V O L U ME 4 , ISS U E 4 AP RI L 2 0 2 0

MASS
M ONTHLY A PPL ICATIO N S IN
STRE N G TH SPO R T

E R IC H E LMS | G R E G N UCK O LS | MIC HAEL ZO URDO S | ERIC T REXL E R

 The Reviewers
Eric Helms
Eric Helms is a coach, athlete, author, and educator. He is a coach for drug-free strength and physique
competitors at all levels as a part of team 3D Muscle Journey. Eric regularly publishes peer-reviewed
articles in exercise science and nutrition journals on physique and strength sport, in addition to writing for
commercial fitness publications. He’s taught undergraduate- and graduate-level nutrition and exercise
science and speaks internationally at academic and commercial conferences. He has a B.S. in fitness
and wellness, an M.S. in exercise science, a second Master’s in sports nutrition, a Ph.D. in strength and
conditioning, and is a research fellow for the Sports Performance Research Institute New Zealand at
Auckland University of Technology. Eric earned pro status as a natural bodybuilder with the PNBA in 2011 and competes in the
IPF at international-level events as an unequipped powerlifter.

Greg Nuckols
Greg Nuckols has over a decade of experience under the bar and a B.S. in exercise and sports science.
Greg earned his M.A. in exercise and sport science from the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill. He’s held three all-time world records in powerlifting in the 220lb and 242lb classes. He’s trained
hundreds of athletes and regular folks, both online and in-person. He’s written for many of the major
magazines and websites in the fitness industry, including Men’s Health, Men’s Fitness, Muscle & Fitness,
Bodybuilding.com, T-Nation, and Schwarzenegger.com. Furthermore, he’s had the opportunity to
work with and learn from numerous record holders, champion athletes, and collegiate and professional
strength and conditioning coaches through his previous job as Chief Content Director for Juggernaut Training Systems and
current full-time work on StrongerByScience.com.

Michael C. Zourdos
Michael (Mike) C. Zourdos, Ph.D., CSCS, has specializations in strength and conditioning and skeletal
muscle physiology.  He earned his Ph.D. in exercise physiology from The Florida State University (FSU)
in 2012 under the guidance of Dr. Jeong-Su Kim. Prior to attending FSU, Mike received his B.S. in
exercise science from Marietta College and M.S. in applied health physiology from Salisbury University.
Mike served as the head powerlifting coach of FSU’s 2011 and 2012 state championship teams. He
also competes as a powerlifter in the USAPL, and among his best competition lifts is a 230kg (507lbs)
raw squat at a body weight of 76kg. Mike owns the company Training Revolution, LLC., where he has
coached more than 100 lifters, including a USAPL open division national champion.

Eric Trexler
Eric Trexler is a pro natural bodybuilder and a sports nutrition researcher. Eric has a PhD in Human
Movement Science from UNC Chapel Hill, and has published dozens of peer-reviewed research
papers on various exercise and nutrition strategies for getting bigger, stronger, and leaner. In addition,
Eric has several years of University-level teaching experience, and has been involved in coaching since
2009. Eric is the Director of Education at Stronger By Science.

2
 Table of Contents

8
BY G R EG NUCKOL S

Matching Resistance Curves and Strength Curves: Great in Theory,

but Iffy in Practice
If the resistance curve of an exercise matches the strength curve of the target muscle, that should lead
to larger gains, right? As a recent study shows, it’s not quite that simple.

19
BY M I CHAEL C. ZOUR DOS

You Want to Get Better at Something? Do it First.

Most lifters tend to perform multi-joint exercises before single-joint exercises in a training session.
Does this actually matter for hypertrophy and strength adaptations? This article covers a new meta-
analysis that analyzes every angle of this discussion.

31
BY E RI C HEL MS

Does Breakfast Burn More Calories than Dinner?

The meal timing winds blow seasonally in the fitness industry. “Eat six meals a day, breakfast is the
most important meal, and don’t eat after 6pm” became “it doesn’t matter how many meals you eat,
skip breakfast, and eat your largest meal before bed to help you sleep.” Let’s step out of the wind
tunnel for a moment and examine the data.

49
BY E R I C T R EXL ER

Asparagus Racemosus Supplementation: Big Effects on Strength, but

a Small Degree of Confidence
A new study found that asparagus racemosus supplementation increased bench press 1RM and
strength endurance to a pretty impressive degree. However, there are some really important details
to consider before we rush to buy a lifetime supply. Read on to find out if asparagus racemosus
supplementation is worth considering.

62
BY G R EG NUCKOL S

The Tortoise and the Hare: People With More Fast Twitch Fibers Fatigue
Faster and Recover Slower
Fast twitch muscle fibers can contract more powerfully and grow more following resistance training,
but they have their drawbacks. Namely, they fatigue faster and to a greater extent than slow twitch
fibers, and people with a larger proportion of fast twitch fibers may take longer to recover from
training.

3
 74
BY MI CHAEL C. ZOUR DOS

The Battle of Autoregulation: Velocity 1, RPE 0

Two main methods of autoregulation exist: velocity and RPE. Each has previously compared
favorably to percentage-based training as a load prescription method. How do they stack up
against each other? This article reviews the first ever study on the topic.

85
BY E R I C T R EXL ER

Tart Cherries With Sweet Recovery Effects

Oxidative stress and inflammation play a role in promoting training adaptations, but too much can
impair your recovery. A recent study found that tart cherry juice expedited recovery from strenuous
exercise. So, do you need to choose between short-term recovery and long-term adaptations?
Read on to find out.

98
BY G R EG NUCKOL S

Hyperventilation: More Effective Than Bicarbonate, With Less Diarrhea

Hyperventilating before busting out a set of bench press or leg press may sound weird, but a recent
study found that doing so can have pretty large effects on acute recovery and strength endurance.
It also makes sense physiologically.

112
BY MI CHAEL C. ZOUR DOS

VIDEO: Implementing Light/Power Training Days

The best way to recover or to maximize performance the next day is to rest, right? Well, maybe not.
Some research suggests that performing light training days or power-focused sessions might help
you recover faster and lead to better performance the next day as opposed to just resting. This video
provides specific examples of how to implement those practices.

114
BY ER I C HEL MS

VIDEO: Overtraining in Resistance Exercise

We’ve discussed how intro weeks provide graded exposure to training so you can complete what’s
programmed, how to implement deloads when mesocycle stress gets high, and how to functionally
overreach. However, we haven’t yet defined and discussed over training. In this video, we do just
that.

4
 A Message
Regarding COVID-19

A ll over the world, the COVID-19 pandemic is at the top of everyone’s mind, and right-
fully so. First and foremost, the MASS Team hopes that you and your loved ones are
safe, healthy, and doing well. While the effects of this pandemic are wide-ranging
and impacting numerous aspects of daily life, one notable impact is that countless people all
over the world have temporarily lost gym access. While this presents a new challenge for
our training goals, the challenge is not insurmountable. In the weeks to come, you can still
make plenty of progress toward your strength and physique goals by utilizing home-based
workouts that require little to no equipment.
Fortunately, many articles have emerged, including one on Stronger By Science, detailing
exercises and training strategies that can be implemented at home, without a gym. One infre-
quently discussed aspect of bodyweight training is how to incorporate some basic progres-
sion schemes when performing bodyweight training. Thus, here are a few basic progression
examples, which can be applied to many exercises in addition to the examples given.
1. Program 100 total pushups. Do as many push-ups as you can consecutively and take
two minutes rest every time you need to stop. Every time you do push-ups, see if you can
add a couple reps per set, and eventually it will take you fewer sets to reach 100 push-ups.
Then, once it takes you fewer sets to complete 100 push-ups, go ahead and bump the total
number up to 150. This could be done with any push-ups variation, bodyweight dips (using
chairs or counters), or other bodyweight movements (i.e. lunges).
2. Simply adding sets is another way to go. If you completed 5 sets of 10 on dips, then
next time you could try 6 sets. Once you reach, say 8 sets, you could then go back to 5 sets,
but do 12 reps per set.
3. Maybe you have filled some canvas bags with items to do lateral raises or a backpack
with books for squats. In this case you have resistance, so you can simply add weight, reps,
or sets like you would normally do when training.
4. Progressing to a more challenging exercise is a great way to increase intensity when
doing bodyweight exercises. For example, handstand push-ups against a wall are great for
training the same muscles involved in an overhead press, but many people can’t do hand-
stand push-ups. So, you could start with a pike press from the floor, then progress to a pike
press with your hands and feet elevated (in order to increase range of motion), then prog-
ress further by elevating your feet even more. Once you can do sets of 10-15 pike presses
with your feet elevated a couple of feet above your hands, you should be able to attempt a

5
handstand push-up. When you can only do a couple of handstand push-ups, you can put a
stack of books under your head to limit the range of motion. Gradually decrease the height
of the stack until you can do strict handstand push-ups. From there, you can increase the
challenge even further by gradually elevating your hands. In this progression, you started
with an exercise that’s quite easy (pike press from the floor) and progressed to an exercise
that’s quite hard (handstand push-ups with hands elevated), increasing intensity every step
of the way, without ever adding external resistance.
In addition to progression schemes, we wanted to add that you can be inventive in lifting
by searching for items around your home. Paint cans always make for good curls or lateral
raises. Filling a canvas bag with items could serve a similar purpose to paint cans, and lots
of items could be constructed to do goblet squats. If you don’t have any door frames strong
enough to hang onto (and if you do, just to be sure, wedge the bottom to increase the sta-
bility and structural integrity) and you have a yard, perhaps there’s a tree branch or even a
spot on your kid’s playground at the right height for pull-ups and chin-ups.
As fears surrounding COVID-19 susceptibility have increased in recent weeks, the fit-
ness and wellness industries have become inundated with unreliable information about im-
mune function. As a result, we wanted to set the record straight. It’s critically important to
realize that, according to health officials that are far more knowledgeable about infectious
disease than the MASS reviewers, the most important things you can do to reduce your risk
of contracting COVID-19 are social distancing, frequent hand-washing, and good overall
hygiene.
When it comes to immune function, there is little we can do to boost function; rather, we
should be focusing on avoiding things that impair immune function. Generally speaking,
immune function can be impaired to some degree by lack of sleep, excessive stress, key
micronutrient deficiencies, excessively large energy deficits (especially for people that are
already pretty lean), and excessive training stressors, such as an overly aggressive over-
reaching phase or a single bout of extremely unaccustomed exercise (like running a mar-
athon with insufficient training). No powders or potions, no expensive eBooks with some
special secret to keep you safe, just basic stuff: eat well, eat enough, exercise, recover from
exercise, get enough sleep, and try to manage stress as best you can. Most importantly, fol-
low the guidance provided by global and national health authorities, which currently seems
to focus on social distancing, hand-washing, and hygiene.
Lastly, no matter what you do, it may still be a tough time. We are all cooped up in our
homes as well. Here are a few things we have been doing to help stay sane during this time.
We would love to hear from you as well in the Facebook group, and perhaps we can all
help each other.
Greg: I’ve been cooking a lot and trying to learn and master new cooking techniques. I
also don’t generally play many video games, but I’ve been playing a fair amount of Mario
Maker 2 on the Nintendo Switch. There are literally millions of user-created levels, so if

6
you enjoy 2-D platforming games, it’s a fun way to kill an enormous amount of time.
Eric Trexler: My answer is definitely the least exciting of them all. I had some research
projects to catch up on, which kept me busy for a while. Once I worked my way down
the to-do list, I started catching up on some of the television shows I had been meaning to
watch for ages. So, if you’re one of the people glued to the couch watching Netflix, I’m
right there with you. Outside of that, I’ve been sure to take a long walk each day, which
has given me the opportunity to explore a number of different trails and walking paths in
my area.
Eric Helms: In life, I always look for silver linings and try to find ways to turn stumbling
blocks into stepping stones. In New Zealand, we’re on quarantine, so I’ve used my addi-
tional free time to catch up on reading, take up a regular meditation practice (which has
been shown to be beneficial for health and wellness here), cook our meals, and also to find
creative ways to train at home (see my Instagram post here). Hopefully this can be a time
of reflection, self-betterment, and connection with loved ones, and despite the quarantine,
you will be able to focus on the things that can enhance your life and the life of those you
care about.
Mike: Like many, we have decided not to leave the house unless absolutely necessary. I
am fortunate to have a home gym, so in addition to keeping up with workouts, my family
and I have been cooking food from scratch, which takes time and is fun. We always have a
lot of flour, bread flour, and eggs on hand since we are always preparing for hurricanes in
Florida (southern USA). We make bread and pasta from scratch every few days in addition
to trying out many different recipes. We also have a 4-year-old, so we have a set “school”
schedule every day, which takes up a large chunk of the day. The set schedule is mixed with
a lot of fun activities in addition to just learning, so it definitely keeps us in a positive mood
and gives us something to look forward to in our house each day, besides we just enjoy
spending time as a family. Lastly, if you have really wanted to read a certain book or study
something new, this may be the perfect time to do it.
The MASS Team wishes you good luck, good health, and good training in the weeks to
come.

7
 Study Reviewed: Effect of a Strength or Hypertrophy Training Protocol, Each
Performed Using Two Different Modes of Resistance, on Biomechanical, Biochemical
and Anthropometric Parameters. Staniszewski et al. (2020)

Matching Resistance Curves

and Strength Curves: Great in
Theory, but Iffy in Practice
BY G RE G NUC KO LS

If the resistance curve of an exercise matches the strength curve of the

target muscle, that should lead to larger gains, right? As a recent study
shows, it’s not quite that simple.

8
 KEY POINTS
1. For eight weeks, subjects either did hypertrophy-type or strength-type training for
their biceps, with machines designed to either provide resistance that matches
the strength curve of the biceps, or a constant level of resistance throughout the
movement.
2. Hypertrophy-type training (four sets to failure with a 10RM load) unsurprisingly led
to larger increases in arm circumference than strength-type training (six maximal
singles).
3. Gains in 1RM strength were similar in all four groups. However, the hypertrophy
group that trained on the machine designed to match the biceps’ strength curve
experienced the largest increase in isokinetic peak torque.
4. Overall, matching the resistance curve of the exercise to the strength curve of
the biceps may have provided slightly better results, but findings are far from
conclusive.

Y
our muscles don’t produce the
same amount of force through
their entire range of motion.
They’re weaker at some muscle lengths
and joint positions, and stronger at oth-
ers. In theory, matching the resistance
curve of an exercise to the strength
curve of the target muscle(s) should lead
to larger strength gains and more muscle
growth, right?
The present study tested that idea (1).
Four groups of people trained biceps
curls with two different machines on
two different programs. Two groups did
hypertrophy-style training. Two groups
did strength-style training. One hyper-
trophy and one strength group trained
on a machine where the resistance was
the same throughout the entire range of
motion. The other two groups trained
on a machine where the resistance
curve of the machine was matched to
the typical strength curve of the biceps.
All four groups had similar gains in
1RM strength, and the two hypertrophy
groups experienced larger increases in
arm circumference than the two strength
groups, but overall, the resistance curve
of the machine didn’t seem to majorly
influence results. Read on to learn when
it’s likely important to match strength
and resistance curves, and when it
doesn’t matter as much.
Purpose and Hypotheses
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to in-
vestigate the effects of training styles
and resistance curves on biceps strength
and hypertrophy following eight weeks
of training.

9
 Figure 1 Participant on the training machine

A B

A = participant on the training machine; B = shape of the specially designed cam; C = shape of the disc plate
The active angle of the cam and disc (grey area) and rotation direction are indicated

Hypotheses participated in this study. The authors

The authors hypothesized that training
with a resistance curve that more close-
ly matched the biceps’ strength curve
would lead to more muscle growth and
larger strength gains.
note they “had not engaged in regular
sports training for at least 6 months be-
fore the study commenced,” but the au-
thors’ English is a bit rough in places,
so I assume “sports training” extends to
resistance training as well.

Subjects and Methods Experimental Design

Subjects were split into five groups
Subjects consisting of 15 subjects apiece. Two
75 presumably untrained young men groups used a hypertrophy program,

10
 Figure 2 Changes in the 1RM test on a training machine in relation to the pre-training data

Change [%]
1RM test
40%
Hyp-Cam
p < .001
30% in all groups
Hyp-Disc

20% Str-Cam

Str-Disc
10%

0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Training (weeks)

Hyp-Cam = hypertrophy training with variable cam; Hyp-Disc = hypertrophy training with disc plate;
Str-Cam = maximal strength training with variable cam; Str-Disc = maximal strength training with disc plate

two groups used a strength-focused pro-
gram, and one group was a non-training
control group (which I won’t mention
again). The hypertrophy program con-
sisted of four sets to failure with 10RM
loads with three minutes between sets.
The strength program consisted of four
reps at 75% 1RM, two reps at 85% 1RM,
and six maximal singles with two min-
utes between sets. Both groups trained
twice per week, on Monday and Friday.
All groups did machine preacher curls
only. One strength and one hypertrophy
group used a machine outfitted with a
circular cam, meaning the tension re-
sistance by the machine was the same
throughout the entire range of motion.
The other strength and the other hyper-
trophy group used a machine outfitted
with a specially designed cam (2) with a
radius that varied in such a way that the
resistance supplied by the machine was
greater through the middle of the range
of motion (where the biceps are stron-
ger) and lesser through the top and bot-
tom of the range of motion (where the
biceps are weaker).

11
 Table 1 Mean ± SD values of the evaluated biomechanical and anthropometric parameters measured at pre-training, mid-training and post-training

Circumference at Circumference in Skinfold biceps Skinfold triceps

Group Peak torque (Nm)
rest (cm) tension (cm) (mm) (mm)

pre 64.9 ± 12.5 31.1 ± 2.7 34.6 ± 3.0 4.9 ± 1.1 8.7 ± 2.4

Hyp-Cam mid 70.0 ± 11.1 31.4 ± 2.9 34.9 ± 2.8 4.8 ± 1.0 8.7 ± 2.2

post 73.8 ± 10.2c 32.8 ± 3.1c 35.7 ± 3.0c 4.5 ± 0.9 6.9 ± 1.9b

pre 63.3 ± 7.7 30.6 ± 2.6 34.2 ± 2.8 5.1 ± 2.2 9.6 ± 3.9

Hyp-Disc mid 64.5 ± 9.2 30.7 ± 2.6 34.5 ± 2.9 5.2 ± 2.2 8.6 ± 2.9

post 66.8 ± 7.3 31.7 ± 2.6c 35.2 ± 2.7c 4.9 ± 1.9 8.2 ± 3.2a

pre 63.3 ± 9.7 29.9 ± 1.6 33.3 ± 1.7 4.8 ± 1.0 7.9 ± 2.2

Str-Cam mid 63.1 ± 8.5 30.0 ± 1.9 33.6 ± 1.9 3.8 ± 0.7c 6.5 ± 1.8b

post 63.4 ± 9.0 30.2 ± 1.8 33.9 ± 2.0b 3.7 ± 0.7c 5.8 ± 1.8c

pre 62.4 ± 9.0 29.7 ± 2.5 33.0 ± 2.4 4.1 ± 0.8 6.7 ± 2.4

Str-Disc mid 62.7 ± 8.9 29.8 ± 2.3 33.4 ± 2.4 3.7 ± 0.8a 5.3 ± 2.0a

post 64.3 ± 9.5 29.9 ± 2.4 33.6 ± 2.4b 3.4 ± 0.8c 5.2 ± 1.5b

pre 66.1 ± 7.4 30.3 ± 2.2 33.4 ± 2.3 4.9 ± 1.3 8.2 ± 1.9

CG mid 64.2 ± 7.5 30.0 ± 2.1 33.4 ± 2.3 4.9 ± 1.2 8.6 ± 2.6

post 66.7 ± 7.6 30.5 ± 2.1 33.5 ± 2.5 4.8 ± 1.3 8.1 ± 1.9

Significant difference in relation to pre-training data: a = p<.05, b = p<.01, c = p<.001

For both groups, arm circumferences

(both relaxed and flexed), biceps skin- Findings
fold thickness, and triceps skinfold 1RM biceps curl strength increased
thickness were measured before and af- similarly in all four groups (+26-37%).
ter eight weeks of training. Preacher curl Isokinetic peak torque, on the other
1RM strength was also assessed before hand, increased significantly more fol-
and after training, and also every two lowing hypertrophy training with the
weeks during the training period in or- specialized cam than in the other three
der to adjust training loads. Isokinetic groups. The increases in arm circum-
peak elbow flexion torque at a veloci- ference were significantly larger in the
ty of 60° per second was also assessed hypertrophy training groups than the
pre- and post-training. Creatine kinase two strength training groups. Biceps
levels (a blood marker of muscle dam- and triceps skinfold thicknesses tend-
age) were also assessed before the Mon- ed to decrease more in the two strength
day session and after the Friday session groups, but the between-group differ-
during weeks four and five. ences weren’t significant.

