8):2270-6.

85
VIDEO: Nutritional Peaking for Strength
and Physique Athletes, Part 1
BY E RI C HE LMS

Weight class-restricted strength athletes have a tough task getting on

the platform as strong as they can possibly be, while making weight for
the class they will be the most competitive. In part 1 of this two-part
series, Eric talks about the ins and out of changing weight classes in
strength sport.
Click to watch Eric's presentation.

86
References
1. Reale R, Dunican I, Slater G, Burke LM. Water Loading in Combat Sport Athletes as a Means to
Acutely Manipulate Body Mass: 2426 Board# 8 June 2 9. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise.
2017 May 1;49(5S):680.
2. Chatterton, S., et al., The effect of an 8-week low carbohydrate high fat (LCHF) diet in sub-elite
Olympic weightlifters and powerlifters on strength, body composition, mental state and adherence:
a pilot case-study. Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning, 2017. 25(2).

87
 Thanks for
reading MASS.

The next issue will be released to

subscribers on October 1.

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

88