12
 Creatine kinase activity was higher
in all four groups on Fridays compared
to Mondays, but total creatine kinase
activity was pretty low in all groups at
all time points, and the increases from
Monday to Friday were similar in all
groups.
Interpretation
To start with the most obvious finding:
The hypertrophy-style training caused
more muscle growth than the strength-
style training. Yes, arm circumferences
aren’t the best or most sensitive measure
of growth, but the differences were sta-
tistically significant, fairly substantial,
and in line with what “gym wisdom”
would predict. The notion that “hard
sets” are the best metric for predictive
muscle growth, regardless of rep range,
has considerable amount of empirical
support (3), but it probably breaks down
with very low (4) and very high reps
(5). Once you’re doing probably 3-4ish
reps per set or fewer, your per-set hy-
pertrophy results start diminishing, to
the point that just doing heavy singles
probably doesn’t cause much growth at
all, even in untrained subjects.
The strength findings may be slight-
ly surprising at first, but they shouldn’t
be. One might expect that, especially
in untrained lifters, “training the test”
– practicing 1RMs – would lead to the
largest improvements in 1RM strength.
However, biceps curls are a pretty sim-
OVERALL, THIS STUDY FAILS
TO SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT
MATCHING RESISTANCE AND
STRENGTH CURVES WILL
LEAD TO BETTER RESULTS.
ple exercise, so the capacity for skill ac-
quisition is relatively limited (we may
have seen different results if this study
was on squats, for example). We’ve also
seen similar results in prior research (6).
Since the two hypertrophy groups expe-
rienced more growth, that probably con-
tributes to their strength gains as well.
Finally, and most importantly, all groups
re-tested their 1RMs every two weeks.
In a previous high- versus low-load
study (7) subjects training at 50% 1RM
gained essentially as much strength as
subjects training at 80% 1RM, even on
compound exercises, which stands in
contrast to the majority of the literature.
The difference between that study and
other studies in the same niche is that
subjects retested their 1RMs every three
weeks, and that seems to have been suffi-
cient 1RM practice for strength gains to
be similar between groups. Thus, in the
present study, retesting 1RM strength
every two weeks was likely sufficient to
all-but-guarantee that all groups would
13

MY HUNCH IS THAT
ATTEMPTING TO MATCH
RESISTANCE AND STRENGTH
CURVES MATTERS THE
MOST WHEN PERFORMING
EXERCISES WHERE THE
DIFFICULTY OF THE EXERCISE
DIFFERS DRAMATICALLY
THROUGHOUT THE
RANGE OF MOTION.
have similar strength gains.
The only finding that bucked the trend
was that the hypertrophy group with
strength and resistance curves matched
experienced the largest increase in peak
isokinetic torque. I’m not sure why the
hypertrophy group got better results than
the strength group (maybe it’s simply
due to more growth?), but I think there’s
an explanation for why a group with
strength and resistance curves matched
beat the two groups with constant re-
sistance. The biceps are strongest at in-
termediate muscle lengths, when the el-
bow is in approximately 90 degrees of
flexion. Thus, the groups training with
constant resistance were doing curls that
would have been limited by strength at
either long or short muscle lengths, with
the stronger intermediate muscle lengths
having a pretty easy time. Peak isoki-
netic torque would occur at the point
where the biceps are the strongest: at in-
termediate muscle lengths. The groups
that trained on machines that matched
strength and resistance curves were
therefore training their biceps harder
through the range of motion that would
be tested on an isokinetic peak torque
test. I wouldn’t be surprised, however, if
the constant resistance groups increased
their isokinetic torque to a greater de-
gree at the bottom and top of the range
of motions; the researchers didn’t report
that data, though. In essence, isokinetic
peak torque is a range-of-motion-specif-
ic test, and the groups that trained on a
machine that matched strength and re-
sistance curves did a better job of prac-
ticing for that test.
Overall, this study fails to support
the idea that matching resistance and
strength curves will lead to better re-
sults. Growth was similar in both hyper-
trophy groups, and 1RM strength gains
were similar in all groups. Isokinetic
peak torque increased the most in one of
the groups that matched resistance and
strength curves, but that was likely due
to idiosyncrasies in the exercise, rather
than the mere fact that resistance and
strength curves were matched.
14
 However, that doesn’t mean we should
completely abandon the idea quite yet,
at least for hypertrophy. I do think we
have a pretty good picture for strength
at this point. For example, a recent me-
ta-analysis (or rather, correction to a pri-
or meta-analysis) indicates that training
with accommodating resistance (adding
bands or chains to the bar, which allows
you to more closely match strength and
resistance curves for barbell exercises)
fails to lead to larger strength gains than
just using straight weight (8). The pic-
ture isn’t perfectly clear for machine ex-
ercises – a prior study by the same re-
searchers who conducted the presently
reviewed study did find larger strength
and power gains in subjects who trained
their biceps with a machine that matched
the strength curve of the biceps (2) – but
strength results have been pretty un-
impressive overall, especially for free
weights. However, few studies have
even investigated the effects of matched
versus unmatched strength and resis-
tance curves on hypertrophy. I’m not
aware of any studies where isokinetic
training (which matches resistance with
joint torque) caused substantially more
growth than isotonic training (i.e. nor-
mal machine or free weight training),
for example. The results of the present
study don’t appear super promising for
hypertrophy, but overall, it’s still an
open question.
My hunch is that attempting to match
resistance and strength curves matters
I DO THINK MATCHING
STRENGTH AND RESISTANCE
CURVES CAN BE VALUABLE
FOR DEVELOPING POWER
OUTPUT AND EXPLOSIVE
PERFORMANCE.
the most when performing exercises
where the difficulty of the exercise dif-
fers dramatically throughout the range
of motion. For hypertrophy, the criti-
cal part of the range of motion is prob-
ably when muscles are at long muscle
lengths. For example, a barbell or EZ
bar curl has the opposite problem of
the constant-resistance condition in
the present study; it’s really easy at the
bottom of the range of motion instead
of really hard. With a standard barbell
curl, the movement doesn’t generally
get challenging until the bar is about
one-third of the way through the range
of motion, and thus the biceps aren’t
really being challenged at long muscle
lengths. So, I wouldn’t be too surprised
if a machine designed to match strength
and resistance curves (ensuring the bi-
ceps were still being challenged at long
muscle lengths) caused more biceps
growth than a standing barbell curl. On
15
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
When it’s feasible and relatively easy, it’s not a bad idea to try to match the resistance
curve of an exercise with your strength curve. It may slightly improve your results,
and it doesn’t have any obvious downsides. However, you shouldn’t expect that it will
dramatically improve your results, assuming you’re still challenging the target muscle
through long muscle lengths.

the other hand, dumbbell flyes are the
hardest when the pecs are elongated. A
pec deck is designed to match the re-
sistance curve of the exercise with the
strength curve of the pecs, but it does so
by increasing the challenge imposed on
the pecs when the pecs are in a short-
ened position. That may increase growth
slightly by helping maintain tension on
the muscle, but I suspect dumbbell flyes
are almost as effective (if not equally ef-
fective), because they’re already stress-
ing the muscle through the most critical
part of the range of motion for growth.
While I pooh-poohed accommodating
resistance for 1RM strength gains al-
ready, I do think it can be valuable for
developing power output and explosive
performance, because it does help match
strength and resistance curves. For a
1RM squat, you just need to be able to
get past your sticking point. For a good
vertical jump, you need to be able to
apply force into the ground explosively
through the entire range of motion, ac-
celerating all the way through takeoff.
A squat with straight weight allows you
to “let up” once you clear the sticking
point; in fact, it requires you to do so,
so that the barbell doesn’t fly off your
shoulders. Thus, adding bands or chains
to the bar may allow you to develop
more strength and power through the
top part of the range of motion (which
doesn’t really matter for 1RM strength).
As with all things, this is a nuanced
subject. In many contexts, I don’t think
you gain much by going out of your way
to match strength and resistance curves,
especially if your goal is 1RM strength in
a particular exercise. Most exercises do a
pretty good job of training their weakest
point. For hypertrophy, I think the main
question is whether a particular exercise
already does a good job of stressing the
target muscle at long muscle lengths; if
not, it may be worth choosing a differ-
ent version of the same exercise, mak-
ing exercise modifications, or using a
different piece of equipment in order to
ensure stress at long muscle lengths. For
explosive strength and transfer to athlet-
ic performance (which isn’t the focus of
MASS, but which is worth mentioning),
I do think there’s considerable value in
matching strength and resistance curves

16
when possible and feasible.

Next Steps
I’d love for this study to be repeat-
ed with trained lifters. I’d also want to
see different exercises with different
strength curves tested (barbell curls –
hard through the middle of the ROM –
and machine curls with matched strength
and resistance curves, versus dumbbell
flyes – hard through the bottom of the
ROM – and the pec deck).

17
References

1. Staniszewski M, Mastalerz A, Urbanik C. Effect of a strength or hypertrophy training proto-

col, each performed using two different modes of resistance, on biomechanical, biochemical
and anthropometric parameters. Biol Sport. 2020;37(1):85–91
2. Staniszewski M, Urbanik C, Mastalerz A, Iwańska D, Madej A, Karczewska M. Comparison
of changes in the load components for intense training on two machines: with a variable-cam
and with a disc plate. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2017 Jun;57(6):782-789.
3. Baz-Valle E, Fontes-Villalba M, Santos-Concejero J. Total Number of Sets as a Training
Volume Quantification Method for Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review. J Strength
Cond Res. 2018 Jul 30.
4. Schoenfeld BJ, Contreras B, Vigotsky AD, Peterson M. Differential Effects of Heavy Versus
Moderate Loads on Measures of Strength and Hypertrophy in Resistance-Trained Men. J
Sports Sci Med. 2016 Dec 1;15(4):715-722.
5. Lasevicius T, Ugrinowitsch C, Schoenfeld BJ, Roschel H, Tavares LD, De Souza EO, Lau-
rentino G, Tricoli V. Effects of different intensities of resistance training with equated vol-
ume load on muscle strength and hypertrophy. Eur J Sport Sci. 2018 Jul;18(6):772-780.
6. Mattocks KT, Buckner SL, Jessee MB, Dankel SJ, Mouser JG, Loenneke JP. Practicing the
Test Produces Strength Equivalent to Higher Volume Training. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2017
Sep;49(9):1945-1954.
7. 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 train-
ing-mediated hypertrophy or strength gains in resistance-trained young men. J Appl Physiol
(1985). 2016 Jul 1;121(1):129-38.
8. dos Santos N, Divino W, Gentil P, Ribeiro A, Vieira C, Martins W. Manuscript clarification:
Effects of Variable Resistance Training on Maximal Strength: A Meta-analysis. J Strength
Cond Res. 2018 Nov;32(11):e52-e55

18
 Study Reviewed: What Influence Does Resistance Exercise Order Have on
Muscular Strength Gains and Muscle Hypertrophy? A Systematic Review and
Meta-Analysis. Nunes et al. (2020)

You Want to Get Better at

Something? Do it First.
BY MIC HAE L C . ZO URD O S

Most lifters tend to perform multi-joint exercises before single-joint exercises

in a training session. Does this actually matter for hypertrophy and strength
adaptations? This article covers a new meta-analysis that analyzes every angle of
this discussion.

19
 KEY POINTS
1. This meta-analysis examined if the order in which you perform exercises during a
training session matters for hypertrophy and strength outcomes.
2. The authors concluded that the order in which you perform multi- and single-
joint exercises does not influence hypertrophy; however, it does indeed matter for
strength.
3. For strength, it seems clear that if you want to optimize your improvement on an
exercise, then it should be performed first in your training session. In brief, don’t
stress over the order of your exercise for hypertrophy, but for strength, perform
whatever you want to get better at first.

O ne of the first things that many

people learned toward the be-
ginning of their lifting career
was to perform multi-joint exercises
before single-joint exercises. In a pre-
vious MASS article (2), we concluded
that this was, in all likelihood, a good
idea for strength, and while this strategy
may be preferable for hypertrophy, there
was surprisingly little evidence to make
this claim. The current article covers a
systematic review and meta-analysis (1)
that examined the existing literature to
determine if performing multi-joint ex-
ercises first does indeed maximize hy-
pertrophy and strength adaptations. The
authors found that exercise order did
not affect hypertrophy. However, for
strength, the authors reported that more
strength was gained in whatever move-
ment was performed first in a training
session, which included multi-joint
exercises, single-joint exercises, free
weights, or machine-based exercises.
Essentially, if you have a strength goal
for a specific exercise, you should per-
form that exercise first in your training
session. This article will discuss why
strength gains are better on a particular
exercise when it is performed first and
will provide a rationale for why exercise
order may matter for muscle hypertro-
phy in specific situations, despite the
null findings for hypertrophy in this me-
ta-analysis.
Purpose and Hypotheses
Purpose
The purpose of this meta-analysis was
to examine the influence of exercise or-
der on muscle hypertrophy and strength
outcomes.
Hypotheses
No hypotheses were provided, which
is customary for a meta-analysis.

20
 Table 1 Meta-analysis inclusion criteria

on muscle hypertrophy and/or strength outcomes. Further, both direct (i.e.

1
MRI) and indirect (i.e. body composition testing with skinfolds) measure-
ments were included in the analysis.

The study included at least two exercises (which would have to happen in order to
2

3 The study lasted at least six weeks

4 The study was published in either English or Portuguese

Inclusion criteria from Nunes et al 2020 (1).

Subjects and Methods
Study Inclusion
As I’m sure most MASS readers are
aware, a meta-analysis doesn’t have its
own subjects; rather, a meta-analysis
pools results from all of the studies that
meet its inclusion criteria. The criteria for
a study to be included in this meta-anal-
ysis are listed in Table 1. The included
studies were also classified according to
methodological quality, and were rated
as poor, fair, good, or excellent using a
previously validated checklist (3).
Hypertrophy Outcomes
The meta-analysis examined if per-
forming multi- or single-joint exercises
first augmented muscle growth for direct
or indirect assessments of hypertrophy
separately, and when direct and indirect
assessments were pooled together.
Strength Outcomes
The meta-analysis examined if per-
forming multi-joint exercises first aug-
mented strength gains in multi-joint ex-
ercises, and if performing single-joint
exercises first augmented strength gains
in single-joint exercises. Further, it ana-
lyzed if strength gains were enhanced on
specific exercises, free weight exercises,
and machine-based exercises when they
were performed first in a training ses-
sion.
Findings
Study Details
Eleven total studies were included.
Eight studies were rated as excellent
quality, and three were rated as good
quality. Eight studies analyzed strength
outcomes and seven analyzed hyper-
trophic outcomes. Eight studies used

21
 Figure 1 Hypertrophy results

Avelar et al. 2019

Cardozo et al. 2019

Fisher et al. 2014

Pina et al. 2013

Simão et al. 2010

Spineti et al. 2010

Tomeleri et al. 2019

Site-specific measures

Indirect measures

Overall effect size

-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0 0.5 1.0 1.5

From Nunes et al. (1)
The values on the x-axis are in terms of effect size.

trained individuals (≥6 months of train- Hypertrophy

ing) with the other three studies were on
untrained subjects. Seven studies were
on young people (18-39 yrs), one study
used middle-aged subjects (40-60 yrs),
and three studies used older subjects
(≥60 yrs). Two studies used women, one
was mixed-sex, and the other eight stud-
ies analyzed men.
The magnitude of muscle growth
was not influenced by exercise order
(p=0.862). Further, there was also no ef-
fect of exercise order on muscle growth
when direct or indirect measures of hy-
pertrophy were analyzed separately (p
= 0.937 and p = 0.734, respectively). A
forest plot can be seen in Figure 1, which
displays the hypertrophy findings. As

22
 Table 2
Measure P-Value

Multi-joint exercises 0.32 0.034

Single-joint exercises 0.58 0.032

0.45 0.015
(i.e. squat or bench press)

Free weight exercises 0.50 0.018

Machine-based exercises 0.45 0.015

Inclusion criteria from Nunes et al 2020 (1).

you can see in Figure 1, the effect siz-
es for most studies comparing exercise
order for muscle hypertrophy are close
to the line of no effect indicating no
influence of exercise order on muscle
growth.
Strength
In general, strength tended to be great-
er on a tested exercise when that specif-
ic exercise, type of exercise (multi-joint
or single-joint), or modality of exercise
(free weights or machine-based) was
performed first in a training session.
These results are presented in Table 2.
The effect sizes in Table 2 represent the
difference in strength gained when the
measurement was performed first in a
training session versus later in a ses-
sion. Further, Figure 2 presents a forest
plot of the strength findings.
Interpretation
Simply stated, the findings of this
meta-analysis are: 1) exercise order
doesn’t matter for hypertrophy, and 2)
if you want to maximize strength on
a specific exercise, then do it first in
your training session. I do think there
are a few nuanced discussions to have
regarding exercise order and hypertro-
phy, but the strength results really are
as straightforward as they seem, in my
opinion.

23
 Figure 2 Strength results

Assumpção et al. 2013

Cardozo et al. 2019

Dias et al. 2010

Nazari et al. 2016

Saraiva et al. 2014

Simão et al. 2010

Spineti et al. 2010

Tomeleri et al. 2019

Overall effect size

-1.5 -0.5 0 0.5 1.5 2.5

From Nunes et al. (1)

The values on the x-axis are in terms of effect size. Positive effect sizes in this forest plot are noted
when the tested exercise improved strength more when it was performed first.

Exercise Order and Strength
If you want to improve your strength
on something, then do it first. Although
most lifters are concerned about strength
on the powerlifts (i.e. squat, bench press,
and deadlift), this principle also ex-
tends to assistance-type and single-joint
movements if that is where someone’s
priorities lie. In other words, if your leg
press, military press, or even barbell curl
strength is your main focus; then, you
should do it first. This all makes logical
sense, because if you want to maximize
squat strength for example, and you per-
form another lower body exercise be-
fore you squat, then the load you squat
will likely be lower than if you would
have done it first. Of course, if you have
a light day on squat, bench press, or

24
deadlift, then you could potentially do
something else first as long as you can
still complete your prescribed training.
The point is that you don’t do anything
before your primary exercise that will
decrease the load you can lift for your
primary exercise.
If you are a powerlifter, it is probably
best to train both the bench press and
deadlift after the squat at some point in
preparation for a meet, so that you can
plan your attempt selection accordingly.
However, the results of this meta-anal-
ysis should be a reminder that always
benching after you squat, even if you are
a powerlifter, could stunt your progress
over the long-term. If you are perform-
ing volume work with sets of moderate
to high repetitions on the squat, and then
planning on benching, that may fatigue
you. If your bench intensity were to al-
ways be sacrificed, then your strength
progress wouldn’t be optimal. There-
fore, when far out from a competition,
it makes sense to have bench press on a
separate day from squat. If you can only
train 2 or 3 days per week and can’t split
up squat and bench, then it is wise to al-
ternate which exercise you are doing first
and place the exercise first that is most
strenuous for that day (more on this in
“program troubleshooting” here). Then,
closer to a meet when you are perform-
ing singles, you should focus on getting
used to performing bench singles after
squat singles so that you can plan your
attempts accordingly. This is all to say
THE FINDINGS OF THIS
META-ANALYSIS ARE:
1) EXERCISE ORDER
DOESN’T MATTER FOR
HYPERTROPHY, AND 2) IF
YOU WANT TO MAXIMIZE
STRENGTH ON A SPECIFIC
EXERCISE, THEN DO IT FIRST
IN YOUR TRAINING SESSION.
that even in the case of a powerlifting
competition where a bench press comes
after squat on meet day, you still want
to move the bench out front at times to
maximize strength over the long-term.
Exercise Order for Hypertrophy – It
Doesn’t Matter
Hypertrophy is the more interesting
discussion piece, in my opinion, despite
the null findings. The overall message
of “exercise order doesn’t matter for
hypertrophy” shows that training for
size is a bit more forgiving than train-
ing for strength, which seems to be the
case across various training techniques.
For example, periodization probably
doesn’t matter too much for hypertro-
25
phy (4). Additionally, you may not think
you can train really far from failure and
maximize hypertrophy, but I feel pretty
comfortable saying that training close to
failure and training to failure probably
doesn’t make much of a difference for
muscle growth (listen to our roundtable
discussion on proximity to failure here)
(5). However, for strength, periodization
likely does matter over the long-term (6)
and training shy of failure may be a bet-
ter idea than training to failure (7). So,
since exercise order doesn’t really mat-
ter for hypertrophy, the first things you
consider should be: 1) what order do you
enjoy most, 2) what order allows you to
perform the most volume, and 3) what
order will cause you to adhere to train-
ing the best? Further, your approach to
exercise order doesn’t always have to be
the same; it could rotate on any specific
day, as long as you get in the necessary
volume and meet the goals of your train-
ing session.
If you would prefer to perform a sin-
gle-joint movement (i.e. leg extensions)
before a multi-joint movement (i.e.
squats), but you’re worried that the re-
sulting reduction in absolute (sets x reps
x absolute load lifted) or relative (sets ×
reps × percentage of 1RM) volume on
the squats would slow the rate of hyper-
trophy, I don’t think that should be a big
concern. We wrote specifically about
this in the interpretation of this article,
but in short, the volume on the leg ex-
tensions would be higher by performing
those before the squats instead of af-
ter, which will offset some of the lower
squat volume. Further, you could simply
reduce squat load and add a set to easily
equate for any volume lost by perform-
ing squats later in the training session,
which should ease any fears about hy-
pertrophy suffering.
Exercise Order for Hypertrophy – It
May Matter
Despite the null findings in the me-
ta-analysis, the order of multi- and sin-
gle-joint movements may matter for
hypertrophy, but I actually think you
can make a case for performing either
one first depending on someone’s goals.
Let’s first take the position that you
should perform multi-joint exercises
first.
Multi-joint exercises, and specifically
the skilled movements, require greater
effort and attentional focus to complete
than single-joint movements. Because
of the greater skill and attentional focus,
it may be a good idea to perform the
skilled movements first to reduce injury
risk, since the risk of a technique error
may increase when performing a squat
or deadlift in a fatigued state toward the
end of a training session. Additionally,
I’d bet that most lifters are more like-
ly to put in max effort on all exercises
when the hardest ones (usually the more
skilled exercises) are done first. Besides,
if you have already performed a bunch
of exercises before the main movements
26

IF YOU ARE RUNNING A
TRAINING BLOCK FOCUSING
ON A MUSCLE GROUP USING
ONLY SINGLE-JOINT EXERCISES
TO TARGET THAT MUSCLE,
THEN, IN THOSE SITUATIONS,
PERFORMING SINGLE-JOINT
EXERCISES FIRST COULD
MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
(i.e. pre-exhaustion), it won’t enhance
hypertrophy (8), and it could lower your
effort during the main movements. In
further support of performing multi-
joint exercises first, a recent study from
Avelar et al (2 – MASS Review) ob-
served 3.3% greater thigh hypertrophy
over a six-week training program when
leg press was performed before leg ex-
tensions compared to the opposite or-
der. That is a tenuous finding since the
analysis rendered the 3.3% difference
non-significant. Further, to my knowl-
edge, there is only one study which even
hints at performing multi-joint exercis-
es first to be inferior for hypertrophy.
Specifically, Simao et al 2010 had two
groups of men train twice per week for
12 weeks. One group in the Simao study
trained with an exercise order of multi-
joint to single-joint during each training
session, and the other group trained us-
ing the opposite exercise order. Simao
reported a between-group effect size
of 0.53 in favor of the single-joint first
group for increases in triceps muscle
thickness; however, this finding was not
statistically significant. Further, the Si-
mao study did not report a meaningful
difference between groups for biceps
hypertrophy (9).
On the other hand, there is also a case
to be made for performing single-joint
exercises first, albeit in very specific
situations. If your main goal is hyper-
trophy, you may run blocks of training
where you are targeting certain muscle
groups. In fact, we recently suggested
that when implementing high volumes,
it may be advantageous to spike volume
on some muscle groups, while maintain-
ing a more moderate amount on other
muscle groups, as high volume across
the board could be practically unsustain-
able. If you are prioritizing biceps and
triceps for a training block, since sin-
gle-joint exercises are how these mus-
cle groups are primarily trained, it might
make sense to start a session with curls
rather than some sort of row that hits the
biceps secondarily. For triceps, many
pushing movements (i.e. bench press
variations) do stress the triceps, but the
triceps brachii are not the prime mover
27
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
1. The findings of the reviewed meta-analysis showed that exercise order doesn’t
matter for hypertrophy, but it does matter for strength.
2. Although there were no significant findings for exercise order and hypertrophy, there
could be specific situations where either multi- or single-joint exercises should be
performed first. Specifically, if you enjoy performing one type of exercise first and
that helps you adhere better to training or perform more total training volume, then
you should probably do that. But, I wouldn’t stress over exercise order in your
program design when muscle growth is your main goal.
3. For strength, the data are quite clear that if you want to get better at something,
then you should do it first in your session.

in those movements, whereas the triceps
are the prime mover in any correctly
performed triceps extension exercise.
While there is not direct evidence that
performing single-joint movements first
would be better for biceps or triceps hy-
pertrophy, a recent study from Brandao
et al (10) did show that cross-sectional
area of the long head of the triceps in-
creased to a greater extent over a training
study in a group of individuals who only
trained the barbell triceps extension ver-
sus a group who only trained the bench
press. The Brandao study also had two
additional groups who trained both the
bench press and triceps extension. One
group trained the bench first and the oth-
er the triceps extension first during the
study and there was no difference in the
degree of triceps hypertrophy. So, one
interpretation is that the Brandao study
reveals that exercise order doesn’t mat-
ter for hypertrophy; however, another
interpretation is that over the course of
a training block, an exercise where the
triceps itself is the primary mover is re-
quired to enhance triceps cross-section-
al area. That is admittedly thin evidence
to suggest that single-joint exercises
should come first. However, it is an in-
teresting talking point to say that if you
are running a training block focusing on
a muscle group using only single-joint
exercises to target that muscle, then, in
those situations, performing single-joint
exercises first could make a difference.
Next Steps
I think this debate is pretty much set-
tled for strength. For hypertrophy, I’d
like to see a study that tackles the ques-
tion at the end of the last paragraph. That
is, should single-joint exercises be per-
formed first when only single-joint ex-
ercises directly target the muscle group?
A study using a high-volume program

28
to target the biceps and triceps with one
group performing their curls and triceps
extensions before rows and bench press-
es could answer this question. While the
Brandao study did this in part, I’d like to
see a really high volume study try this.
It would be interesting to see how much
more volume on the single-joint move-
ments is completed when those exercis-
es are performed first in the session.

29
References

1. Nunes JP, Grgic J, Cunha PM, Ribeiro AS, Schoenfeld BJ, de Salles BF, Cyrino ES. What
influence does resistance exercise order have on muscular strength gains and muscle hyper-
trophy? A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Sport Science. 2020
Feb 24(just-accepted):1-22.
2. Avelar A, Ribeiro AS, Nunes JP, Schoenfeld BJ, Papst RR, Trindade MC, Bottaro M, Cyrino
ES. Effects of order of resistance training exercises on muscle hypertrophy in young adult
men. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism. 2019;44(4):420-4.
3. Smart NA, Waldron M, Ismail H, Giallauria F, Vigorito C, Cornelissen V, Dieberg G. Valida-
tion of a new tool for the assessment of study quality and reporting in exercise training stud-
ies: TESTEX. International journal of evidence-based healthcare. 2015 Mar 1;13(1):9-18.
4. Grgic J, Lazinica B, Mikulic P, Schoenfeld BJ. Should resistance training programs aimed
at muscular hypertrophy be periodized? A systematic review of periodized versus non-peri-
odized approaches. Science & Sports. 2018 Jun 1;33(3):e97-104.
5. Nuckols G. The Evidence is Lacking for Effective Reps. Stronger By Science. 2019.
6. Williams TD, Tolusso DV, Fedewa MV, Esco MR. Comparison of periodized and non-peri-
odized resistance training on maximal strength: a meta-analysis. Sports medicine. 2017 Oct
1;47(10):2083-100.
7. Carroll KM, Bernards JR, Bazyler CD, Taber CB, Stuart CA, DeWeese BH, Sato K, Stone
MH. Divergent performance outcomes following resistance training using repetition maxi-
mums or relative intensity. International journal of sports physiology and performance. 2019
Jan 1;14(1):46-54.
8. Trindade TB, Prestes J, Neto LO, Medeiros RM, Tibana RA, de Sousa NM, Santana EE, de
AT Cabral BG, Stone WJ, Dantas PM. Effects of Pre-exhaustion Versus Traditional Resis-
tance Training on Training Volume, Maximal Strength, and Quadriceps Hypertrophy. Fron-
tiers in Physiology. 2019;10.
9. Simão R, Spineti J, de Salles BF, Oliveira LF, Matta T, Miranda F, Miranda H, Costa PB.
Influence of exercise order on maximum strength and muscle thickness in untrained men.
Journal of sports science & medicine. 2010 Mar;9(1):1.
10. Brandao L, de Salles Painelli V, Lasevicius T, Silva-Batista C, Brendon H, Schoenfeld BJ,
Aihara AY, Cardoso FN, de Almeida Peres B, Texeira EL. Varying the Order of Combina-
tions of Single- and Multi-Joint Exercises Differentially Affects Resistance Training Adap-
tations. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. March

30
 Study Reviewed: Twice as High Diet-Induced Thermogenesis After Breakfast vs
Dinner On High-Calorie as Well as Low-Calorie Meals. Richter et al. (2020)

Does Breakfast Burn More

Calories than Dinner?
BY E RI C HE LMS

The meal timing winds blow seasonally in the fitness industry. “Eat six meals
a day, breakfast is the most important meal, and don’t eat after 6pm”
became “it doesn’t matter how many meals you eat, skip breakfast, and eat
your largest meal before bed to help you sleep.” Let’s step out of the wind
tunnel for a moment and examine the data.

31
 KEY POINTS
1. This study compared identical isocaloric diets with one key difference: In one
crossover arm, the participants consumed 69% of daily calories at breakfast and
11% of daily calories at dinner, while in the other arm they did the opposite.
2. Diet-induced thermogenesis was 2.5 times higher following breakfast than
following dinner, independent of caloric content, meaning total energy expenditure
is higher when biasing calories earlier in the day versus later, even when consuming
the same total daily energy. However, total energy expenditure for the day is not
reported, and the limited data we have here suggests these differences may not
amount to a large difference in total.
3. Hunger increased following low-calorie breakfasts, while it decreased following
high-calorie breakfasts and remained higher prior to dinner in the low-calorie
breakfast condition. Following dinner, while hunger decreased more when a
larger calorie dinner was consumed, hunger still decreased after a low-calorie
dinner as well. Lastly, appetite for sweets was significantly lower after a high-
calorie breakfast and remained significantly lower leading up to dinner compared
to the low-calorie breakfast condition.

N
utrient timing is an often over-
simplified topic in the “evi-
dence-based” bodybuilding sec-
tor. The present study (1) serves to
challenge that view. What started as the
dual revelations that a) timely post-ex-
ercise glycogen replenishment wasn’t
important in the context of hypertrophy
programs and nutrition plans (2), and
b) that post-workout protein intake had
only a small effect on hypertrophy when
total daily protein intake was account-
ed for (3), morphed into the fallacy that
“nutrient timing doesn’t matter,” with-
out nuance or qualification. As endur-
ance athletes, sports nutritionists, and
chrononutrition and circadian rhythm
researchers cocked their collective eye-
brows and started to say, “Hold on a
second…,” we boldly and blindly bar-
reled forward, repeating unsubstantiated
over-exaggerations like “meal frequen-
cy makes no difference” and “fasting
only works because it results in caloric
restriction.”
Enter the present crossover study (and
others like it). Healthy young men be-
low the BMI cutoff for overweight or
obesity (<25) consumed isocaloric diets,
differing in their distribution of calories,
to have either a high-calorie breakfast
and low-calorie dinner, or the opposite
arrangement. Higher energy expendi-
ture due to diet-induced thermogenesis
was observed in the morning compared
to the evening, implying that nutrient
timing does matter, such that eating
more calories earlier in the day may re-
sult in a higher energy expenditure even

32
with equated caloric consumption. Fur-
ther, the high-calorie breakfast group
had better blood glucose regulation, bet-
ter hunger control, and less appetite for
sweets throughout the day. Does the au-
thors’ interpretation of their data tell the
whole story, and how might this study
apply to MASS readers? Continue on as
I address these questions.
Purpose and Hypotheses
Purpose
The primary purpose of this study was
to determine whether an identical meal
causes higher diet-induced thermogen-
esis in the morning compared to the
evening. A secondary purpose was to
determine if the impact of an acute ener-
gy deficit modifies diet-induced thermo-
genesis (e.g. does thermogenesis change
with lower versus higher calorie meals).
Finally, the researchers aimed to assess
if blood glucose regulation (also known
as glycemic control) changes in the eve-
ning compared to morning in response
to high and lower calorie meals.
Hypotheses
The authors hypothesized diet-in-
duced thermogenesis would be higher
in the morning compared to evening in
both low- and high-calorie meals, and
that glycemic control would follow a
circadian rhythm such that the morning
glucose response would differ from the
evening response.  
Subjects and Methods
Subjects
The researchers examined 16 men
below the obesity or overweight BMI
thresholds (age 23.6 ± 2.3 years; BMI
22.5 ± 1.1 kg/m2). Participants were
required to self-report a regular sleep-
wake cycle (shift workers were exclud-
ed), be non-smokers, not taking any
kind of medication or drugs, not have
been dieting, and to have no neurolog-
ical, psychiatric, or metabolic diseases
during the six weeks prior to the study.
The authors also excluded potential par-
ticipants who were competitive athletes,
who self-reported they were under phys-
ical or mental strain, or who had imme-
diate family members with type 2 dia-
betes.
Protocol Overview
This study was a randomized, sin-
gle-blind crossover. One arm of the
crossover consisted of a low energy
breakfast (11% of predicted energy re-
quirements) and high energy dinner
(69% of predicted energy requirements),
while the alternate arm consisted of a
high energy breakfast and low energy
dinner of the same energy proportions,
but reversed. In both conditions, lunches
containing the remaining 20% of calo-
ries (thus, matching estimated total en-
33
 Figure 1 Study protocol on the experimental days

Indirect calorimetry

Sl Low-calorie breakfast /
ee
p High-calorie dinner

High-calorie breakfast /
Low-calorie dinner
11% Blood sample

Dinner Visual analog scale

69% IC
Br
ea
kfa
st

11%
Lun
ch

69%

20%

Participants had breakfast at 9AM, lunch at 2PM and dinner at 7PM. Each individual participated in 2 blinded conditions:
1) high-calorie breakfast (69% of total energy expenditure [TEE]) and low-calorie dinner (11% of TEE), and
2) low-calorie breakfast (11% of TEE) and high-calorie dinner (69% of TEE). Lunch was identical in both conditions (20% of TEE)
TEE = total energy expenditure; IC = indirect calorimetry

ergy needs) with matched macronutrient
distributions were consumed, and total
daily macronutrient distribution was
matched at 46% carbohydrate, 18% pro-
tein, and 36% fat. The volunteers stayed
in the lab for three days. They arrived
the night prior to the start of the experi-
ment and consumed a standardized meal
and slept in the lab. Then, in both exper-
imental conditions, the participants con-
sumed breakfast at 9am, lunch at 2pm,
and dinner at 7pm. Energy expenditure
(indirect calorimetry) was measured 45
minutes before breakfast and dinner in
each respective condition, at 30 minutes
following breakfast and dinner, and then
hourly three more times (0.5, 1.5, 2.5
and 3.5 hours post-meal). Blood samples
were taken 15 minutes prior to breakfast
and dinner, one, two, and four hours af-

34
ter breakfast and dinner, and one and
three hours after lunch. Hunger and de-
sire for sweets were assessed at 8:45am,
1:45pm, 6:45pm, and 11:15pm. Finally,
participants were instructed to maintain
a fixed sleep schedule from 11:30pm to
7:00am, and sleep was monitored by
electroencephalography. The details of
the study time course, measurements,
and meals are displayed graphically in
Figure 1.
Specific Methods, Measurements, and
Details
To determine energy requirements for
each subject, basal metabolic rate was
measured via indirect calorimetry, then
multiplied by an activity factor of 1.2.
To ensure this activity factor and subse-
quent total energy calculations were ap-
propriate approximations, activity was
constrained such that volunteers could
use a computer in a seated or lying po-
sition, listen to music, watch TV, read,
draw, or play games, but not exercise
or leave the lab. The basic “skeletons”
of the high and low-calorie breakfasts/
dinners were ~1000kcal (49% carbo-
hydrates, 10% protein, 41% fat) and
~250kcal (49% carbohydrates, 19%
protein, 32% fat) meals, respectively. To
individualize meals to the participants’
energy needs, maltodextrin was added.
Also, the authors state that participants
were blinded as to which meals were
high or low energy; however, they don’t
explain how this was accomplished or
the success rate of blinding (more on
this in the interpretation). Diet-induced
thermogenesis (AKA the thermic effect
of food) was calculated as the difference
between post- and pre-meal resting en-
ergy expenditure. Blood samples were
assessed for plasma glucose levels and
serum concentrations of insulin, corti-
sol, and adrenocorticotropic hormone
(which regulates cortisol, among oth-
er things, and is related to circadian
rhythm). Finally, subjective ratings of
hunger and desire for sweets were as-
sessed on a 1-10 visual analog scale (0:
not at all hungry/no appetite for sweets
at all; 10: very hungry/ great appetite for
sweets).
Findings
Since this is MASS, I’ll focus on the
data most relevant to body composition
rather than metabolic health: energy ex-
penditure and appetite rather than the
differences in insulin, glucose levels,
cortisol, and adrenocorticotropic hor-
mone. But, just to briefly summarize the
main metabolic outcomes, cortisol and
adrenocorticotropic hormone were high-
er in the morning and fell in the evening
somewhat independently of calorie dis-
tribution, and blood glucose and insulin
levels scaled with meal size, but were
always proportionately lower following
breakfast than dinner, indicating better
glucose control in the AM versus the
PM.
35
 Figure 2 Diet-induced thermogenesis (DIT) (mean ± SEM) in normal-weight men (n=16) after breakfast and dinner

A B
Daytime effect
0.8 1.2
***
Diet-induced thermogenesis

Diet-induced thermogenesis
***
1.0
0.6
0.8
***
(kJ/min)

(kJ/min)
0.6
0.4
0.4

0.2
0.2
0.0

0.0 -0.2
Breakfast Dinner High-calorie Low-calorie
C D

1.5 1.5
Diet-induced thermogenesis

Diet-induced thermogenesis

Breakfast
*** *** Dinner
*** ***
1.0 1.0

*** ***
(kJ/min)

(kJ/min)

0.5 0.5
*** ***
0.0 0.0

-0.5 -0.5
+0.5h +1.5h +2.5h +3.5h +0.5h +1.5h +2.5h +3.5h

Time after high-calorie meal intake Time after high-calorie meal intake

A = Daytime effect: Average DIT (including all time points of measurement as well as high- and low-calorie meals) after breakfast vs average DIT
(including all time points of measurement as well as high- and low-calorie meals) after dinner.
B = Interaction effect daytime*calorie: difference between average DIT (including all time points of measurement) after breakfast and dinner depending
on the amount of calories consumed.
C = DIT at a single time points of measurement after high-calorie breakfast and dinner.
D = DIT at single time points of measurement after low-calorie breakfast and dinner.
***P < .001

Sleep architecture was assessed, not as The expected energetic responses to

an outcome measure, but rather, to en- meals occurred, such that there were no
sure differences in sleep did not influ- differences in energy expenditure be-
ence the outcomes. This most likely did tween conditions prior to meals, eating
not occur, as there were no significant resulted in an increase in energy expen-
differences in sleep architecture between diture, energy expenditure decreased
conditions (p-values all over 0.409). within 3.5 hours following meals, and

36
larger meals resulted in larger increas-
es in energy expenditure than smaller
meals. However, independent of caloric
intake, the thermic effect of feeding was
2.5 times higher (p < 0.001 for all) fol-
lowing breakfast (Figure 2). Specifical-
ly, average diet-induced thermogenesis
was higher when averaging all combined
time points in both high- and low-calo-
rie conditions after breakfast compared
to dinner (panel A of Figure 2). When
separating high- and low-calorie con-
ditions, thermogenesis was also great-
er after breakfast than dinner when all
time points were averaged within each
condition (panel B of Figure 2). Further,
at each individual post-meal time point
during high- (panel C of Figure 2) and
low-calorie (panel D of Figure 2) con-
ditions, energy expenditure was higher
after breakfast than dinner. These results
are shown in Figure 2, expressed as ki-
lojoules per minute (kJ/min; 4.184kJ =
1kcal). As a reminder, the thermic effect
of meals was calculated by subtracting
post- from pre-meal energy expenditure;
thus, values below zero do not reflect
negative energy expenditure, but rather
lower values after eating than before.
Before breakfast, as expected, there
were no significant differences between
conditions for hunger or appetite for
sweets. Independent of caloric distri-
bution (Figure 3, panel B), hunger was
higher before dinner than before break-
fast (p = 0.043), but lower after dinner
than after breakfast (p < 0.001). Also
independent of caloric distribution (Fig-
ure 3, panel D), appetite for sweets was
higher after breakfast than after dinner
(p < 0.001).
To summarize the hunger differences
between conditions shown in Figure 3
panel A, hunger increased (p < 0.001;
Cohen’s d ES = 0.78) five hours (9am
compared to 2pm) following low-calo-
rie breakfasts, while it decreased (p =
0.007; Cohen’s d ES = 0.55) following
high-calorie breakfasts, and remained
higher (p = 0.034, Cohen’s d ES = 0.42)
prior to dinner (2pm to 7pm) in the
low-calorie breakfast condition. Follow-
ing dinner, while hunger decreased more
(p < 0.001) when a larger calorie dinner
was consumed, hunger still decreased
after a low-calorie dinner as well (p <
0.001, Cohen’s d ES > 1.152 for both).
Summarizing the difference in appetite
for sweets between conditions from Fig-
ure 3 panel C, appetite for sweets was
significantly lower (p = 0.003, Cohen’s
d ES = 0.45) five hours after a high-cal-
orie breakfast and remained significant-
ly lower before dinner at 7pm compared
to the low-calorie breakfast condition (p
= .002, Cohen’s d ES = 0.69).
Interpretation
If you had any trouble following the
results section above, the most pertinent
outcomes are that diet-induced thermo-
genesis was 2.5 times higher following
breakfast than following dinner, inde-
37
 Figure 3 Hunger and appetite for sweets rating (mean ± SEM) on a visual analog scale by normal weight men (n=16)

A B
High-calorie breakfast / Low-calorie dinner
10 10
Low-calorie breakfast / High-calorie dinner
Breakfast

8 *** * 8
Dinner
***
***
Hunger rating

Hunger rating
6 6 ***
** * ***
**
4 4
***
2 2

0 0
08:00 12:00 16:00 20:00 24:00 High-calorie Low-calorie
Time of day

C D
High-calorie breakfast / Low-calorie dinner
10 6
Low-calorie breakfast / High-calorie dinner Breakfast
Appetite for sweets rating

Appetite for sweets rating Dinner ***

8 5

** 4 **
6
* ** 3
4 ***
** * ***
2
2
1

0
0
08:00 12:00 16:00 20:00 24:00
High-calorie Low-calorie
Time of day

Visual analog scale - 0: not at all hungry/no appetite for sweets at all; 10: very hungry/great appetite for sweets
A = Effects of high- and low-calorie meal intake at breakfast and dinner on hunger rating; White circles = high-calorie breakfast combined
with low-calorie dinner; Gray circles = low-calorie breakfast combined with high-calorie dinner.
B = Interaction effect daytime*calorie: The difference between hunger rating 5 hours after breakfast and 4.5 hours after dinner depending
on amount of calories consumed.
C = Effects of high- and low-calorie meal intake at breakfast and dinner on appetite for sweets rating; White circles = high-calorie breakfast
combined with low-calorie dinner; Gray circles = low-calorie breakfast combined with high-calorie dinner.
D = Interaction effect daytime*calorie: The difference between the rating of appetite for sweets 5 hours after breakfast and 4.5 hours after
dinner depending on amount of calories consumed. Gray arrows = start of food intake; * = p < .05; ** = p < .01; *** = p < .001

pendent of caloric content. Additionally, a higher calorie dinner was consumed,

hunger increased following low-calorie hunger still decreased after a low-cal-
breakfasts, while it decreased following orie dinner. Lastly, appetite for sweets
high-calorie breakfasts, and remained was significantly lower after a high-cal-
higher prior to dinner in the low-calo- orie breakfast and remained significant-
rie breakfast condition. Following din- ly lower leading up to dinner compared
ner, while hunger decreased more when to the low-calorie breakfast condition.

38
Mechanistically, to explain the diet-in-
duced thermogenesis findings, the au-
thors speculate, based on prior data, that
gastric emptying rates are faster in the
morning (i.e. the peristaltic contractions
and digestive rate in the gut are higher in-
tensity and faster, respectively) (4), and
that due to greater sympathetic nervous
system activity in the morning, meta-
bolic rate and the respiratory quotient
are higher (5) – as indicated by cortisol
and adrenocorticotropic hormone be-
ing higher in the morning – resulting in
higher diet-induced energy expenditure.
Further, the functionality of beta cells
(which produce insulin, which controls
blood glucose) is higher in the AM (6),
which likely explains the blood glucose
findings.
One very minor gripe I have with this
paper is that they stated the participants
were blinded to the conditions, but they
don’t state how or the success rate. Ide-
ally, there would be sufficient detail to
replicate the blinding process, and they
would have conducted a post-study sur-
vey to see if the participants could guess
the order which they completed the
crossover. I’m a little skeptical that you
can make a 250kcal and 1000kcal meal
look, taste, and feel the same. There are
some great tricks to bulk up meals, and
sneak in calories, but that’s a fourfold
difference in energy. With that said, the
reason this is just a minor gripe is because
expectancy (which is what blinding is
meant to control for) can only do so
much. The hunger and desire for sweets
ratings might have been impacted had
they known the condition they were in
and had a preconceived bias towards/
against it (and they may not have, even
had they guessed the condition they were
in). However, diet-induced thermogene-
sis is probably not as subject to as much
confounding due to expectancy, as it’s a
subconscious physiological process and
thus, you’d think it would be less sus-
ceptible to manipulation via expectancy.
Okay, with my minor gripe out of the
way, and with the results and mecha-
nisms summarized, let’s put the find-
ings into context. In my pyramid model
which conceptually ranks nutrition vari-
ables based on their influence on body
composition, nutrient timing/distribu-
tion is of lesser priority than energy bal-
ance. However, in this study, distribut-
ing more calories to breakfast resulted in
a higher energy expenditure, indirectly
influencing the output side of the energy
balance equation. Further, my pyramid
model is predicated on the assumption
that energy intake is controlled (hitting
targets for energy and/or macronutri-
ents). Things change when you are au-
toregulating energy intake based on
hunger and satiety; instead of tracking
calories/macros, you institute habits or
behaviors in an effort to reduce habitu-
al energy consumption (or increase it if
using this approach while gaining). The
present study, while short term in na-
ture, indicates that eating larger break-
fasts might result in a higher total dai-
39
 Figure 4 Effects of high- and low-calorie meal intake at breakfast and dinner on resting energy expenditure
(mean ± SEM) in normal-weight men (n=16)

6.0
High-calorie breakfast / Low-calorie dinner
Low-calorie breakfast / High-calorie dinner
Resting energy expenditure

5.5

*** ***
5.0
(kJ/min)

4.5

4.0

3.5

0
07:00 11:00 15:00 19:00 23:00

Time of day
White circles = high-calorie breakfast combined with low-calorie dinner; Gray circles = low-calorie breakfast combined
with high-calorie dinner; Gray arrows = start of food intake; *** = p < .001

ly energy expenditure, with less hunger
and fewer cravings leading up to dinner.
While this was a calorie-controlled short
term intervention, these data suggest
that in the “real world,” over the long
term, such a feeding pattern might result
in a lower total energy intake and high-
er energy expenditure, and subsequently
one might settle at a lower body mass.
With that said, we must consider a few
things before we start hitting up break-
fast buffets and having chicken salads
with low-calorie dressing for dinner: 1)
this was not a longitudinal study; 2) the
participants were not resistance training;
3) these hunger and energy expenditure
data do not describe all of the variables
which influence energy consumption
and balance; 4) we have to consider how
these data fit with the broader literature.

40
Let’s address each point in order.
Not a Longitudinal Study
First, it is possible these short term
responses might not reflect longitudi-
nal outcomes. Look at Figure 4, which
shows the time course of resting energy
expenditure in the two conditions.
We don’t have energy expenditure data
for the full day; rather, we’ve got a few
hours after breakfast and a few hours af-
ter dinner for each condition. So, while
we can’t say whether or not one condi-
tion increased total daily energy expen-
diture compared to the other, we can
at least compare the breakfast and din-
ner responses in each. In Figure 3, the
group represented by white circles had
their large meal for breakfast, while the
group represented by gray circles had
their large meal for dinner. If you were
to lay these two sets of data points over-
top each other, they show nearly iden-
tical responses. The same goes for the
low-calorie meals; the group with gray
dots had the low-calorie meal for break-
fast, and the group with white dots had
the low-calorie meal for dinner. Again,
if we stack these data points on top of
each other, their values are strikingly
similar.
In the presently reviewed study, the
authors reported that energy expenditure
increases were much larger in the morn-
ing than the evening; however, it ap-
pears that this pattern was largely due to
a methodological choice. The meal-in-
duced increase in energy expenditure at
the breakfast meals was measured rel-
ative to pre-breakfast energy expendi-
ture, which is probably pretty close to
the basal metabolic rate. However, the
resting energy expenditure prior to din-
ner had not yet fallen all the way to base-
line (i.e., the pre-dinner resting energy
expenditure value was higher than the
pre-breakfast value). So, the relatively
smaller increases reported after dinner
meals were not due to lower post-meal
energy expenditure, but instead were
due to relatively higher resting energy
expenditure values before the dinner
meal.
To truly know if a higher total 24 hour
energy expenditure would show up and
persist in one meal pattern versus the
other, we’d have to do a longitudinal
study, or at least a multi-day study of
two groups instead of a single day cross-
over in either group. Habituating to any
meal distribution pattern probably in-
creases the thermic effect of food (7)
and improves the metabolic/satiety re-
sponse to meals (8). Therefore, it is en-
tirely conceivable that these differences
between conditions (which at least with
the data available, appear to only mani-
fest post-meal, not over the total period
measured) may have shrunk or possi-
bly disappeared if it was a longitudinal
comparison. Ultimately, we don’t know
if total energy expenditure would real-
ly be higher in a high-calorie breakfast
pattern; however the hunger differences
41
and the findings from a similar applied
longitudinal study (which I discuss lat-
er) suggest that the advantage might
persist and/or that the hunger differenc-
es persist and are sufficient to result in
better weight loss outcomes.
Participants Were Not Resistance
Training
Secondly, even if we take the findings
at face value and extrapolate them to
longitudinal outcomes, it’s not clear if
resistance training changes things. This
was a study of non-athletes, not required
to be active or exercising, who were not
training during the study. Importantly,
exercise and higher activity levels im-
prove the sensitivity of appetite control
through better compensatory adjust-
ments for energy content and density of
food (9). Additionally, resistance exer-
cise stimulates muscle protein synthesis
(10) and depletes intramuscular glyco-
gen and triglyceride (11), such that it
“partitions” dietary protein toward mus-
cle remodeling, and lipids and carbohy-
drate toward replenishing intramuscu-
lar stores when consumed in the many
hours following training. More pragmat-
ically, most people have jobs and other
obligations that limit their choices for
when they can train. Depending on the
type and volume of training you do, and
your individual response to pre-workout
nutrition, in some cases it may be advis-
able to consume a large portion of your
day’s food before and/or after training
regardless of what time of day you train.
Other Variables Influence Energy Con-
sumption and Balance
Regarding my third consideration, I am
sure many of you are successful “IFers.”
I’m referring to those of you who’ve had
success with the common, internet ver-
sion of time-restricted feeding colloqui-
ally called “intermittent fasting,” where
you skip breakfast, start your eight-hour
feeding window with a late lunch (of-
ten post-training), and go to bed after
a very large dinner. I apologize for this
article, as I’m sure many of you have
punched a hole through your drywall by
this point (it would probably be a bigger
hole if you weren’t fasted … I’m kid-
ding!). However, despite appearances,
this study doesn’t necessarily contradict
your experiences. Ultimately, there are
many factors that influence whether or
not a given nutrition strategy results in
an easier-to-achieve energy deficit, and/
or can act as a more sustainable lifestyle
to maintain a lean physique.
In the case of IF, I think the main reason
it produces success is that it counteracts
the logistical problems of modern life.
Many people work from morning to late
afternoon/early evening, and find work
to be a powerful appetite suppressant (or
at least an appetite distraction), subse-
quently having no issue not eating early
in the day – and as supported by the data
in this study – experience more hunger
in the evening, and find it more satiating
42
and less restrictive to have a larger eve-
ning meal. The participants in the pres-
ent study weren’t in a natural modern
environment (yes, I realize that’s an oxy-
moron). Rather, they were in a lab spe-
cifically participating in a study where
the focus was necessarily on the hunger
and satiety response to each meal. In the
real world, if you eat your AM meals at
work or on the way to work, you’re dis-
tracted, not paying attention to the meal,
and unlikely to self-regulate energy in-
take based on satiety. Indeed, there are
data to suggest that being more mindful
while eating results in better hunger con-
trol and reduced portions (12). Howev-
er, if you simply can’t be mindful during
your AM meals because of your work
schedule, any theoretical benefit for bi-
asing calories earlier in the day might be
overwhelmed by distracted eating lead-
ing to overconsumption. This is com-
pletely avoided if you simply don’t eat
in the morning, such as with IF. Equally
important is that this was not a time re-
stricted feeding study. The participants
ate over a 10-hour window, which is
close to a “normal” feeding period. In
research on time-restricted feeding, one
study reported that individuals going
from a > 14 hour feeding window to a
10-11 hour feeding window, regardless
of when the window was implemented,
lost weight and reported improved sleep
and energy levels (13). Meaning, cutting
a few hours off your daily eating window
might result in reduced caloric intake
and better circadian alignment. In anoth-
YOU MIGHT THINK IF IS
PERFECT FOR YOU BECAUSE
YOU’RE HUNGRY AT NIGHT,
BUT PERHAPS YOU WOULDN’T
DESIRE THAT SAME FEAST
HAD YOU NOT SET YOURSELF
UP FOR WANTING IT DUE TO
MINIMAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION
EARLIER IN THE DAY.
er study, an eight-hour feeding window
from 10am to 6pm resulted in mild ca-
loric restriction and weight loss, without
calorie counting in subjects with obesity
(14). Most relevant, in a study compar-
ing an early feeding window from 8am
to 5pm, to a delayed feeding window
from 12pm to 9pm (very similar to “IF”),
both windows resulted in improvements
in post-meal glucose control, although
the earlier feeding window also result-
ed in a lower mean fasting glucose (15).
The point is, a shorter feeding window
can independently reduce caloric intake,
improve metabolic responses to meals,
improve sleep quality, increase energy
levels, and control appetite, regardless
of what time of day it occurs. Add that
43

A PREVIOUS STUDY ALSO
REPORTED A THERMOGENIC
ADVANTAGE OF EARLY-DAY
FEEDING, AND IT’S ALSO BEEN
SUCCESSFULLY UTILIZED IN A
LONGITUDINAL APPLIED STUDY
WITH IMPRESSIVE RESULTS.
to the pragmatic benefits of a late feed-
ing window for people who work during
the day, and consider that almost every
IFer lifts weights (which, as discussed,
has beneficial effects on these same vari-
ables), and you can see how it would be
inappropriate to use the present study as
an indictment against late-shifted time
restricted feeding (AKA, IF).
With that said, on balance, I want to say
a few things even at the risk of further
drywall holes. First, it’s possible you’re
so hungry for that final meal on your IF
protocol because you skipped breakfast
and saved your calories for dinner. You
might think IF is perfect for you because
you’re hungry at night, but perhaps you
wouldn’t desire that same feast had you
not set yourself up for wanting it due
to minimal energy consumption earlier
in the day. Also, given the extant data
I cited in this section, an early-shift-
ed feeding window might be a bit bet-
ter physiologically than a late-shifted
feeding window. However, it may not
be worth the real-world logistical prob-
lems. My hypothesis though, which is
admittedly based on logic rather than
hard data, is that if you do want to fol-
low a time-restricted approach, perhaps
the best compromise between real-life
logistics and physiology would be an
IF-style late-shifted feeding window
(say noon to 8pm or 2pm to 10pm), but
simply with a larger lunch (first meal)
and a smaller dinner (last meal).
How These Data Fit with the Broader
Literature
Finally, before I wrap this up, we need
to consider whether this study stands
in opposition or in agreement with the
broader data. I’ve already covered some
pieces to the puzzle above, mentioning
that early time-restricted feeding win-
dows have slightly better outcomes than
late-shifted windows. Also, I’ve men-
tioned in a previous MASS article (here)
how eating large meals before bed can
negatively impact sleep quality and me-
tabolism and is associated with poorer
body composition (16, 17). But more
specific to this study, Morris and col-
leagues performed a randomized cross-
over trial in 2015 in which they also ob-
served a 44-50% lower thermic effect
of food in the evening compared to the
morning (18). In another study, the pres-
44
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
If cutting or fat loss maintenance is the goal, it’s worth trying a period of shifting
your calories more toward breakfast. It could potentially improve your energy levels,
increase your energy expenditure (maybe), reduce cravings, subsequently reduce
your habitual energy intake, and tip energy balance toward fat loss. If you’re someone
who is skeptical because you get really hungry at night, consider the possibility
that you might be hungry at night because you don’t eat much in the morning.
Also, consider the possibility that eating so much at night could be disrupting your
sleep, making you hungrier the following day, again, leading to nighttime hunger.
Remember, hunger was decreased after dinner, even in the low-calorie dinner
condition. That said, trial and error are key, and if you end up going to bed hungry,
that’s not good either (as I discussed last month here). So, your mileage may vary,
but it’s a potential chicken and egg scenario that’s at least worth exploring.

ent protocol was basically carried out
longitudinally in a weight loss trial (19).
Specifically, women with obesity lost a
lot more weight (−8.7 ± 1.4 vs. −3.6 ±
1.5 kg), reported greater hunger control,
reduced waist circumference to a greater
degree, and had a better metabolic pro-
file when consuming a 700kcal break-
fast, 500kcal lunch, and 200kcal dinner,
compared to a group that swapped the
energy content of breakfast and dinner
over a 12-week period. Meaning, a pre-
vious study also reported a thermogenic
advantage of early-day feeding, and it’s
also been successfully utilized in a lon-
gitudinal applied study with impressive
results.
In contrast, I’m aware of only two
studies with findings in opposition to the
present study, but they both have issues.
One study (20) found no significant dif-
ference in diet-induced thermogenesis
in the afternoon (2-3pm) versus morn-
ing (8-9am), but there were only one-
hour measurement periods, there wasn’t
a late evening comparison, and there
were also periods of fasting that weren’t
matched between conditions prior to the
measurements. The second study I’m
aware of actually found a higher diet-in-
duced thermogenesis at night (21), but it
assessed chronically ill, elderly hospital
patients fed through a nasogastric tube,
which I don’t think is representative of
what we’d expect in healthy individuals
eating whole food.
Next Steps
All in all, the results of this study are
pretty interesting, and considering the
other data on the topic, might be useful
as an intervention strategy. However,
what we lack is a longer term version of
this study to see if total energy expendi-
ture over the day would be persistently

45
higher. We also lack a replication of the
current study in resistance-training ath-
letes consuming a high protein diet, to
see if this would change things, or level
the playing field between conditions. I
suspect it would to some degree, but giv-
en the magnitude of differences, there
might still end up being a small advan-
tage in the larger breakfast condition.

46
References

1. Richter J, Herzog N, Janka S, Baumann T, Kistenmacher A, Oltmanns KM. Twice as High Di-
et-Induced Thermogenesis After Breakfast vs Dinner On High-Calorie as Well as Low-Calo-
rie Meals. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2020 Mar 1;105(3).
2. Helms ER, Aragon AA, Fitschen PJ. Evidence-based recommendations for natural body-
building contest preparation: nutrition and supplementation. Journal of the International So-
ciety of Sports Nutrition. 2014 Dec;11(1):20.
3. Schoenfeld BJ, Aragon AA, Krieger JW. The effect of protein timing on muscle strength and
hypertrophy: a meta-analysis. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition. 2013
Dec;10(1):53.
4. Goo RH, Moore JG, Greenberg E, Alazraki NP. Circadian variation in gastric emptying of
meals in humans. Gastroenterology. 1987 Sep 1;93(3):515-8.
5. Acheson KJ, Ravussin E, Wahren J, Jéquier E. Thermic effect of glucose in man. Obligatory
and facultative thermogenesis. Journal of Clinical Investigation. 1984 Nov;74(5):1572.
6. Rakshit K, Qian J, Colwell CS, Matveyenko AV. The islet circadian clock: entrainment
mechanisms, function and role in glucose homeostasis. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.
2015 Sep;17:115-22.
7. Farshchi HR, Taylor MA, Macdonald IA. Decreased thermic effect of food after an irregular
compared with a regular meal pattern in healthy lean women. International Journal of Obe-
sity. 2004 May;28(5):653-60.
8. Farshchi HR, Taylor MA, Macdonald IA. Regular meal frequency creates more appropriate
insulin sensitivity and lipid profiles compared with irregular meal frequency in healthy lean
women. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2004 Jul;58(7):1071.
9. Dorling J, Broom DR, Burns SF, Clayton DJ, Deighton K, James LJ, King JA, Miyashita M,
Thackray AE, Batterham RL, Stensel DJ. Acute and Chronic Effects of Exercise on Appetite,
Energy Intake, and Appetite-Related Hormones: The Modulating Effect of Adiposity, Sex,
and Habitual Physical Activity. Nutrients. 2018 Sep;10(9).
10. Phillips SM, Tipton KD, Aarsland A, Wolf SE, Wolfe RR. Mixed muscle protein synthesis
and breakdown after resistance exercise in humans. The American Journal of Physiology.
1997 Jul;273(1 Pt 1):E99.
11. Essén-Gustavsson B, Tesch PA. Glycogen and triglyceride utilization in relation to muscle
metabolic characteristics in men performing heavy-resistance exercise. European Journal of
Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology. 1990;61(1-2):5.
12. Beshara M, Hutchinson AD, Wilson C. Does mindfulness matter? Everyday mindfulness,
mindful eating and self-reported serving size of energy dense foods among a sample of
South Australian adults. Appetite. 2013 Aug 1;67:25-9.
13. Gill S, Panda S. A smartphone app reveals erratic diurnal eating patterns in humans that can
be modulated for health benefits. Cell Metabolism. 2015 Nov 3;22(5):789-98.

47
14. Gabel K, Hoddy KK, Haggerty N, Song J, Kroeger CM, Trepanowski JF, Panda S, Varady
KA. Effects of 8-hour time restricted feeding on body weight and metabolic disease risk
factors in obese adults: A pilot study. Nutrition and Healthy Aging. 2018 Jan 1;4(4):345-53.
15. Hutchison AT, Regmi P, Manoogian EN, Fleischer JG, Wittert GA, Panda S, Heilbronn LK.
Time-restricted feeding improves glucose tolerance in men at risk for type 2 diabetes: a ran-
domized crossover trial. Obesity. 2019 May;27(5):724-32.
16. Crispim CA, Zimberg IZ, dos Reis BG, Diniz RM, Tufik S, de Mello MT. Relationship be-
tween food intake and sleep pattern in healthy individuals. Journal of Clinical Sleep Medi-
cine. 2011 Dec 15;7(6):659-64.
17. Kinsey AW, Ormsbee MJ. The health impact of nighttime eating: old and new perspectives.
Nutrients. 2015 Apr;7(4):2648-62.
18. Morris CJ, Garcia JI, Myers S, Yang JN, Trienekens N, Scheer FA. The human circadian
system has a dominating role in causing the morning/evening difference in diet-induced
thermogenesis. Obesity. 2015 Oct;23(10):2053-8
19. Jakubowicz D, Barnea M, Wainstein J, Froy O. High caloric intake at breakfast vs. din-
ner differentially influences weight loss of overweight and obese women. Obesity. 2013
Dec;21(12):2504-12.
20. Weststrate JA, Weys PJ, Poortvliet EJ, Deurenberg P, Hautvast JG. Diurnal variation in
postabsorptive resting metabolic rate and diet-induced thermogenesis. The American Jour-
nal of Clinical Nutrition. 1989 Nov;50(5):908.
21. Leuck M, Levandovski R, Harb A, Quiles C, Hidalgo MP. Circadian rhythm of energy
expenditure and oxygen consumption. Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. 2014
Feb;38(2):263-8.

48
Study Reviewed: The Effects of Asparagus Racemosus Supplementation Plus 8 Weeks
of Resistance Training on Muscular Strength and Endurance. Anders et al. (2020)

Asparagus Racemosus Supplementation:

Big Effects on Strength, but a Small
Degree of Confidence
BY E RI C T RE X LE R

A new study found that asparagus racemosus supplementation increased

bench press 1RM and strength endurance to a pretty impressive degree.
However, there are some really important details to consider before we
rush to buy a lifetime supply. Read on to find out if asparagus racemosus
supplementation is worth considering.

49
 KEY POINTS
1. In the current study (1), college-aged males were randomly assigned to
supplement with asparagus racemosus (A. racemosus; 500mg/day) or placebo
during an eight-week bench press training program involving two sets of bench
press to failure, three times per week.
2. Supplementation increased bench press 1RM (14.3 ± 7.7% vs. 7.8 ± 4.5%; p
= 0.048) and bench press repetitions to failure with 70% of 1RM (17.5 ± 2.2
repetitions vs. 15.2 ± 2.2 repetitions; p = 0.044), but it looks like the effects were
largely driven by two particularly large responses in the training group, and a
general disparity of baseline strength and training status between groups.
3. Given these considerations, and the lack of a clear ergogenic mechanism in the
current study, it seems premature to recommend A. racemosus supplementation.
In the meantime, anyone hoping to enhance their performance or recovery via the
authors’ proposed mechanism of action might opt for solutions with more evidence
behind them, such as well-formulated juices and extracts from pomegranate, tart
cherry, watermelon, and beets, among others.

A sparagus racemosus (A. racemo-

sus) is not exactly a household
name in the world of sports sup-
plements, but it’s far from “new.” The
plant, which is totally different from the
asparagus we would typically eat, grows
throughout Asia, Australia, and Africa,
and is one of the over 1,200 plants that
have been used in Ayurvedic formula-
tions (1). Ayurveda is an ancient medical
tradition consisting of eight divisions of
healing; while the origin of Ayurveda
dates back thousands of years, it is still
practiced today. As interest in alterna-
tive medicine increases in many western
cultures, Ayurvedic plants have become
increasingly common and can most like-
ly be found all throughout your neigh-
borhood supplement store. Ayurvedic
plants have cultural and religious signif-
icance, so I want to be extremely clear
that this article is about bench pressing. I
certainly don’t intend to promote or dis-
respect any particular tradition, culture,
or religion, so it’s critical to interpret
this article as exactly what it is: a total-
ly objective evaluation of the effects of
A. racemosus supplementation on bench
press performance, with complete sep-
aration from any cultural or religious
contexts.
In the current study (1), the authors
evaluated the effects of A. racemosus
supplementation in comparison to a
placebo. Participants either consumed
a placebo or 500mg/day of A. racemo-
sus, and completed two sets of bench
press, three times per week throughout
the eight-week intervention. Results in-
dicated that A. racemosus supplementa-

50
 Table 1 Subject characteristics
Group Age (years)
A. racemosus 20.1 ± 1.2
Placebo 20.7 ± 1.1
Note: There were no significant (p > 0.05) pre-training differences between the A. racemosus and placebo groups for age, height, or
body mass. Futhermore, there were no pre-training versus post-training changes in body mass for the A. racemosus or placebo groups
tion increased bench press 1RM (14.3
± 7.7% vs. 7.8 ± 4.5%; p = 0.048) and
bench press repetitions to failure with
70% of 1RM (17.5 ± 2.2 repetitions vs.
15.2 ± 2.2 repetitions; p = 0.044) to a
greater degree than the placebo sup-
plement. In addition, more individuals
within the supplement group achieved
“real” increases (after accounting for
measurement error) in bench press 1RM
(80% versus 50%) and bench press rep-
etitions to failure (80% versus 38%) in
comparison to the placebo group. Hav-
ing said that, I maintain some serious
skepticism about whether or not A. rac-
emosus supplementation is truly an ef-
fective supplement. Read on to find out
why.
Purpose and Hypotheses
Purpose
The purpose of the current study was
“to examine the ergogenic efficacy of
supplementation with 500mg/day of A.
racemosus during bench press training.”
Pre-training Post-training
Height (cm) body mass (kg) body mass (kg)
180.7 ± 6.3 88.2 ± 12.8 88.6 ± 13.0
178.6 ± 5.5 81.4 ± 11.0 80.5 ± 11.6
Hypotheses
The authors hypothesized that “dai-
ly supplementation with A. racemosus
would improve measures of muscular
strength and endurance compared to
placebo.”
Subjects and Methods
Subjects
Authors of the current study recruit-
ed 26 male participants, whose charac-
teristics are presented in Table 1. The
participants were college-aged folks
with no known medical conditions that
would’ve influenced the study results,
and they reported no use of any medica-
tions, supplements, or dietary programs
that would’ve been problematic within
the month prior to participation. No-
tably, the training status requirements
were quite broad; the paper states that
subjects were recreationally trained
and “had previously participated in re-
sistance training exercise.” That’s ex-
ceptionally vague. As we’ll see, this
resulted in a great deal of variability in
51
baseline strength, and it ended up being
pretty important.
Methods
In order to facilitate interpretation of
the results, the researchers first deter-
mined their test-retest reliability for
bench press 1RM and repetitions to fail-
ure. To do so, 10 subjects reported to the
lab on two separate days to go through
the bench press testing protocol. After
warming up, bench press 1RM was de-
termined via 3-5 maximal attempts. Af-
ter 10 minutes of rest, participants com-
pleted a single set to failure with 70% of
their 1RM. Between 2-7 days later, the
participants returned and completed the
same protocol again.
For the supplement intervention, sub-
jects were randomly assigned to the sup-
plement group (n = 10) or placebo group
(n = 8). It sounds like two of the subjects
who completed the test-retest reliability
testing also participated in the supple-
ment intervention (one in each group).
Before the first testing visit, participants
went through a familiarization visit to
perform some submaximal bench press-
ing (notably, the familiarization visit did
not include the actual test protocol). Af-
ter that, subjects underwent pre-testing
using the test protocol described above,
then began their supplementation peri-
od. Subjects in the supplement group
consumed two 250mg capsules of A.
racemosus once per day (500mg total),
while the placebo group consumed iden-
tical capsules filled with cellulose. They
did not specify the time of day at which
supplements were consumed; unfortu-
nately, that’s a limitation we’ll just have
to live with.
Throughout the eight-week supple-
mentation period, subjects complet-
ed three supervised training visits per
week. The training visits began with a
warmup, followed by two sets of bench
press to failure using 80% of their initial
1RM, with two minutes of rest between
sets. If the participant was able to com-
plete more than eight reps on their sec-
ond set, the load was increased by 2.3kg
at the next visit. After eight weeks, par-
ticipants returned for their post-testing
visit. Bench press 1RM was re-tested,
along with their maximal repetitions
to failure test using 70% of their initial
(pre-test) 1RM.
Statistics
I don’t like to include a statistical meth-
ods section unless totally necessary, but
the authors analyzed their bench press
data a few different ways. For 1RM and
repetitions to failure, they used analysis
of covariance (ANCOVA), which com-
pares post-test values after adjusting for
baseline (pre-test) differences between
the two groups. Training load was doc-
umented throughout the program, and
analyzed via regression. They also as-
sessed individual responses using some-
thing called the “minimal difference.”
Put simply, the minimal difference is
52
 Figure 1 Individual values for pre-training and post-training bench
press repetitions to failure

20

18
Group
Repetitions to failure

A. racemosus
16 Placebo

14

12

10

Pre Post

Adjusted post-training repetitions to failure for the A. racemosus group was greater than the placebo group (p = 0.044).
As noted by the red circles, two participants in the A. racemosus group had notably larger increases than all other participants.

used to distinguish between “real” ef-

fects and small differences that could be
due to simple measurement error. If you
weigh yourself every day, this is a really
intuitive concept; of course you expect
the number to fluctuate daily by a pound
or two depending on your body size, but
once you start seeing numbers that are
a few pounds above or below normal,
you start believing a “real” change has
occurred.
Findings
Let’s start with the basic stuff: no ad-
verse events were reported, the subjects
reported that they consumed all of their
supplements, and the subjects completed
all of their workouts. In addition, there
were no statistically significant changes
in dietary variables (calorie, carbohy-
drate, fat, and protein intakes) between
groups or over time.
For bench press repetitions to fail-
ure, the supplement group increased

53
 Figure 2 Individual values for pre-training and post-training bench press 1RM

150

Group
125
A. racemosus

Placebo
1RM (kg)

100

75

50

Pre Post

Percent change (%) in 1RM bench press for the A. racemosus group was greater than the placebo group (p = 0.048).
As noted in Figure 1, the two circled participants had substantially larger increases in repetitions to failure than all other participants

from 13.6 ± 2.1 reps to 17.5 ± 2.3 reps, creased reps to failure by at least 1.9 in
while the placebo group increased from the placebo group. Individual responses
13.5 ± 1.6 reps to 15.1 ± 2.3 reps. This are presented in Figure 1.
change was statistically significant (p = For bench press 1RM, the supplement
0.044) based on the ANCOVA results, group increased from 90.0 ± 21.7kg
but results were not significant when to 101.6 ± 18.9kg, while the placebo
expressed as percent change (+33.2 ± group increased from 100.4 ± 24.6kg to
27.4% versus +12.2 ± 11.1%). Based 108.3 ± 26.9kg. This difference between
on the minimal difference statistic, a groups was not statistically significant
change of 1.9 repetitions was consid- (p = 0.196) based on the ANCOVA re-
ered to be “real.” More subjects in the sults, but the groups were significant-
supplement group (80%) had changes ly different when expressed as percent
of at least 1.9 reps, while only 38% in- change (+14.3 ± 7.7% versus +7.8 ±

54
 Figure 3 Regression analyses of the log-transformed training loads for the
A. racemosus (AR) group and the placebo group

2.30

2.25
Training load

2.20
AR* = 0.004 (visit) + 2.176
Placebo = 0.002 (visit) + 2.234

2.15
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24

Training visit
* = the slope coefficient for the A. racemosus group was significantly (p < 0.001) greater than the placebo group.

4.5%, p = 0.048). Based on the minimal
difference statistic, a change of 7.01kg
was considered to be “real.” Most sub-
jects in the supplement group (80%) had
changes of 7.01kg or greater, while only
50% in the placebo group exceeded the
7.01kg threshold. Individual responses
are presented in Figure 2.
Results of the regression analysis in-
dicated that the supplement group was
able to increase training loads at a more
rapid rate than the placebo group, as in-
dicated by a greater slope (slope = 0.004
± 0.0005 versus 0.002 ± 0.0002, p <
0.001). These results are presented in
Figure 3.
Interpretation
I’ll be honest; when I first glanced at
the results of this study, I was pretty
shocked by the size of the effects report-
ed. In the science world, shock is almost
immediately followed by skepticism.

55
This is going to be one of those rare cir-
cumstances when I thank the authors for
a thorough presentation of their results,
only to conclude that their results prob-
ably don’t mean much for the MASS
readership. Sometimes you find your-
self in a strange place where you largely
disregard the findings of a study, even
though nobody did anything wrong,
there are no glaring mistakes, and there
is no underlying conspiracy theory. So,
let’s take a deeper dive into these results.
The authors did two things that real-
ly help us critically interpret the results,
so I want to commend them for taking
two extra, but very critical steps: They
reported individual results, and they re-
ported their test-retest reliability. The
individual reps to failure results tell us a
story that the group means fail to convey.
If you look at Figure 1, you’ll notice that
the values from two specific subjects are
identified in red circles. These two sub-
jects are singled out because their results
are, put simply, atypical. In the entire
placebo group, all subjects increased
their repetitions completed by anywhere
from 0 to 4. I will say, it’s pretty shock-
ing that 5 of 8 increased by 1 rep or few-
er, considering that the reliability testing
showed an increase of 0.6 reps just by
coming back a few days later and taking
another crack at it. I know it was only
two sets per training session, but I’m
still kind of shocked to see that doing
reps to failure three times per week, for
eight weeks, led to improvements of 1
rep or fewer for 62.5% of the placebo
group. Based on the minimal difference
value of 1.9 repetitions, which was de-
termined from their test-retest reliabil-
ity information, this means that 62.5%
of the placebo group essentially did not
observe a training effect whatsoever.
Looking at the supplement group, al-
most all of the subjects had increases of
1-5 reps from pre-testing to post-testing.
However, the two circled participants
(Figure 1) increased by 8-9 repetitions,
which is astounding. I know they’re in-
dividual data points, so they shouldn’t
be over-interpreted, but that is a very,
very large number. If you tell me that a
supplement helps you crank out an ex-
tra rep or two, I’d say that’s pretty cool.
If it’s 2-3 extra reps, now we’re talking
about a supplement that is bound to
make a name for itself, and is right up to
the short list of strength supplement roy-
alty. If you tell me a supplement helps
you crank out 19 reps instead of 10, I’m
asking about 50 follow-up questions.
In the case of this particular paper, the
reporting of individual data points helps
us get to the bottom of it. The range of
baseline strength in this study was pretty
large; the highest baseline bench press
value was 142.9kg (315lbs), and the
lowest was 52.2kg (115lbs). Generally
speaking, it’s going to be hard to sum-
marize group-level responses to just
about any training stimulus when we’ve
got that much heterogeneity in our sam-
ple. As it turns out, those two partic-
56
ipants with atypically large increases
had the lowest and third-lowest base-
line 1RMs. While we shouldn’t expect a
perfect relationship in which the lowest
baseline 1RMs are associated with the
largest training adaptations, in perfect
sequential order, it seems quite fair to
speculate that those enormous increas-
es were related to relatively low training
status at baseline, rather than an aston-
ishingly effective dietary supplement. If
we exclude those two subjects from the
analysis and recalculate, we find that the
difference between groups drops from
2.3 to 1.2 reps, and the p-value jumps
from 0.04 to 0.22. If you were to sug-
gest that I’m just cherry-picking here,
you wouldn’t necessarily be wrong. But
if we see something that looks atypical
(huge increase for two subjects), we
have a pretty intuitive explanation for it
that is supported by the evidence (ini-
tial training status), and removing them
yields results that are much more con-
gruent with our expectations based on
the overall body of dietary supplemen-
tation literature, we might want to con-
sider picking those particular cherries.
It’s also hard to interpret the 1RM re-
sults without carefully considering the
impact of training status. One of the first
things that jumped out to me was the
fact that after eight weeks of training,
the mean 1RM in the supplement group
had just barely surpassed the baseline
1RM value of the placebo group. I went
ahead and reconstructed the analysis,
and I found that there was actually a sig-
nificant interaction between the covari-
ate (pre-test 1RM) and the independent
variable (group), which is important for
two reasons. First, the ANCOVA proce-
dure assumes that there is no such inter-
action; when one is present, you’ve got
a problem that requires either changing
your analysis, or shining a huge spot-
light on that interaction and interpreting
it with added caution. Second, it implies
that there’s something too different be-
tween these groups to simply “adjust it
away” and forget about it without some
careful consideration. This apparent
complication related to training status
is further supported by the training load
data in Figure 3; it seems to tell a story
in which the supplement group began
the intervention with a generally low-
er training status, but was also able to
bump up training loads more rapidly as
a result. In terms of the raw 1RM chang-
es, the placebo group increased by 7.9
± 4.7kg, while the supplement group
increased by 11.6 ± 5.1kg. This isn’t a
particularly notable divergence between
groups, especially when you consider
that the supplement group started with
a lower 1RM and was likely “catching
up” to the placebo group. As a result,
the only 1RM analysis that was statis-
tically significant was observed when
expressed as a percentage, because this
essentially doubles the benefit of start-
ing a trial with lower strength: you have
more ground to gain, you’re more likely
to respond well to a fairly modest train-
57
ing stimulus, and any raw change will
be inherently larger when scaled to a
smaller initial 1RM.
Another reason for my skepticism
pertains to the purported mechanism of
action. The authors propose that A. rac-
emosus enhanced bench press strength
and muscular endurance due to its an-
tioxidant properties, but I’m not sold
on that mechanism. The only two ways
I can see an ergogenic effect stem-
ming from these antioxidant properties
would be that acute performance en-
hancement allowed for greater training
volume (which compounded over time
and yielded better training adaptations),
or that acute recovery enhancement
from oxidative stress reduction allowed
for better performance at the subse-
quent training session (which allowed
for greater training volume, and again
compounded over time to yield better
training adaptations). The antioxidant
content of A. racemosus is notable but
doesn’t appear to be astronomically high
(2), and the limited research available
doesn’t seem to indicate that its antioxi-
dant effects are more notable, or even as
notable, as more common antioxidants
like vitamin C (3). This is important,
because a recent meta-analysis (4) con-
cluded that vitamin C fails to meaning-
fully enhance adaptations to resistance
training, and previous research has doc-
umented mixed and fairly underwhelm-
ing evidence to suggest that vitamin C
meaningfully enhances recovery from
strenuous exercise (5). Plus, I am pretty
skeptical that excessive oxidative stress
was creating a major recovery deficit for
the placebo group in the current study,
which featured a training program con-
sisting of six total sets per week.
I’ve expressed skepticism several
times in this article, so I want to clarify
exactly what I am skeptical about. I’m
skeptical that these results reflect the av-
erage result we would get if we repli-
cated the study a hundred or a thousand
times; that is, I don’t think the effects
we see here represent the “typical” ef-
fect we can expect from A. racemosus
supplementation. I am also skeptical
that any such effect is dictated by the
ability of A. racemosus to directly exert
antioxidant effects, as more potent an-
tioxidants with direct, straightforward
antioxidant effects fail to produce these
kinds of results. Finally, I suspect that
heterogeneity of baseline strength and
training status played an important role
in driving the observed results.
It’s important to note that I’m defi-
nitely not necessarily asserting that A.
racemosus cannot be ergogenic. For ex-
ample, A. racemosus might be like other
plant-derived antioxidant sources that
work through mechanisms other than
direct scavenging of reactive oxygen
species, such as nuclear factor erythroid
2–related factor 2 (Nrf2) activation (6).
It could also theoretically enhance per-
formance via mechanisms involving its
saponin content (2), some of the fairly
58
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
While the results of the current study are certainly promising, I am a bit skeptical that
they will be repeatable in other samples; more importantly, I am a bit skeptical that
they will generalize to MASS readers. The numbers look great, but I suspect that
baseline strength, baseline training status, and a couple of atypically large responses
played a big role in the results, and I struggle to see how the proposed mechanism
would really drive the observed effects in this particular study. I’m personally not
ready to recommend A. racemosus, but I’d love for future research to prove me
wrong about that. In the meantime, anyone hoping to enhance their performance
or recovery via plant-based sources of antioxidants might opt for solutions with
more evidence behind them, such as well-formulated juices and extracts from
pomegranate, tart cherry, watermelon, and beets, among others.

novel chemical compounds that have
previously been isolated and identified
from A. racemosus (7), or any number
of mechanisms that we have yet to un-
cover. One of the challenges studying an
herb like this is the fact that it contains
such a long list of potentially bioactive
compounds, which could all theoretical-
ly exert physiologically meaningful ef-
fects (7). For the time being, I just don’t
think the results from the current study
are convincing enough to get me excit-
ed about A. racemosus supplementation
enhancing strength via the proposed
mechanism. It’s quite possible that the
impressive findings from the current
study will be replicated, which would
result in me readily changing my mind.
In the meantime, people interested in
enhancing their performance or recov-
ery via plant-based sources of antioxi-
dants might opt for solutions with more
research supporting modest recovery
benefits, or solutions that contain other
ergogenic ingredients aside from anti-
oxidant content. Potential alternatives
would include well-formulated juic-
es and extracts from pomegranate, tart
cherry, watermelon, and beets, among
others.
Next Steps
Like I said earlier, I’m open to the idea
that these results truly represent a gener-
alizable, repeatable benefit from A. rac-
emosus supplementation. But in order
for me to really be sold on the idea, I’d
love to see a simple replication attempt
of the current design. However, I’m
hopeful that future studies on the topic
will take some extra steps to enhance
the likelihood of forming supplemen-
tation groups that are relatively equiv-
alent in terms of strength and training
status, and to reduce the likelihood that
one or two atypical responses can pull

59
the group mean up or down. Practical
ways to do that would include recruiting
larger samples, setting more restrictive
inclusion/exclusion criteria, and poten-
tially using a “matched pairs” design,
in which you could match up partici-
pants with approximately equal baseline
strength, then randomly assign them to
separate groups.

60
References

1. Anders JPV, Keller JL, Smith CM, Hill EC, Housh TJ, Schmidt RJ, et al. The Effects of
Asparagus Racemosus Supplementation Plus 8 Weeks of Resistance Training on Muscular
Strength and Endurance. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol. 2020 Mar;5(1):4.
2. Visavadiya NP, Narasimhacharya AVRL. Asparagus Root Regulates Cholesterol Metabo-
lism and Improves Antioxidant Status in Hypercholesteremic Rats. Evid-Based Complement
Altern Med ECAM. 2009 Jun;6(2):219–26.
3. Kongkaneramit L, Witoonsaridsilp W, Peungvicha P, Ingkaninan K, Waranuch N, Sarisuta
N. Antioxidant activity and antiapoptotic effect of Asparagus racemosus root extracts in hu-
man lung epithelial H460 cells. Exp Ther Med. 2011;2(1):143–8.
4. Clifford T, Jeffries O, Stevenson EJ, Davies KAB. The effects of vitamin C and E on exer-
cise-induced physiological adaptations: a systematic review and Meta-analysis of random-
ized controlled trials. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2019 Dec 18;1–11.
5. Sousa M, Teixeira VH, Soares J. Dietary strategies to recover from exercise-induced muscle
damage. Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2014 Mar;65(2):151–63.
6. Ismaeel A, Holmes M, Papoutsi E, Panton L, Koutakis P. Resistance Training, Antiox-
idant Status, and Antioxidant Supplementation. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2019 Sep
1;29(5):539–47.
7. Bopana N, Saxena S. Asparagus racemosus--ethnopharmacological evaluation and conser-
vation needs. J Ethnopharmacol. 2007 Mar 1;110(1):1–15.

61
 Study Reviewed: Muscle Fiber Typology Substantially Influences Time to Recover
from High-Intensity Exercise. Lievens et al. (2020)

The Tortoise and the Hare: People

With More Fast Twitch Fibers
Fatigue Faster and Recover Slower
BY G RE G NUC KO LS

Fast twitch muscle fibers can contract more powerfully and grow more
following resistance training, but they have their drawbacks. Namely, they
fatigue faster and to a greater extent than slow twitch fibers, and people
with a larger proportion of fast twitch fibers may take longer to recover
from training.

62
 KEY POINTS
1. The researchers recruited two groups of subjects who either had a substantially
larger proportion of type I fibers than average, or a substantially larger proportion
of type II fibers than average.
2. Subjects performed three Wingate tests (a maximal anaerobic cycling test) with
four minutes of rest between tests.
3. The subjects with a higher proportion of type II fibers experienced a ~50% larger
decrease in power from the beginning of test 1 to the end of test 3. Following the
test, maximal quadriceps strength returned to baseline in just 20 minutes in the
type I-dominant group, while it hadn’t yet returned to baseline after 5 hours in the
type II-dominant group.
4. Fiber type distributions may have a meaningful impact on how you plan your
training, including the length of rest intervals you should take, whether (or how
often) you should go to failure, and how long you may need to recover between
sessions.

M
uscle fibers are classically split
into two general categories:
“slow twitch” type I fibers, and
“fast twitch” type II fibers. Type I “slow
twitch” fibers, as the name implies, can’t
contract with as much power, but they’re
more fatigue-resistant. Type II fibers, on
the other hand, contract much more pow-
erfully, but are more prone to fatigue.
There’s some evidence that fiber type
differences influence how quickly peo-
ple fatigue during resistance training, but
there’s virtually no research on how fiber
type distribution affects recovery from
training. The presently reviewed study
expands the body of literature indicating
that people with a larger proportion of
type II fibers fatigue more quickly during
anaerobic exercise, and is the first study
to examine the effects of fiber type distri-
bution on recovery over time scales last-
ing more than a few minutes.
In the presently reviewed study (1),
subjects with a disproportionately high
percentage of type I or type II fibers were
split into two groups according to fiber
type predominance, and completed three
Wingate tests (maximal anaerobic cy-
cling tests) with four minutes between
tests. Maximal isometric quadriceps
strength was monitored for five hours
following the testing bout. The subjects
with more type II fibers experienced a
larger decrease in cycling power across
the three Wingate tests (-61% vs. -41%),
and their quadriceps strength was still be-
low baseline at five hours post-training,
whereas strength recovered in the type
I-dominant subjects in just 20 minutes.
Now that we know fiber types influence

63
both fatigue and recovery rates, what can
we do about it?
Purpose and Hypotheses
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to inves-
tigate the effects of fiber types on acute
fatigue and recovery following intense
anaerobic exercise.
Hypotheses
The authors hypothesized that subjects
with a greater proportion of type II fi-
bers would experience greater fatigue
and slower recovery than subjects with
a greater proportion of type I fibers.
Subjects and Methods
Subjects
20 young males participated in this
study. Half had a greater-than-average
proportion of type II fibers, and half had
a greater-than-average proportion of
type I fibers. All subjects played recre-
ational sports for 3-6 hours per week.
Experimental Design
First off, it’s important to understand
how the subjects were selected. The re-
searchers used a technique called pro-
ton magnetic resonance spectrosco-
py on the subjects’ gastrocnemii. This
technique estimates muscle carnosine
(a dipeptide concentrated in muscle)
content, in order to non-invasively esti-
mate the prospective subjects’ fiber type
composition, since carnosine content is
higher in type II muscle fibers (2). The
researchers screened 32 subjects and
only enrolled the 20 subjects with mus-
cle carnosine concentrations >0.5 stan-
dard deviations above or below the av-
erages established in previous research
from the same lab.
Once the subjects were enrolled, they
started with a familiarization session
where baseline anthropometric mea-
surements were taken, and the subjects
did a dry run of the testing protocol,
which consisted of three Wingate tests
with four minutes of rest between Win-
gates.
The actual testing session took place
at least one week after the familiariza-
tion session. Subjects consumed a stan-
dardized meal two hours before the fa-
tigue protocol, and underwent tests of
neuromuscular performance and fatigue
an hour before the fatigue protocol (the
researchers did a lot of neuromuscular
assessments, but I’m primarily going
to focus on maximal knee extension
torque). The fatigue protocol consisted,
again, of three Wingate tests (against a
resistance of 0.85% of body mass for 30
seconds) interspersed with four minutes
of rest. Tests of neuromuscular perfor-
mance and fatigue were administered
10, 20, 30, 50, 80, 120, and 300 min-
utes post-exercise to assess recovery.
64
Figure 1

Muscle typology screening:

32 recreational athletes:

Slow Twitch

Intermediate

Fast Twitch

maximal voluntary contraction

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Z-score carnosine in gastrocnemius
Exclusion
· Z-score > -0.5 and < 0.5 =
Intermediate typology (n=12)
Inclusion
· Z-score < -0.5 = slow typology (n=10)
· Z-score > 0.5 = fast typology (n=10)

Familiarization:
· Maximal M-wave
· 3 repeated Wingate tests
· Maximal voluntary contraction (MVC)
and electrical stimulation protocol

Schematic timeline of study design:

-1h -10’ 0’ 10’ 20’ 30’ 50’ 80’ 120’ 300’

Meal Sugar drink Meal

-2h 25’ 140’

Maximal voluntary contraction

(MVC) and electrical Capillary blood 3 repeated Wingate tests
stimulation protocol

65
Blood draws were performed before
the start of the fatigue protocol, be-
tween Wingate tests (three minutes
into the rest periods), and at all re-
covery assessment time points up to
120 minutes post-exercise to measure
blood lactate levels and blood pH. A
carbohydrate-based recovery beverage
was provided to subjects 25 minutes
post-exercise, and another standard-
ized meal was provided 140 minutes
post-exercise.
Findings
The subjects with a higher proportion
of fast twitch fibers were heavier, had
greater lean body mass, greater quad
circumference, and higher maximal
knee extension torque. However, the
total work completed during the three
Wingate tests was similar between
groups.
During the three Wingate tests, the
type II group experienced greater fa-
tigue during each test, and thus, their
total decrease in power (from the start
of the first Wingate to the end of the
last Wingate) was significantly larger
than the type I group (-61% vs. -41%;
p < 0.001). The total decrease in power
across the three tests was significantly
correlated with baseline muscle car-
nosine z-scores (r = 0.677; p = 0.001).
The type II group experienced a sig-
nificantly larger decrease than the type
I group in maximal knee extension
torque 10 minutes after the last Win-
gate (-25% vs. -7%; p = 0.001). This
decrease in knee extension torque was
also correlated with baseline mus-
cle carnosine z-scores (p = 0.600; p =
0.005). By 20 minutes post-exercise,
maximal knee extension torque was
no longer significantly different from
baseline in the type I group. Howev-
er, maximal knee extension torque
was still significantly depressed below
baseline levels five hours post-training
in the type II group. The neuromuscu-
lar testing indicated that neither group
experienced significant central fatigue
(inability to generate motor impulses
in the brain and transmit them to the
muscles), so the difference in recovery
was driven by greater local muscular
fatigue and slower recovery from lo-
cal fatigue in the fast twitch group (in-
ability to convert motor impulses into
forceful contractions).
Blood lactate tended to be a bit high-
er in the type II group (the differences
were statistically significant at some
time points but not others), but the
differences were never particularly
large: ~2-2.5mmol/L. Blood pH de-
creased following the Wingates in both
groups, but it was significantly lower
in the type II group following each of
the three Wingates. Blood pH also in-
creased back to baseline faster in the
type I group (80 minutes) than the type
II group (2 hours).
66
Table 1 Findings

Type I group Type II group p-value

Anthropometry

Age (y) 23.8 ± 3.05 22.8 ± 3.01 0.470

Height (cm) 177 ± 4.36 182 ± 9.88 0.131

Weight (kg) 68.9 ± 2.97 78.9 ± 8.18 0.004*

Fat (%) 12.6 ± 2.22 14.7 ± 2.40 0.059

Lean body mass (kg) 61.2 ± 2.07 67.3 ± 6.68 0.009*

Circumference quad (cm) 52.9 ± 2.47 56.6 ± 2.54 0.004*

Skinfold quad (mm) 7.98 ± 1.76 7.54 ± 2.73 0.674

Corrected circumference
50.4 ± 2.37 54.2 ± 2.33 0.002*
quad (cm)

Exercise performance during the incremental test

Peak power (W/kg) 5.77 ± 0.711 5.34 ± 0.182 0.092

Peak power (W) 398 ± 56.9 422 ± 49.2 0.338

VO2max (ml/min/kg) 58.4 ± 7.40 53.0 ± 3.12 0.052

VO2max (ml/min) 4287 ± 964 4757 ± 1010 0.301

Gas exchange threshold

2412 ± 498 2488 ± 402 0.463
(ml/min)

Respiratory compensation
3715 ± 571 3897 ± 494 0.145
point (ml/min)

Maximal heart rate (bpm) 183 ± 9.85 196 ± 7.28 0.004*

Muscle typology

Muscle carnosine in
-1.43 ± 0.496 1.29 ± 0.595 < 0.001*
Gastro (Z-score

67
 Figure 2 Performance and fatigue during repeated Wingate tests

non significant
Type I group
14
Type II group 250
*
12 * -41%

Total work done (Joule/kg)

200
10
Power (Watt/kg)

8 * 150

6
100
* *
4 * *
* -61%
50
2
30 sec all-out 4’ rest 30 sec all-out 4’ rest 30 sec all-out
0 0
Time Type I group Type II group

* = a significant (p < 0.05) difference between groups

lished. And by “poorly characterized,”

Interpretation I mean that prior research had only in-
This study didn’t break any brand new vestigated strength recovery for a grand
ground, but it supports and expands on total of five minutes following fatiguing
prior research. exercise (7, 8). By tracking recovery
Prior studies have found that people for up to five hours post-training, this
with a higher proportion of type II fibers study was the first to show that fatigue
fatigue faster during sustained isomet- truly lingers for longer in people with a
ric contractions (3), high-rep isokinetic higher proportion of type II fibers. Hav-
knee extensions (4, 5), and a minute of ing knowledge about recovery over five
continuous jumping (6). Based on prior days would certainly be preferable to
research findings and basic physiology, five hours, but five hours is still a big
it’s unsurprising that the subjects with a improvement over five minutes.
higher proportion of type II fibers in the Now, there are a few potential con-
present study (1) fatigued faster during founders and drawbacks to this study
repeated Wingate sprints. that should be addressed. For starters the
However, the effects of fiber type dis- type II-dominant group was heavier, had
tribution on the time course of strength more lean body mass, greater thigh cir-
recovery after fatiguing exercise had cumference, and greater quad strength
been poorly characterized in the liter- than the type I-dominant group. Thus,
ature until the present study was pub- you could interpret these results through

68
 Figure 3 Recovery of maximal isometric quadriceps force

120

†
% of baseline maximum isometric

100
quadriceps force (%)

80
†
*
* †
* * † †
60
* † †
†

40
Type I group

20 Type II group

0
0 60 120 180 240 300

Time (min)

† = significant difference from baseline; * = significant difference between groups

the lens of size and strength differences, differences in strength and muscularity
rather than fiber type differences. How- because of the fiber type differences.
ever, I think the fact that similar work The other major drawback of this study
was accomplished across the three Win- was that fiber type distribution was only
gate tests partially allays that concern. I assessed in the gastrocnemius. The Win-
also suspect that fiber type differences gate test primarily stresses the quads
may be a semi-causal factor explaining (and strength recovery was only as-
the other group differences. Type II fi- sessed in the quads), and I’m not aware
bers undergo more hypertrophy follow- of any evidence specifically showing
ing resistance training than type I fibers, that fiber type proportions in the gastroc
so when dealing with a cohort of active and quads are tightly correlated. The re-
subjects who were specifically assigned searchers tested the gastroc because it’s
to separate groups because they have the muscle for which they had norma-
above- or below-average proportions of tive data using their non-invasive tech-
type II fibers, it may be logical to expect nique, so there was some logic behind

69
their choice. Furthermore, baseline elec-
trical stimulation testing of the quads did
suggest that the group allocation was THESE RESULTS SUGGEST
“correct” (electrically stimulated rate of
torque development was greater and re- THAT PEOPLE WITH A GREATER
laxation time was shorter in the type II PROPORTION OF TYPE II FIBERS
group, which is consistent with greater
type II fiber proportions in the quads). LIKELY NEED LONGER REST
So, while quadriceps fiber types weren’t
also assessed via magnetic resonance INTERVALS BETWEEN SETS.
spectroscopy, it’s likely that people with
an above-average proportion of type II
fibers in one muscle group simply have ther train with high reps or push to fail-
a higher proportion of type II fibers gen- ure (generating high amounts of acute
erally. fatigue per set). A Wingate test is way
So, what can MASS readers do with more metabolically stressful than virtu-
these results? Let me start by prefacing ally any resistance training, but I think
this with a disclaimer: Everything I’m it’s telling that three intense exertions
about to say is an extrapolation and may with no eccentric component was suf-
be wrong. However, hopefully my rea- ficient to decrease strength for at least
soning is clear and logical. five hours in the type II group, whereas
strength had recovered within 20 min-
First and foremost, I think these re-
utes in the type I group. To me, this im-
sults suggest that people with a greater
plies that doing high reps to failure, at
proportion of type II fibers likely need
least early in a training session, could
longer rest intervals between sets. The
depress performance to a counterpro-
drop in power output from the begin-
ductive degree for the entire rest of the
ning of one Wingate test to the start of
training session. People with a higher
the next Wingate was larger in the type
proportion of type I fibers may pay a
II group. Type II fibers experience great-
relatively small toll for training close to
er anaerobic stress and generally have
failure with moderate-to-high reps early
fewer capillaries per unit of fiber CSA
in a training session, but people with a
than type I fibers, so they take longer to
higher proportion of type II fibers should
return to metabolic equilibrium after an
probably save that type of training for
acute stressor.
the end of a training session.
Second, these results may suggest that
Finally, this is the biggest extrapola-
people with a higher proportion of type
tion of the bunch, but people with a larg-
II fibers should be more hesitant to ei-

70

PEOPLE WITH A HIGHER
PROPORTION OF TYPE I
FIBERS MAY PAY A RELATIVELY
SMALL TOLL FOR TRAINING
CLOSE TO FAILURE WITH
MODERATE-TO-HIGH REPS
EARLY IN A TRAINING SESSION,
BUT PEOPLE WITH A HIGHER
PROPORTION OF TYPE II FIBERS
SHOULD PROBABLY SAVE THAT
TYPE OF TRAINING FOR THE
END OF A TRAINING SESSION.
er proportion of type II fibers may need
to train with a lower frequency, all else
being equal. Yes, this study only tracked
performance recovery for five hours, but
keep in mind that there was no eccentric
component for the exercise protocol.
There was also no evidence of central
fatigue, so local muscular homeostatic
disruptions were sufficient to cause the
prolonged decrease in strength. With re-
sistance training, the eccentric compo-
nent makes things look even worse for
type II fiber recovery. Some evidence
suggests that type II fibers experience
more damage than type I fibers follow-
ing eccentric training (9). Thus, if the
subjects in the present study were do-
ing squats instead of cycle sprints, I’d
predict that the differences in recovery
would be even larger and even lon-
ger-lasting.
One final thing worth noting is that,
as for now, there’s still no cheap, easy,
non-invasive way to assess your fiber
type proportions. There may be a lab
near you that does magnetic resonance
spectroscopy, but that’s not something
most MASS readers can bank on. So, I
think your best bet currently is to keep
in mind the fact that rest intervals, rep
ranges, proximity to failure, and train-
ing frequency are all factors that should
be individualized, while keeping in
mind that fiber type differences may
be one factor driving that need for in-
dividualization. Also, don’t lose track
of the experimental model used in this
study – they specifically recruited peo-
ple who had considerably higher than
average proportions of type I or type
II fibers. A good chunk of people read-
ing this will have “normal” fiber type
proportions. Just because you recov-
er quickly between sets, or take longer
than your training partners to recover
between sessions, don’t automatically
assume you’re at one extreme end of
the fiber type distribution curve. Oth-
er physiological factors influence acute
fatigue and acute and chronic recovery
71
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
While assessing fiber type distribution still isn’t cheap and easy for most lifters, it’s a
factor worth at least keeping in the back of your mind. Needing to rest longer between
sets (assuming it doesn’t impinge on your ability to do enough volume per session)
and take more time to recover between sessions doesn’t necessarily mean anything’s
wrong with you; you may just have a higher proportion of type II fibers than average.
Training should be individualized anyways, and fiber types are just one physiological
factor that drives the need for individualization.

from training; fiber types are just one of

many inter-individual differences. And,
of course, fiber type breakdowns may
differ from muscle to muscle, so don’t
assume you need to treat every exercise
the same way.

Next Steps
I’d want to see how well these results
generalized to resistance training. For
example, a study could use 3-5 sets of
squats to failure as the fatigue protocol
instead of three Wingate tests. I’d also
want to see whether fiber types affect-
ed recovery for at least 2-3 days follow-
ing the training bout, instead of just five
hours.

72
References

1. Lievens E, Klass M, Bex T, Derave W. Muscle fiber typology substantially influences time
to recover from high-intensity exercise. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2020 Mar 1;128(3):648-659.
2. Baguet A, Everaert I, Hespel P, Petrovic M, Achten E, Derave W. A new method for non-in-
vasive estimation of human muscle fiber type composition. PLoS One. 2011;6(7):e21956.
3. Häkkinen K, Komi PV. Effects of fatigue and recovery on electromyographic and isometric
force- and relaxation-time characteristics of human skeletal muscle. Eur J Appl Physiol Oc-
cup Physiol. 1986;55(6):588-96.
4. Komi PV, Tesch P. EMG frequency spectrum, muscle structure, and fatigue during dynamic
contractions in man. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1979 Sep;42(1):41-50.
5. Thorstensson A, Karlsson J. Fatiguability and fibre composition of human skeletal muscle.
Acta Physiol Scand. 1976 Nov;98(3):318-22.
6. Bosco C, Komi PV, Tihanyi J, Fekete G, Apor P. Mechanical power test and fiber composi-
tion of human leg extensor muscles. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1983;51(1):129-35.
7. Colliander EB, Dudley GA, Tesch PA. Skeletal muscle fiber type composition and perfor-
mance during repeated bouts of maximal, concentric contractions. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup
Physiol. 1988;58(1-2):81-6.
8. Hamada T, Sale DG, MacDougall JD, Tarnopolsky MA. Interaction of fibre type, potentia-
tion and fatigue in human knee extensor muscles. Acta Physiol Scand. 2003 Jun;178(2):165-
73.
9. Fridén J, Sjöström M, Ekblom B. Myofibrillar damage following intense eccentric exercise
in man. Int J Sports Med. 1983 Aug;4(3):170-6.

73
 Study Reviewed: Autoregulation in Resistance Training: A Comparison of
Objective Versus Subjective Measures. Shattock and Tee. (2020)

The Battle of Autoregulation:

Velocity 1, RPE 0
BY MIC HAE L C . ZO URD O S

Two main methods of autoregulation exist: velocity and RPE. Each has
previously compared favorably to percentage-based training as a load
prescription method. How do they stack up against each other? This
article reviews the first ever study on the topic.

74
 KEY POINTS
1. This study compared the changes in squat and bench press one-repetition
maximum (1RM) between programs using velocity-based load prescription and
rating of perceived exertion (RPE)-based load prescription.
2. Squat and bench press 1RM increased with both styles of training; however, the
change in strength with velocity load prescription (squat: +7.5%, bench: +7.7%)
was nearly double that of the change in strength with RPE prescription (squat:
+3.5%, bench: +3.8%).
3. In brief, this initial battle of autoregulation is a win for velocity. Ultimately, it seems
that if you can find a truly objective way to measure acute performance, that may
be the way to go.

A
ssigning training load using ve-
locity and repetitions in reserve
(RIR)-based RPE has become
almost as popular among practitioners
as assigning loads using percentages.
Research has caught up to this trend
over the past two years with two longi-
tudinal studies for both velocity-based
loading (2 – MASS review, 3 – MASS
review) and RPE-based loading (4,
5 – MASS review) versus percent-
age-based loading. Out of those four
autoregulation studies, two of the four
showed a benefit for long-term auto-
regulation (one for velocity and one for
RPE), with the other two reporting null
effects. All told, the data are slightly
in support of either type of long-term
autoregulation; however, how does the
objectivity of velocity stack up against
the subjectivity of RPE? This article re-
views a study from Shattock and Tee
(1), which was the first to tackle that re-
search question. In this study, 20 rugby
players performed two, six-week train-
ing blocks: a maximal strength block
and a strength speed block. 10 players
had load assigned via velocity during
the max strength block (first six weeks)
and the other 10 players had load as-
signed with RPE for the max strength
block. Then, in the second six-week
block (strength speed block) the 10
athletes who had already used veloci-
ty prescription now used RPE, and vice
versa. Squat and bench one-repetition
maximum (1RM), vertical jump height,
and sprint performance were tested be-
fore and after each training block. Both
groups improved strength and verti-
cal jump; however, sprint times were
unchanged. When averaging the im-
provement over each six-week block,
changes in vertical jump, squat 1RM,
and bench 1RM with velocity load pre-
scription (vertical jump: +8.2%, squat:

75
 Table 1 Subject characteristics
Subjects Age (years)
20 men 22 ± 3
Subjects characteristics from Shattock and Tee et al 2020 (1)
+7.5%, bench: +7.7%) were about
double the improvements seen from
RPE load prescription (vertical jump:
+3.8%, squat: +3.5%, bench: +3.8%).
Although the early returns in this area
provide support for long-term loading
with velocity over RPE, this article will
discuss how the study design could be
responsible for some of these effects.
Further, the article will examine how
these load prescription methods can be
used in conjunction with each other.
Purpose and Hypotheses
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to com-
pare velocity-based load prescription
versus RPE-based load prescription for
improvements in performance adapta-
tions over six weeks.
Hypotheses
No hypotheses were provided. Also,
the authors came across as unbiased in
the introduction, so I could not tell if
they favored one method over the other.
Training age
Body mass (kg) Squat 1RM (kg) Bench 1RM (kg)
(years)
94.3 ± 15.5 145 ± 5 109 ± 20 >2
Subjects and Methods
Subjects
20 male rugby players from a club
team in the United Kingdom participat-
ed. All players had at least two years of
training experience. The available sub-
ject details are in Table 1.
Protocol Overview
Subjects were split into two groups
and trained for 12 total weeks, which
were divided into two training blocks of
six weeks each. One group used veloc-
ity-based loading for the first six weeks
and then switched to RPE-based loading
for the latter six weeks, while the other
group did the opposite. Although this is a
crossover design in terms of both groups
switching between velocity and RPE
load prescription, it wasn’t a true cross-
over design because the first six weeks
consisted of a “maximal strength” block
for all 20 subjects and the latter six weeks
was a “strength speed” block for all 20
subjects. Therefore, one group used ve-
locity loading for the max strength block
and RPE loading for the strength speed
block. The other group used RPE load-
76
 Table 2 Study design
Block 1:
Max strength
Velocity-based
Group 1 Testing
load prescription
RPE-based load
Group 2
prescription
ing for the max strength block and ve-
locity prescription for the strength speed
block. Squat and bench press 1RM, ver-
tical jump height, and 10, 20, 30, and 40
meter sprint times were tested before the
training period, after the first block, and
again after the second block. The design
of this study is illustrated in Table 2.
In a true crossover, all subjects would
have completed the same training pro-
gram while using both velocity and RPE
loading at different points. An example
of this can be seen in a hypothetical Ta-
ble 3.
Of course, the other option to answer
this question would simply be a longi-
tudinal study with two groups. In other
words, 10 subjects could have trained
using velocity loading for six weeks
(or longer), and 10 subjects could have
trained using RPE for six weeks using
the same training program, with out-
come measures assessed at pre- and
post-study.
Training Program
The full training program for the max
strength block is in Table 4, and the
Block 2:
Strength speed
RPE-based load
Testing Testing
prescription
Velocity-based
load prescription
strength speed program is in Table 5. The
protocols were equated for sets, reps,
and intended intensity. In other words,
the velocity and RPE prescriptions were
intended to yield the same percentage of
1RM. In brief, subjects were instructed
to choose a load in which all reps were
below a certain velocity (i.e. <0.65 m/s)
or within a velocity range (i.e. 0.40 to
0.65 m/s). For RPE loading, subjects
were instructed to finish a set within a
specific RPE range (i.e. 8-9RPE). If any
two reps fell outside of the prescribed
velocity range or subjects recorded an
RPE higher or lower than the prescribed
range, then load was adjusted up or
down for the next set by 5kg for barbell
exercises or 1kg for dumbbell exercises.
Findings
Presentation
This article used magnitude-based in-
ferences to analyze results. As a whole,
MASS is not a fan of this approach. I
won’t harp on this, but you can refer to
the findings of this article for more in-
formation on the limitations of magni-
77
 Table 3 “True Crossover” hypothetical design
Testing
10 subjects
load prescription
10 subjects
tude-based inference. However, a Wil-
coxon signed rank test was used, which
provided p-values for significance test-
ing. I assume this test was used instead
of an ANOVA because data were not
normally distributed, although that was
not explicitly stated. Importantly, the
findings present the change in a mea-
sure with velocity prescription versus
the change with RPE prescription over
six weeks. However, the reported find-
ings did not distinguish between the
max strength or strength speed blocks.
Therefore, to the best of my knowl-
edge, the findings are presented as the
changes in strength during both veloc-
ity and both RPE blocks averaged to-
gether. For example, if the group doing
velocity-based training during the max
strength block improved squat 1RM by
8% and the group doing velocity-based
training during the speed strength block
improved squat 1RM by 6%, then the
reported change is listed at 7%.
Overall Results
There was no change in the sprint
times, and I did not include those val-
Same 6 week
6 week block
block
Max Strength
Max Strength
Testing and
Velocity-based 6-week washout RPE-based load Testing
period prescription
RPE-based load Velocity-based
prescription load prescription
ues in the table below, as they’re not
pertinent to MASS. To keep it simple,
1RM squat and bench and vertical jump
height increased with both load pre-
scription styles; however, all of these
metrics were found to increase signifi-
cantly more with velocity prescription
(p < 0.05). In practical terms, the im-
provement in strength and vertical jump
with velocity was roughly double that
of RPE-based loading, and there were
meaningful effect sizes for each metric
in favor of velocity. These findings are
in Table 6.
Interpretation
Overall, the first long-term study com-
paring velocity-based load prescription
versus RPE-based load prescription is
a win for velocity; however, this study
is not without its issues. Before getting
to any issues, let’s compare these find-
ings to other longitudinal studies in this
area. Also, I’ll keep this interpretation
focused on the strength findings since
those findings are most relevant to us.
To my knowledge there are five stud-
78
 Table 4 Max strength block program

Traditional
Day Exercise Sets x Reps Velocity (m•s-1) RPE RIR Rest (s)
(% of 1RM)

Back squat 8x3 85 - 90 0.65 - 0.95 8.5 - 9 1-2 90 - 120

1 Bent over row 8x3 85 - 90 < 0.65 8.5 - 9 1-2 90 - 120

Shoulder press 8x3 85 - 90 < 0.40 8.5 - 9 1-2 90 - 120

Underhand pull ups 8x3 85 - 90 < 0.65 8.5 - 9 1-2 90 - 120

2 Incline bench press 8x3 85 - 90 < 0.40 8.5 - 9 1-2 90 - 120

DB shoulder press 8x3 85 - 90 < 0.40 8.5 - 9 1-2 90 - 120

Deadlift 8x3 85 - 90 < 0.55 8.5 - 9 1-2 90 - 120

3 Wide grip pull-ups 8x3 85 - 90 < 0.65 8.5 - 9 1-2 90 - 120

Push press 8x3 85 - 90 < 0.40 8.5 - 9 1-2 90 - 120

Bench press 8x3 85 - 90 < 0.40 8.5 - 9 1-2 90 - 120

4 Single-arm dumbbell press 8 x 3 each arm 85 - 90 < 0.65 8.5 - 9 1-2 90 - 120

Dumbbell lateral raise 8x3 85 - 90 < 0.65 8.5 - 9 1-2 90 - 120

From Shattock and Tee. (1)

Rest = Interset rest intervals; RPE = Rating of Perceived Exertion; RIR = Repetitions in Reserve.

ies, including the currently reviewed one exception is that the magnitude of
one, looking at the longitudinal effi- strength increase with velocity prescrip-
cacy of either velocity-based or RPE- tion from the Orange study (3) seems a
based loading. The other four studies bit low. However, as Greg stated when
all compare either velocity (2 – MASS reviewing the Orange study, “the train-
review, 3 – MASS review) or RPE (4,5 ing program likely just wasn’t challeng-
– MASS review) to percentage-based ing enough for autoregulation (velocity)
training. For strength adaptation, there to provide an added benefit.” In short,
is one study showing each autoregula- there was not much progressive over-
tion method to augment strength gains load in the Orange study. Otherwise the
compared to percentage-based loading, +7.5 and +7.7% change in squat and
and one study with null findings when bench in the presently reviewed study
comparing each autoregulation meth- are similar to Dorrell et al, which used
od with percentages. These studies are velocity loading for six weeks, and are
summarized in Table 7. only slightly lower than the changes in
The magnitude of strength increase Helms et al and Graham and Cleather,
with velocity-based training in the pres- but each of those studies was longer
ently reviewed study falls mostly in (Helms = 8 weeks long, and Graham
line with the increases from the other and Cleather = 12 weeks long) than the
autoregulatory groups in Table 7. The 6 weeks in the current study. The one

79
 Table 5 Speed strength block program

Traditional
Day Exercise Sets x Reps Velocity (m•s-1) RPE RIR Rest (s)
(% of 1RM)

Hex bar deadlift 6x4 70 - 80 0.65 - 0.95 7-8 2-3 120

Under hand pull-up 6x4 70 - 80 0.65 - 1.25 7-8 2-3 120

1
Bench press 6x4 70 - 80 0.40 - 0.65 7-8 2-3 120

Push press 6x4 70 - 80 0.65 - 0.95 7-8 2-3 120

Lunges 6 x 4 leg 70 - 80 0.65 - 0.95 7-8 2-3 120

Incline bench press 6x4 70 - 80 0.40 - 0.65 7-8 2-3 120

2
Bent over row 6x4 70 - 80 0.65 - 1.25 7-8 2-3 120

Seated shoulder press 6x4 70 - 80 0.40 - 0.65 7-8 2-3 120

Box squat 6x4 70 - 80 0.65 - 0.95 7-8 2-3 120

Wide grip pull-ups 6x4 70 - 80 0.65 -1.25 7-8 2-3 120

3
Bench press 6x4 70 - 80 0.40 - 0.65 7-8 2-3 120

1/2 kneeling single-arm

6 x 4 arm 70 - 80 0.40 - 0.65 7-8 2-3 120
dumbbell should press

From Shattock and Tee. (1)

Rest = Interset rest intervals; RPE = Rating of Perceived Exertion; RIR = Repetitions in Reserve.

thing that seems slightly off to me is think we can help explain some of that
that the magnitude of strength increase discrepancy by analyzing some design
for the RPE group seems a bit low in the issues with this study in the following
current study. Helms reported more than section. However, to be clear, despite
twice the magnitude of change in bench the design issues that we’ll bring up, this
1RM and almost three times the change study is still a win for velocity.
in squat 1RM with percentage-based In Table 2 earlier in this article, you
training versus the strength gains re- can see the study design. While this
ported in the RPE group in the presently study used a “crossover” design, in that
reviewed study. The best way to explain all subjects performed both velocity- and
that is that Helms had subjects train the RPE-based training at different times,
tested lifts three times per week, while the subjects did not perform these mo-
the current study only had lifters train dalities under the same conditions. Spe-
the lifts once per week. In general, 1RM cifically, one group used velocity pre-
strength improvement with RPE loading scription during the max strength block
in this study was less than the improve- and RPE prescription during the strength
ment in strength even with percentag- speed block, while the other group did
es in the previous studies, even when the opposite. Table 3 (seen above) shows
accounting for other variables such as that a true crossover design would have
study length and per-lift frequency. I

80
 Table 6
% Change ± 90% CI
Measure
velocity loading
Vertical jump height 8.2 ± 1.1% *#
Squat 1RM 7.5 ± 1.5% *#
Bench press 1RM 7.7 ± 2.1% *#
Data from Shattock and Tee (1)
1RM = One-Repetition Maximum; CI = Confidence Interval; * = Significant increase; # = Significantly greater
improvement with velocity versus RPE (rating of perceived exertion).
had all subjects use each load prescrip-
tion method under the same conditions.
Since the crossover did not have sub-
jects under the same conditions, I really
would have preferred to see the results
after each individual block. Rather, the
findings presented are an average of the
two blocks, as stated previously. I would
suspect velocity to be far better than
RPE in the strength speed block, since
the amount of RIR was greater, and RPE
isn’t very accurate when training far
from failure (6). Further, the exercise
selection in the max strength block did
not have any traditional back squats and
included movements such as the hex bar
deadlift and box squat, and I doubt the
rugby players had previously used RPE
on those movements. My bet is that the
athletes undershot (had more RIR than
predicted) the RPE during the strength
speed block, which caused them to po-
tentially train at a lower relative intensi-
ty than those using velocity prescription
% Change ± 90% CI
RPE loading (condition in favor)
3.8 ± 0.9* 1.78 (velocity)
3.5 ± 0.8* 1.37 (velocity)
3.8 ± 0.9* 0.98 (velocity)
during that block. Lifters also tend to
improve their RPE accuracy over time,
and since some only used RPE during
the strength speed block, they did not
have a chance to improve their skill with
RPE. The other factor at play is that we
have evidence showing that just viewing
your velocity (7 – MASS review) can
improve your outcomes. In this study,
the athletes could view post-set velocity
when using it for load prescription, but
could not see velocity during the RPE
loading phase. While I do wish the study
was either a true crossover or a true lon-
gitudinal design (i.e. 12 weeks of ve-
locity versus RPE), it is also the case
that many of the mentioned limitations
are simply inherent benefits of velocity
over RPE in the real world. Certainly,
viewing velocity is an inherent benefit,
the lack of requiring a learning effect
when using an objective versus a sub-
jective measure is an inherent benefit,
and the fact that velocity may work just
81
 Table 7 Summary of velocity or RPE loading versus percentage loading studies

Increase RPE or Strength increase

Study Design
velcoity group (%) percentage group (%)

Helms et al. 2018 8 Weeks RPE vs. Squat: 11.83 Squat: 10.0
(RPE study) percentage loading Bench: 8.85 Bench: 8.43

Graham and cleather 12 weeks RPE vs. Squat: 10.76 Squat: 7.05
strength increase with
2019 (RPE study) percentage loading Front squat: 11.68 Front squat: 8.36
RPE

Dorrell et al. 2020 6 Weeks velocity Vs. Squat: 9.34 Squat: 9.02
bench strength
(Velocity study) percentage loading Bench: 7.31 Bench: 4.68
increase with velocity

Orange et al. 2020

7 weeks velocity vs.
(Velocity study) Squat: 5.84 Squat: 6.62
percentage loading

Summary table of all studies comparing either RPE- (Helms et al.; Graham and Cleather) or Velocity-based (Dorrell et al; Orange et al) loading versus
percentage-based loading. RPE = Rating of Perceived Exertion.

as well with both lower and higher RIR
are absolutely points in velocity’s favor.
I also wonder if the fact that all of these
athletes were on the same rugby team,
and presumably trained together, aided
the velocity adaptations. In other words,
just from being around sports teams all
my life (both coaching and playing),
I would be willing to bet that velocity
would be much more accepted than RPE
by the players, and they would be con-
sistently challenging each other to beat
someone else’s velocity. But again, that
could simply be another inherent bene-
fit of velocity when training in a group.
Therefore, this study should still be
viewed as a solid win for velocity over
RPE in the battle of autoregulation. The
only thing I feel really strongly about is
that I would have liked to have seen the
magnitude of change after each individ-
ual training block. Ultimately, the objec-
tive measure won out in this study, and
that shouldn’t be too surprising.
In my opinion, it is always worth stat-
ing that the various loading strategies
(velocity, RPE, and percentages) do not
need to be viewed as standalone strat-
egies. Rather, they can be used in con-
junction with each other. For example,
let’s say you are using velocity to work
up to a 1RM, and typically 0.35 m/s on
the squat is an RPE of 8 for you, which is
~90% of 1RM. However, you squat 85%
at 0.35 m/s, but you record a 7 RPE. This
discrepancy could be due to the fact that
you simply made a technique error on
the 85% set, or just did not have a high
level of excitability, but you know that
you could have done at least three more
reps. In this case, you should probably
use RPE instead of velocity as the tool
to choose your next load. The situations
where RPE overrides velocity might be

82
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
1. This study showed that long-term velocity-based load prescription led to greater
maximal strength gains than long-term RPE-based load prescription in a team of
rugby players.
2. Although the study design and reporting could have been improved a bit, it seems
that a lot of the inherent benefits of velocity, such as simply viewing velocity,
allowed the objective autoregulation method to augment strength gains more
than the subjective method of RPE.
3. It should not be too surprising that velocity took home the win in this study.
However, even if you have access to an accurate velocity tracker, there are some
situations (i.e. if you make a technique error, are coaching in a group setting,
or don’t have access to a velocity tracker) where it makes sense to track RPE
alongside velocity. For now, both tools remain quite useful.

rare, but they do exist. Further, if you

are coaching in a group setting and you
don’t have individualized load-veloci-
ty profiles, then you could use RPE as
a rough check on the velocity. In other
words, if you have programmed 3 sets
of 8 reps on the squat between 0.40 –
0.70 m/s, you could have all the athletes
record an RPE when they get close to
0.40. Some may record an RPE of <5
(quite far from failure); however, others
may record an RPE of 7 or 8. If you feel
the RPEs are accurate, then you can use
them to come up with a different veloc-
ity zone for some individuals to equate
for proximity to failure. The goal is ulti-
mately to get an individualized velocity
profile for each lifter; however, that can
be time-consuming in a large group, so
simply gathering RPE can alert you if
someone is too close to failure, even if
they are in the prescribed velocity zone.
Next Steps
Next, I’d like to see a longitudinal
study carried out, as discussed earlier in
the article, which has two groups (one
using velocity and one using RPE) train
with the same training program the en-
tire time. Essentially, take the Helms et
al study and plug in velocity for the per-
centage-based training group, and com-
pare it to RPE. Even better, leave the
percentage-based group in that design
and simply add velocity-based training
as a third group. After that, it would be
nice to see a longitudinal study which
individualizes velocity profiling. When
we get an individualized study, the ben-
efits should be even greater than what
velocity is showing in the presently re-
viewed study.

83
References

1. Shattock K, Tee JC. Autoregulation in Resistance Training: A Comparison of Subjective Versus

Objective Methods. Journal of strength and conditioning research. 2020 Feb 13.
2. Dorrell HF, Smith MF, Gee TI. Comparison of velocity-based and traditional percentage-based
loading methods on maximal strength and power adaptations. The Journal of Strength & Condi-
tioning Research. 2020 Jan 1;34(1):46-53.
3. Orange ST, Metcalfe JW, Robinson A, Applegarth MJ, Liefeith A. Effects of In-Season Veloci-
ty-Versus Percentage-Based Training in Academy Rugby League Players. International journal of
sports physiology and performance. 2019 Oct 30;1(aop):1-8.
4. Helms ER, Byrnes RK, Cooke DM, Haischer MH, Carzoli JP, Johnson TK, Cross MR,
Cronin JB, Storey AG, Zourdos MC. RPE vs. Percentage 1RM loading in periodized programs
matched for sets and repetitions. Frontiers in physiology. 2018 Mar 21;9:247.
5. Graham T, Cleather DJ. Autoregulation by” Repetitions in Reserve” Leads to Greater Improve-
ments in Strength Over a 12-Week Training Program Than Fixed Loading. Journal of strength and
conditioning research. 2019 Apr.
6. Zourdos MC, Goldsmith JA, Helms ER, Trepeck C, Halle JL, Mendez KM, Cooke DM,
Haischer MH, Sousa CA, Klemp A, Byrnes RK. Proximity to Failure and Total Repetitions Per-
formed in a Set Influences Accuracy of Intraset Repetitions in Reserve-Based Rating of Perceived
Exertion. Journal of strength and conditioning research. 2019 Feb.
7. Weakley JJ, Wilson KM, Till K, Read DB, Darrall-Jones J, Roe GA, Phibbs PJ, Jones B. Vi-
sual Feedback Attenuates Mean Concentric Barbell Velocity Loss and Improves Motivation, Com-
petitiveness, and Perceived Workload in Male Adolescent Athletes. The Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research. 2019 Sep 1;33(9):2420-5.

84
 Study Reviewed: The Efficacy of Tart Cherry Juice in Aiding Recovery After
Intermittent Exercise. Quinlan and Hill. (2020)

Tart Cherries With Sweet

Recovery Effects
BY E RI C T RE X LE R

Oxidative stress and inflammation play a role in promoting training adaptations,

but too much can impair your recovery. A recent study found that tart cherry juice
expedited recovery from strenuous exercise. So, do you need to choose between
short-term recovery and long-term adaptations? Read on to find out.

85
 KEY POINTS
1. In the current study (1), 20 participants (8 male, 12 female) consumed tart cherry
juice, which is naturally high in polyphenols, or a placebo for eight days, with a
strenuous bout of intermittent exercise occurring on day six.
2. Supplementation with tart cherry juice did not significantly influence soreness,
C-reactive protein, or creatine kinase levels, but it led to significantly faster
recovery of 20m sprint time, countermovement jump height, and maximal voluntary
contraction strength.
3. Polyphenol-rich extracts or juices from fruits, vegetables, and algae are likely to
enhance recovery from particularly vigorous, damaging, or unaccustomed exercise,
without impairing training adaptations.

M
ontmorency cherries, also known
as tart cherries, have started gain-
ing some attention in the sports
nutrition world. Tart cherries contain
many polyphenol compounds with an-
tioxidant and anti-inflammatory proper-
ties, including flavonols, flavanols (yes,
they’re different), and anthocyanins,
among others (2). These compounds
are also found in sweet cherries, but the
concentrations are higher in the tart va-
riety. When we exercise, we expect that
reactive species production will increase.
“Reactive species” is a general term de-
scribing the variety of molecules that
promote oxidative damage to cells, ul-
timately contributing to oxidative stress
and inflammation; for a thorough primer
on the relationships between oxidative
stress, inflammation, and exercise, check
out this article for additional context.
While increased reactive species produc-
tion is expected with exercise, we can ex-
perience magnitudes of oxidative stress
and inflammation that transiently impair
performance and require a more pro-
longed period of recovery when we un-
dertake particularly vigorous, damaging,
or unaccustomed exercise. Researchers
have previously speculated that the vari-
ous phytonutrients in tart cherries can di-
rectly scavenge free radicals, bolster the
body’s built-in antioxidant defense sys-
tems, decrease endogenous production of
free radicals, and attenuate key inflam-
mation pathways (1). In the current study
(1), 20 participants (8 male, 12 female)
consumed tart cherry for eight days, with
a strenuous bout of intermittent exercise
taking place on day six. Participants in
the tart cherry group had significantly
faster recovery in terms of 20m sprint
time, countermovement jump height, and
maximal voluntary contraction strength,
with no significant differences for de-
layed-onset muscle soreness, C-reactive
protein levels, or creatine kinase levels.
Read on to find out if, why, and when you

86
Table 1 Subject characteristics
Group Sport
Football (n=5)
Cherry juice Netball (n=3)
Hockey (n=2)
Football (n=9)
Placebo
Hockey (n=1)
Value are mean ± standard deviations
VO2max = maximal oxygen uptake
might consider supplementing with tart
cherry juice for performance purposes.
Purpose and Hypotheses
Purpose
The purpose of the current study was
“to investigate the efficacy of tart cher-
ry juice without dietary restrictions, in
aiding recovery following intermittent
exercise.”
Hypotheses
The authors hypothesized that con-
sumption of tart cherry juice for sever-
al days surrounding a bout of intermit-
tent exercise would reduce biomarker
concentrations associated with muscle
damage and inflammation, and would
facilitate performance recovery in the
48 hours following the bout.
Subjects and Methods
Subjects
For the current study, 20 participants
were recruited (8 male, 12 female). Par-
Predicted VO2 max
Sex (M/F) Age (years) Height (cm) Mass (kg)
test level (ml.kg.min-1)
4/6 28 ± 4 175.9 ± 11.1 71.5 ±13.1 9.4 ± 2.1 44.6 ± 7.2
4/6 25 ± 5 174.8 ± 8.4 68.9 ± 12.6 9.3 ± 2.6 44.2 ± 9
ticipants were athletes competing in the
sport of football (soccer, for the Ameri-
can readers), hockey, or netball. Partici-
pant characteristics are presented in Ta-
ble 1.
Methods
This was a single-blind, placebo-con-
trolled study, which means that partici-
pants were unaware of the treatment they
were receiving, but the researchers knew
which treatment the participants were
assigned to. A double-blind approach in
which the researchers are also unaware of
the treatment assignments until after the
analysis is done is a bit more preferable,
but I doubt it was a particularly important
factor in this study.
The study consisted of four visits. The
first visit was just a familiarization visit,
which allowed the participants to get ac-
customed to the exercise test and measure-
ment protocols, and to get some pre-sup-
plementation blood samples. Soon after,
the supplementation period began; sub-
jects either consumed a tart cherry con-
centrate (30mL) or a placebo twice per
day for eight days. The placebo treatment
was a fruit-flavored beverage with <5%
87
 Figure 1 Counter-movement jump for the cherry juice and placebo groups at basline and following the LIST

110
Cherry juice
Placebo *
105
*
CMJ (% change)

100

95

90

85

80
Baseline 1h post-LIST 24h 48h

Time
* = significantly greater recovery of CMJ performance was observed in the cherry juice group at 24h and 48h post-LIST (p < 0.05): values are
mean ± SD (n=10 per group)
LIST = Loughborough Intermittent Shuttle Test

fruit content; they didn’t use surveys to
assess the effectiveness of the placebo,
but it was likely close enough in flavor
to get the job done. On the sixth day of
supplementation, subjects completed vis-
it two, in which baseline data were col-
lected for countermovement jump, 20m
sprint, knee extension maximum volun-
tary isometric contraction strength, and
blood biomarkers related to inflamma-
tion and muscle damage (C-reactive pro-
tein and creatine kinase, respectively).
After baseline measurements, they com-
pleted an adapted version of the Lough-
borough Intermittent Shuttle Test, which
is a strenuous test involving repeated, in-
termittent sprinting. Measurement of the
previously mentioned variables was then
repeated one hour after the exercise test,
as well as 24 hours (visit 3) and 48 hours
(visit 4) after.
Findings
As expected, countermovement jump
performance was impaired one hour af-

88
 Figure 2 Maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) for the cherry juice and placebo groups at
baseline and following the LIST

Cherry juice
110
Placebo
105 * *
100

95
MVIC (% change)

90

85

80

75

70

65

60
Baseline 1h post-LIST 24h 48h

Time
* = significantly greater recovery of force in the cherry juice group at 24h and 48h post-LIST (p < 0.05);
values are mean ± SD (n=10 per group)
LIST = Loughborough Intermittent Shuttle Test

ter the exercise test. However, recovery
was more rapid in the tart cherry group
than the placebo group, as indicated by
statistically significant differences at 24
hours and 48 hours after the exercise test
(Figure 1).
Compared to baseline values, the exer-
cise test caused increases in 20m sprint
time (that is, slower sprint speed). Both
groups had similar sprint time increases
one hour after the test, but the tart cherry
group recovered more quickly, with sig-
nificantly smaller increases from base-
line observed at 24 hours (1.95 ± 2.86%
versus 5.94 ± 1.94%, p = 0.004) and
48 hours (0.31 ± 1.67% versus 3.84 ±
3.34%, p = 0.019) post-test in compar-
ison to placebo. Similarly, the exercise

89
 Table 2 Mean muscle soreness scores and CRP values for the cherry juice and placebo groups before and following intermittent shuttle running

Pre-supplementation Pre-LIST Post-LIST 24h 48h

DOMS (mm)

Cherry juice 43.3 ± 25.9 107.4 ± 36.0 83 ± 26.0 62.7 ± 35.4

Placebo 27.8 ± 20.0 106 ± 21.4 98.7 ± 31.2 102.1 ± 36.8

CRP (mg/L)

Cherry juice 0.563 ± 0.901 0.277 ± 0.186 0.57 ± 1.034 0.831 ± 1.145 1.201 ± 1.961

Placebo 1.292 ± 1.756 1.138 ± 1.29 1.176 ± 1.289 2.071 ± 2.03 1.897 ± 1.746

Values are mean ± SD (n=10 per group)

Post-List = post Loughborough Intermittent Shuttle Test; DOMS = muscle soreness; CRP = C-reactive protein

test caused a transient reduction in leg C-reactive protein (a biomarker associ-

extension maximal voluntary isometric ated with inflammation), values general-
contraction strength. The groups had ly tended to be higher 24-48 hours after
similar reductions at one hour post-exer- the exercise test, but this increase was
cise, but the tart cherry group recovered not statistically significant, and no sta-
more quickly, with significantly higher tistically significant differences between
values at 24 hours and 48 hours post-ex- groups were observed (Table 2).
ercise (Figure 2). For creatine kinase (a biomarker as-
Delayed-onset muscle soreness in- sociated with muscle damage), a sig-
creased following the exercise test. A nificant time effect was observed, with
group × time interaction was observed, higher values observed after the exer-
which would typically indicate that the cise test. No significant differences be-
groups had divergent recovery respons- tween the tart cherry and placebo groups
es; however, none of the follow-up tests were observed, but a visual assessment
found a statistically significant differ- of the data suggests that the increase at
ence between the tart cherry group and 24 hours was a bit more extreme in the
the placebo group at any individual time placebo group compared to the tart cher-
point. Interestingly, baseline values in ry group (Figure 3).
the tart cherry group tended to be higher
than placebo, and values were very sim-
ilar at one hour post-exercise. Values in Interpretation
the tart cherry group were moving back In the current study, all three perfor-
toward baseline values at 24 and 48 mance outcomes (countermovement
hours, whereas soreness remained pretty jump, 20m sprint time, and isometric
high in the placebo group (Table 2). For leg extension strength) recovered sig-

90
 Figure 3 Serum creatine kinase (CK) concentrations for the cherry juice and placebo groups before and
following the LIST

Cherry juice
Placebo
1000

900

800

700

600
CK (IU/L)

500

400

300

200

100

0
Pre-supplementation Pre-LIST 1h post-LIST 24h 48h

Time
Values are mean ± SD (n=10 per group)
LIST = Loughborough Intermittent Shuttle Test

nificantly more quickly in the tart cherry
group than the placebo group. In con-
trast, the tart cherry treatment did not
appear to confer statistically significant
benefits when it comes to the secondary
measurements (soreness, creatine ki-
nase, and C-reactive protein). There are
two ways to look at this apparent dis-
crepancy; one is simple, one is more nu-
anced, but both lead to the same place.
On one hand, you could look at the dis-
crepancy and dismiss it entirely. We’re
presumably only interested in things like
soreness, creatine kinase, and C-reac-
tive protein because we think they may
relate to recovery, not because we care
about them per se. When you’re jump-
ing higher, running faster, and exerting
more leg extension force, micromanag-
ing creatine kinase and C-reactive pro-
tein values seems a bit unnecessary (as
long as they’re within normal, healthy
ranges).
The more nuanced outlook pertains
to the statistical analysis; after all, the

91
actual patterns in the data aren’t per-
plexing, they just failed to reach statis-
tical significance. With only 10 subjects
per group, this is safely categorized as
a small study, which means that it has
low statistical power. In a study of this
size, you need to see a pretty big, pret-
ty consistent effect in order to achieve
statistical significance. If your measure-
ment has too much variability, or the
observed effect is highly variable from
person to person, it’ll be increasingly
unlikely to find a statistically significant
finding for that outcome. For C-reactive
protein and creatine kinase, it’s likely
that these factors came into play. As a
result, we saw that the mean values fol-
lowed pretty intuitive patterns that sup-
port the performance findings, despite
being statistically nonsignificant. For
the soreness values, there is an addition-
al consideration to keep in mind. As I
noted in the “Findings” section, a group
× time interaction was observed. This
generally tells us that recovery probably
differed between the two groups, so we
better follow up with more tests to figure
out exactly where or how they differed.
When they did the follow-up tests, they
applied a statistical adjustment (Bon-
ferroni correction) to reduce the likeli-
hood of finding a “false positive.” To be
clear, this is the right call, as it protects
us from erroneously finding significant
effects. But, particularly in small stud-
ies like this, it also increases our risk of
“missing” a potentially meaningful pat-
tern and concluding that there were no
differences or patterns to speak of. So,
while the soreness, C-reactive protein,
and creatine kinase results were not sta-
tistically significant, the totality of the
results suggest that the tart cherry sup-
plement facilitated more rapid recovery,
and the purported mechanism of reduced
oxidative stress and inflammation is still
the most likely reason.
A single study is rarely sufficient for
making firm conclusions. Fortunately,
the current study is not the first to find
favorable effects from tart cherry sup-
plementation. As reviewed by Vitale et
al (2), a number of previous studies have
found tart cherry to improve indices of
soreness, muscle damage, inflammation,
oxidative stress, and neuromuscular per-
formance following several days of tart
cherry supplementation. In fact, their re-
view features a table containing 11 stud-
ies, with only one study failing to show
some type of positive effect. McCormick
et al (3) provided six days of tart cher-
ry supplementation for competitive wa-
ter polo players; they maintained their
training schedule throughout the six-day
period, then performed a strenuous exer-
cise bout on day six, prior to post-testing
on day seven. Results indicated that tart
cherry supplementation did not signifi-
cantly improve performance recovery or
biomarkers associated with inflamma-
tion and oxidative stress on day seven.
However, the strenuous exercise bout
on day six was water-based (which is
unlikely to cause much muscle damage
92
since there’s minimal eccentric stress),
and supplementation was discontinued
prior to the day of post-testing. In the
other studies showing benefits, tart cher-
ry was continuously consumed through-
out the recovery period and the day of
post-testing, and the strenuous exercise
tasks involved external loads, eccentric
muscle actions, or higher-impact exer-
cises that are more likely to induce mus-
cle damage and elicit greater oxidative
stress and inflammatory responses.
Overall, the body of literature indi-
cates that regularly consuming tart cher-
ry juice or concentrate can facilitate
recovery from a variety of vigorous or
high-impact exercise tasks, including
marathon running, long-distance run-
ning on rough terrain, eccentric exercise,
cycling, sprinting, and resistance exer-
cise (2). Studies showing benefits gen-
erally provide at least 8-12 fluid ounces
(240-350mL) of tart cherry juice (or at
least 1 fluid ounce [30mL] of tart cherry
concentrate) twice per day for at least a
few days prior to the exercise bout, on
the day of the bout, and into the recov-
ery period. Exact dosing conversions
can be tricky, but the majority of prod-
ucts claim to deliver a dose of the ac-
tive ingredients that is equivalent to, at
minimum, 90-120 whole Montmorency
cherries per day. The current study sim-
ply adds to a growing list of studies indi-
cating that tart cherry supplementation,
when following these dosing guidelines,
can facilitate recovery from a variety of
strenuous exercise tasks by attenuating
oxidative stress and inflammation.
If you read the current literature on tart
cherry supplementation, many of the pa-
pers (including the current study) note
that long-term supplementation could
potentially interfere with training adap-
tations, which would certainly be unfa-
vorable. When it comes to antioxidants,
it is true that some studies have previ-
ously found that high-dose vitamin C
supplementation reduces activity of cell
signaling pathways associated with mi-
tochondrial biogenesis in response to en-
durance training and reduces activity of
cell signaling pathways associated with
muscle protein synthesis in response to
resistance training (4). However, these
concerns are probably overstated. Some
individual studies have shown modest
and inconsistent attenuation of training
adaptations to endurance or resistance
training, but a recent meta-analysis by
Clifford et al (5) found that high-dose
vitamin C supplementation, with or
without vitamin E, did not negatively
impact training-induced improvements
in maximal aerobic capacity (VO2max),
endurance performance, strength, or hy-
pertrophy. In addition, the primary anti-
oxidant compounds found in tart cherry
probably influence oxidative stress via
activation of nuclear factor erythroid 2–
related factor 2 (Nrf2), rather than scav-
enging reactive species directly (6). This
mechanistic distinction would theoreti-
cally make plant-derived phytonutrient
93
antioxidant compounds, like those found
in tart cherry, less likely to interfere with
training adaptations. Fortunately, the
limited data available seem to support
this concept (6); while the vitamin C lit-
erature only gives us mild cause for con-
cern, none of the (admittedly few) lon-
gitudinal supplementation studies I’ve
seen with polyphenol-rich antioxidant
treatments derived from plants or algae
have impaired hypertrophy or strength
gains. At this point in time, the available
evidence suggests that tart cherry juice,
along with other polyphenol-rich juices
or extracts such as pomegranate (7) and
watermelon (8), can reduce soreness
and expedite recovery following stren-
uous exercise. In addition, there is in-
sufficient evidence to suggest that fruit,
vegetable, or algae-derived juices or ex-
tracts would meaningfully interfere with
strength gains or hypertrophy.
On a practical note, it’s important to
make a clear distinction: Just because
something enhances recovery, doesn’t
mean you need it to recover, and doesn’t
mean it will positively impact your per-
formance during training sessions. We
can view these types of recovery supple-
ments as crutches; yes, they help you get
around, but the best case scenario would
be not spraining your ankle in the first
place. The majority of studies that report
benefits from these types of supplements
tend to introduce participants to pretty
strenuous, unaccustomed exercise, then
re-test a variety of recovery parameters
over pretty short time frames. If you’re
wondering whether or not these types
of supplements make sense for you,
I’d encourage you to ask yourself two
questions: how often do you impose that
large of a recovery burden on yourself,
and how soon after that bout do you need
your performance to be back to 100%?
Certainly there are instances in which
recovery aides are warranted because
more conservative management of the
stressors of training (or competition)
is simply not possible due to circum-
stances that are entirely outside of your
control. Or, maybe you’re intentionally
entering a pretty arduous period of over-
reaching for a specific purpose. Or, let’s
be honest – some people just love train-
ing really, really hard, and they like to
do it frequently. If you find yourself in
a situation where you are unnecessarily
applying training stressors that you’re
unable to recover from, you might con-
sider taking a closer look at your pro-
gramming. However, if you find yourself
in one of the scenarios where nutritional
support is either necessary or prefera-
ble, the evidence would suggest that tart
cherry is a solid option. I should note,
however, that tart cherry isn’t necessar-
ily “special.” It’s got plenty of polyphe-
nols and other phytochemicals; that’s
fantastic, but it’s not unique. There are
innumerable fruits, vegetables, and oth-
er plant-based foods, juices, and extracts
that are absolutely full of polyphenols
and a variety of other bioactive phyto-
94
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
The current study adds to a growing body of literature suggesting that tart cherry
supplementation can expedite recovery following particularly vigorous, damaging,
or unaccustomed exercise. While proper management of overall training load is
advised, tart cherry supplementation can facilitate recovery, and is unlikely to impair
training adaptations. Notably, the antioxidant phytochemicals in tart cherry can be
found in a variety of fruits and vegetables, so a diet featuring a diverse array of
nutrient-rich plant foods seems like a solid strategy, whether or not you choose to
pursue supplementation.

nutrients and antioxidant subtypes. For
example, you can buy a pint (473mL)
of tart cherry concentrate for about $10-
15 USD, and the product in the current
study claims to deliver 274mg of antho-
cyanins per 30mL serving. In contrast,
anthocyanin content of certain blueber-
ry genotypes has been estimated at over
500mg/100g fresh weight, and multiple
common fruits and vegetables are as
high, or even higher (9). It’s also im-
portant to recognize that studies tend to
use two doses per day, but that doesn’t
necessarily mean that they’re using the
smallest dose required for meaningful
results. Of course supplementation is the
easiest way to replicate the doses used in
prior studies, and this particular supple-
ment isn’t astronomically expensive, but
it seems plausible to speculate that you
could achieve an efficacious dose from a
diet full of antioxidant-rich fruits, vege-
tables, or their juices. If you’re looking
for other options for antioxidant sourc-
es, a paper by Carlsen and colleagues
(10) lists the antioxidant content of over
3,100 foods, beverages, spices, herbs,
and supplements, so the options are vir-
tually endless. Whether you go with tart
cherry, or any other combination of phy-
tonutrient-rich antioxidant sources, it
would certainly seem advisable to con-
sume a diet featuring a diverse array of
nutrient-rich plant foods, regardless of
your current recovery burden. And, in
times when the recovery burden grows,
an increased emphasis on intake of these
nutrients makes a lot of sense.
Next Steps
I’ve already described some of the
theoretical circumstances in which tart
cherry supplementation might really
come in handy, so it’d be great to see
it actually get studied under those con-
ditions. I’d love to see a study in which
daily tart cherry supplementation was
provided throughout the duration of a
really intense, hypertrophy-focused re-
sistance training program. This would
allow us to have greater confidence that

95
the antioxidants in tart cherry wouldn’t
actually attenuate resistance training ad-
aptations, and would also tell us exact-
ly how beneficial tart cherry could be in
training conditions that would theoreti-
cally maximize its effectiveness.

96
References

1. Quinlan R, Hill JA. The Efficacy of Tart Cherry Juice in Aiding Recovery After Intermittent
Exercise. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2019 Oct 15;1–7.
2. Vitale KC, Hueglin S, Broad E. Tart Cherry Juice in Athletes: A Literature Review and Com-
mentary. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2017 Aug;16(4):230–9.
3. McCormick R, Peeling P, Binnie M, Dawson B, Sim M. Effect of tart cherry juice on re-
covery and next day performance in well-trained Water Polo players. J Int Soc Sports Nutr.
2016;13:41.
4. Merry TL, Ristow M. Do antioxidant supplements interfere with skeletal muscle adaptation
to exercise training? J Physiol. 2016 15;594(18):5135–47.
5. Clifford T, Jeffries O, Stevenson EJ, Davies KAB. The effects of vitamin C and E on exer-
cise-induced physiological adaptations: a systematic review and Meta-analysis of random-
ized controlled trials. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2019 Dec 18;0(0):1–11.
6. Ismaeel A, Holmes M, Papoutsi E, Panton L, Koutakis P. Resistance Training, Antiox-
idant Status, and Antioxidant Supplementation. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2019 Sep
1;29(5):539–47.
7. Trombold JR, Reinfeld AS, Casler JR, Coyle EF. The effect of pomegranate juice supple-
mentation on strength and soreness after eccentric exercise. J Strength Cond Res. 2011
Jul;25(7):1782–8.
8. Tarazona-Díaz MP, Alacid F, Carrasco M, Martínez I, Aguayo E. Watermelon juice: po-
tential functional drink for sore muscle relief in athletes. J Agric Food Chem. 2013 Aug
7;61(31):7522–8.
9. Horbowicz M, Kosson R, Grzesiuk A, Dębski H. Anthocyanins of Fruits and Vegetables -
Their Occurrence, Analysis and Role in Human Nutrition. Veg Crops Res Bull. 2008 Jan
1;68(1):5–22.
10. Carlsen MH, Halvorsen BL, Holte K, Bøhn SK, Dragland S, Sampson L, et al. The total
antioxidant content of more than 3100 foods, beverages, spices, herbs and supplements used
worldwide. Nutr J. 2010 Jan 22;9:3.

97
Study Reviewed: Hyperventilation-Aided Recovery for Extra Repetitions on Bench
Press and Leg Press. Sakamoto et al (2020)

Hyperventilation: More
Effective Than Bicarbonate,
With Less Diarrhea
BY G RE G NUC KO LS

Hyperventilating before busting out a set of bench press or leg press

may sound weird, but a recent study found that doing so can have pretty
large effects on acute recovery and strength endurance. It also makes
sense physiologically.

98
 KEY POINTS
1. Subjects completed six sets of bench press and leg press to failure on two separate
occasions. They breathed normally before some sets, and hyperventilated for the
last 30 seconds of the preceding rest period before other sets.
2. In the sets following normal breathing, rep performance decreased from the
preceding set. In the sets following hyperventilation, rep performance was
maintained or slightly increased from the preceding set.
3. Hyperventilation works via a mechanism that’s similar to the proposed mechanism
of bicarbonate. However, it’s free, easy, allegedly side-effect-free (if you do it
correctly), and potentially more effective.

M
any things contribute to fa-
tigue during training, from
central fatigue, to local sub-
strate depletion, to impaired intramus-
cular calcium handling. One of the
major drivers of acute muscular fa-
tigue, however, is major shifts in acid/
base balance. When anaerobic glycol-
ysis is driving ATP production, you
produce a lot of free hydrogen ions,
which decrease muscle pH and impair
muscle contraction strength. An inter-
vention that’s effective at shifting the
acid-base balance by buffering more
hydrogen ions could theoretically im-
prove strength endurance. That’s been
the promise of supplements like be-
ta-alanine and bicarbonate, but they’ve
largely proved to be disappointing so
far, at least for resistance exercise.
One major driver of acid/base bal-
ance throughout your body is the level
of carbon dioxide in your blood. With
higher carbon dioxide levels, your
blood becomes more acidic (and vice
versa). Lowering levels of carbon diox-
ide could thus make your blood slight-
ly more basic, allowing you to “with-
stand” larger spikes in hydrogen ion
production during resistance training,
in turn improving strength endurance.
And how can you lower blood levels
of carbon dioxide? By hyperventilat-
ing. It may sound ridiculous, but the
presently reviewed study tested the
effects of hyperventilation on strength
endurance (1). Trained subjects were
able to complete approximately 30%
more bench press and leg press reps
when they hyperventilated for 30 sec-
onds before the start of each set, com-
pared to a control condition when they
breathed normally. Read on to learn
more about respiratory physiology,
and whether controlled hyperventi-
lation is the “one weird trick” we’ve
been looking for this whole time.

99
 Table 1 Subject characteristics (n=11)
Age (years) Height (cm)
22.5 ± 4.3 176.1 ± 4.9
Purpose and Hypotheses
Purpose
The primary purpose of this study was
to investigate the effects of hyperven-
tilation on leg press and bench press
strength endurance during repeated sets
to failure. Secondary purposes were to
evaluate the effects of hyperventilation
on respiratory and blood markers asso-
ciated with alkalosis and fatigue.
Hypotheses
The authors hypothesized that hyper-
ventilation would improve recovery be-
tween sets of bench press and leg press,
allowing more repetitions to be com-
pleted.
Subjects and Methods
Subjects
11 trained men participated in this
study. They averaged almost seven
years of resistance training experience,
and all participated in sports that rely on
strength or power to some degree (seven
throwers, two rugby players, one judy
player, and one sprinter). More details
Bench press 1RM Resistance training
Body mass (kg) Leg press 1RM (kg)
(kg) experience (years)
90 ± 17.1 129.1 ± 19.2 208.1 ± 28.9 6.8 ± 3.1
about the subjects can be seen in Table
1.
Experimental Design
This study employed a counterbal-
anced crossover design, meaning all
subjects completed two different pro-
tocols, with half of the subjects com-
pleting one protocol first, and the other
half completing the other protocol first.
The first two study visits were simply
for baseline testing and familiarization
with the exercise protocol. The last two
visits were the primary experimental
visits.
During both experimental visits
(which were separated by 48-72 hours),
subjects performed six sets of bench
press and six sets of leg press to failure
with 80% of 1RM. They rested for five
minutes between sets, and performed
all sets of bench press before moving
onto leg press. During protocol A (one
of the two testing visits), subjects hy-
perventilated before sets 1, 3, and 5,
and during the final recovery period af-
ter set 6. During protocol B, subjects
hyperventilated before sets 2, 4, and 6.
Before all other sets (and during the fi-
nal recovery period after set 6 during
protocol B), subjects breathed normal-
100
 Figure 1 Overview of experimental flow

Bench press performed first followed by leg press

Baseline 1’00 1’00 1’00 1’00 1’00 1’00 4’30 5’00

additional
warm-up / set-up ex. recovery ex. recovery ex. recovery ex. recovery ex. recovery ex.
recovery

1st 5-min 2nd 5-min 3rd 5-min 4th 5-min 5th 5-min 6th 5-min

Protocol A HV HV HV HV
(30-s) (30-s) (30-s) (30-s)

Protocol B HV HV HV
(30-s) (30-s) (30-s)

blood taken for [La-] blood taken for pH and PCO2

Hyperventilation (HV) was implemented for 30 seconds from 4’30 to 5’00 of recovery before the first, third, and fifth exercise sets as well as during additional recovery
in protocol A and before the second, fourth, and sixth sets in protocol B. Blood [LA-} was measured before exercise (baseline) and then 1 minute after every exercise
set (1’00 of recovery). Blood pH and PCO2 were measured before exercise (baseline) and immediately before 4’30 and at 5’00 of additional recovery.

ly, at whatever depth and cadence they allowed to increase their respiratory rate
preferred. Hyperventilation was only or tidal volume as they saw fit in order to
performed for 30 seconds before the start bring their PCO2 down into the desired
of each set when it was used. range.
Subjects were fitted with masks and Subjects were also outfitted with elec-
hooked up to a machine that measured tronic goniometers to measure the angular
respiratory variables including total ven- velocity of their elbows and knees during
tilation (the total amount of air breathed bench press and leg press, respectively.
per minute), respiratory rate (breaths per The fastest two reps of each set were
minute), tidal volume (the amount of air recorded for analysis. Joint angular ve-
per breath), and end-tidal partial pressure locities are obviously different from bar
of carbon dioxide (the amount of carbon velocities (which we’ve discussed more
dioxide in the air being exhaled at the frequently), but measuring either of them
end of exhalation; henceforth abbreviat- accomplishes the same basic purpose. Fi-
ed PCO2). Before sets that required hy- nally, blood was collected intermittently
perventilation, subjects were instructed throughout the protocol to measure blood
to hyperventilate until their PCO2 fell lactate levels and blood pH.
into the 15-25mmHg range; they were

101
 Figure 2 The number of repetitions (mean ± SD, n = 11) achieved in each exercise set
(first-sixth) during bench press and leg press with the hyperventilation or control recovery

Findings
Subjects completed significantly more A Protocol A B Protocol B

reps across all six sets during the post-hy- Bench press Leg press

perventilation sets than the normal breath- 20.0

Set: p < 0.001 (leg press)
Set: p < 0.001 (bench press)
Set: p < 0.001 (leg press)
Set: p < 0.001 (bench press)

ing sets (44 ± 10 vs. 36 ± 10 reps for bench

18.0
n.s.
16.0

press and 64 ± 9 vs. 50 ± 15 reps for leg 14.0

** (p = 0.059)

press). In general, when subjects breathed

***

Repetitions
12.0 *** **
*
**
normally before a set, their number of 10.0 ***

reps completed decreased relative to the

8.0 ***

6.0 n.s.

prior set, whereas they were able to com-

*** n.s.
4.0 n.s.

plete the same number of reps or more

n.s.
***
n.s. ***
2.0 ** ***

reps than the prior set after hyperventilat-

0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
(HV) (HV) (HV) (HV) (HV) (HV)
ing. Similar to rep performance, angular Exercise set Exercise set
velocities during the first two reps of each
set tended to decrease relative to the prior C D

set following normal breathing, and either 100

Mean +/- SD 95% CI

hold steady or increase relative to the pri- 90

***
***

or set following hyperventilation.

ES = 1.14

80
Total repetitions

ES = 0.84
(protocol A+B)

As would be expected, total ventilation

70 69

was greater during hyperventilation. Sub-

60 58
59

jects took both more breaths and deeper

50 50

42 41
40

breaths. As a result, PCO2 prior to the

38

30
30
next set was significantly lower (~15- 20

25mmHg) following hyperventilation

HV CON HV CON

Bench press Leg press

than when following normal breathing Condition

(~35-40mmHg). Hyperventilation (HV) was implemented for 30 seconds from 4’30 to 5’00 of recovery immediately

PCO2 and blood pH both decreased be-

before the first, third, and fifth exercise sets in protocol A (A) and before the second, fourth, and
sixth sets in protocol B (B). The total numbers of repetitions (protocol A + B) from 6 exercise sets
are shown in (C) represent the means of all subjects, whereas pale lines show individual data. ES,

tween baseline and post-training in both

effect size determined by Cohen’s d. 95% CI, 95% confidence interval (gray vertical bars).
Significance levels for the main effect of set (1-way repeated-measures analysis of variance) are

protocols. When the final recovery peri-

shown in the figures (A and B). Significant differences according to pairwise comparisons (vs.
previous set) are indicated by asterisk, where *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, and n.s., nonsignificant

od was ended with 30 seconds of normal

breathing (protocol B), PCO2 and blood
pH didn’t change. When the final recov-
ery period was ended with 30 seconds of
hyperventilation (protocol A), blood pH
significantly increased, and PCO2 signifi-
cantly decreased.
Peak blood lactate was significantly
greater following leg press than bench
press.
No subjects had any adverse reactions
to hyperventilation (dizziness, tingling, or
chest discomfort).

102
 Figure 3 Comparisons of minute ventilation, respiratory rate, expired tidal volume,
and end-tidal partial pressure of CO2 with or without hyperventilation

Bench press Leg press

Protocol A Protocol B

150

120
VE (l/min)

90

60

30

0
A B

60
RR (breath/min)

50

40

30

20
C D

3000

2500
TVE (ml)

2000

1500

1000

500
E F

50
PETCO2 (mlmHg)

40

30

20

10
1 2 3 4 5 6 Add, 1 2 3 4 5 6 Add,
(HV) (HV) (HV) Recov. (HV) (HV) (HV) Recov.
(HV)
G H
Exercise set Exercise set

VE = ventilation; RR = respiratory rate; TVE = expired tidal volume; PETCO2 = end-tidal partial pressure of CO2
Hyperventilation (HV) was implemented for 30 seconds from 4’30 to 5’00 of recovery immediately before the first, third, and fifth exercise
sets as well as during additional recovery (Add. Recov.) in protocol A (A, C, E, and G) and before the second, fourth, and sixth exercise sets
in protocol B (B, D, F, and H). The other sets were preceded by the control recovery. The values are the average over the last 30 seconds
of each recovery, except for PETCO2 that shows the average over the last 10 seconds of each recovery.

103
 Figure 4 Changes in blood pH (A and B) and PCO2 (C and D) between baseline vs. 4’30 of additional recovery
(add. recov.) vs. 5’00 of additional recovery for bench and leg press

Bench press Leg press

Protocol A Protocol B
7.60
Time: p < 0.001 (bench press) Time: p < 0.001 (bench press)
Time: p < 0.001 (leg press) Time: p < 0.001 (leg press)
7.55

7.50 ***
*** *** n.s.
7.45
Blood pH

7.40

7.35

7.30

7.25
*** ***
7.20
*** n.s.

7.15
A B

Time: p < 0.001 (bench press) Time: p < 0.001 (bench press)
50.0 Time: p < 0.001 (leg press) Time: p < 0.001 (leg press)

*** ***
45.0
n.s.
***
40.0
Blood PCO2 (mmHg)

35.0

30.0

25.0
*** n.s.
***

20.0
***
15.0
Baseline Add. Add. Baseline Add. Add.
C Recov. Recov. D Recov. Recov.
4’30 5’00 4’30 5’00
(HV) (CON)

Time Time
Data at 4’30 and 5’00 of additional recovery in protocol A (A and C) show the changes in blood pH and PCO2 before and after
hyperventilation (HV), whereas those in protocol B (B and D) show the changes with control spontaneous breathing (CON).
Significance levels for the main effect of set (1-way repeated-measures analysis of variance) are shown in the figure. Significant
differences according to pairwise comparisons (vs. previous set) are indicated by asterisks, where *** p < 0.001 and n.s., nonsignificant

diffuse across cell membranes without

Interpretation special transporters, so they easily flow
Before we get into this discussion, down their concentration gradients.
I think it’s worth explaining a little bit Your lungs don’t have to send a signal
about respiratory physiology. Gas ex- for your red blood cells to pick up oxy-
change depends on concentration gra- gen as blood flows around your alveo-
dients. Oxygen and carbon dioxide are li; the concentration of oxygen in your
small, polar molecules that can readily lungs is simply higher than the concen-

104
 Figure 5
Deoxygenated veins,
upper torso
Capillaries
PCO2 46 mm Hg
PCO2 40 mm Hg
Venous blood
Deoxygenated veins,
lower torso
Partial pressures of oxygen and carbon dioxide throughout the body at rest when breathing normally. At each site of gas
exchange, oxygen and carbon dioxide readily diffuse down their concentration gradients
tration of oxygen in your venous blood,
so oxygen diffuses into the bloodstream
and is picked up by the red blood cells.
Your muscles don’t have to send a signal
for your red blood cells to offload oxy-
gen; the concentration of oxygen in your
arterial blood is simply higher than the
concentration (or partial pressure) of ox-
ygen in your muscles, so oxygen diffus-
es from your blood into your muscles.
PCO2 0.2 mm Hg
PCO2 160 mm Hg
Ambient air
Oxygenated arteries, upper torso
PCO2 40 mm Hg
PCO2 100 mm Hg
Arterial blood
Oxygenated arteries, lower torso
The opposite is true across the board for
carbon dioxide. When you’re breathing
normally, your arterial blood is fully sat-
urated with oxygen. Even when you’re
exercising at maximal intensity, assum-
ing you don’t have some sort of pulmo-
nary condition and you can breathe free-
ly, your arterial blood is fully saturated
with oxygen. Thus, no matter how hard
you breathe, oxygen uptake and deliv-
105
ery is hardly affected (unless you’re
breathing pure oxygen, but that’s anoth-
er can of worms). However, blood car-
bon dioxide levels are prone to change.
The partial pressure of carbon dioxide
in your lungs and blood is 40-46mmHg.
Your body naturally holds it in that
range because structures in your brain-
stem can sense if blood carbon dioxide
levels are rising, and they cause you to
start breathing harder as a result (with-
out needing to think about it) to “blow
off” more carbon dioxide. The partial
pressure of carbon dioxide in the air we
breathe is a scant 0.2mmHg, though, so
purposefully breathing harder (deeper
or faster) can drop the partial pressure
of carbon dioxide in your lungs, which
will, in turn, drop the partial pressure of
carbon dioxide in your blood (2).
So, why does any of this matter?
Carbon dioxide levels in your blood
have a large role in regulating blood pH.
Some amount of carbon dioxide will be
combined with water and converted to
carbonic acid by the enzyme carbonic
anhydrase, and carbonic acid will then
(typically) break down to form bicar-
bonate and a free hydrogen ion. Free
hydrogen ions are what cause acidity to
increase in a solution. With high levels
of carbon dioxide in the blood, you form
more carbonic acid and release more free
hydrogen ions, so blood pH drops. With
low levels of carbon dioxide, you form
less carbonic acid and release fewer free
hydrogen ions, so blood pH increases.
SINCE HYPERVENTILATING
DECREASES BLOOD CARBON
DIOXIDE LEVELS, IT INCREASES
BLOOD PH, PUTTING YOU
INTO A STATE CALLED
“RESPIRATORY ALKALOSIS.”
Since hyperventilating decreases blood
carbon dioxide levels, it increases blood
pH, putting you into a state called “re-
spiratory alkalosis” (2).
Hyperventilating works on the same
principles that bicarbonate supplemen-
tation does. Remember, bicarbonate is
in the blood naturally as a result of the
dissociation of carbonic acid. When you
add more bicarbonate into the system
(tilting the bicarbonate/hydrogen ion
balance in favor of bicarbonate), more
hydrogen ions will spontaneously re-as-
sociate with bicarbonate, especially if
blood pH starts dropping. Thus, by buff-
ering hydrogen ions, bicarbonate slight-
ly alkalizes the blood, and decreases the
extent of pH reductions following a giv-
en amount of exercise.
However, hyperventilating is theoreti-
cally superior to bicarbonate supplemen-
tation in two different ways. First, bicar-
bonate exists primarily in the blood, and
106

ALL BUT ONE SUBJECT
PERFORMED BETTER WHEN
HYPERVENTILATING FOR BOTH
BENCH PRESS AND LEG PRESS.
it works by creating a steeper gradient
between hydrogen levels inside versus
outside muscle cells, meaning hydrogen
will more readily diffuse out of the mus-
cle. Respiratory alkalosis, on the other
hand, increases the pH on both sides of
the membrane. This means more hy-
drogen ions can be buffered within the
muscle first, and then once muscle pH
begins dropping, there’s still the same
transmembrane hydrogen gradient, al-
lowing hydrogen ions to more efficient-
ly diffuse out of the muscle. Second,
there’s a finite amount that bicarbon-
ate supplementation can actually help
you during an exercise session. Once
it buffers hydrogen, forming carbonic
acid, some amount of that carbonic acid
will be converted to water and carbon
dioxide, and the carbon dioxide will
be exhaled. Bicarbonate supplementa-
tion gives you an extra “reserve” of bi-
carbonate, but that reserve is depleted
during exercise, and the transmembrane
hydrogen ion gradient gets smaller and
smaller as more and more of that excess
bicarbonate is depleted. With hyperven-
tilation, on the other hand, the amount
it can help you during a single exercise
session is functionally limitless. If you
hyperventilate before every set, you can
re-establish low blood carbon dioxide
levels, and re-elevate blood and muscle
pH.
With all of that out of the way, let’s
discuss the actual study.
The results of this study were pretty
impressive. Hyperventilating improved
bench press performance by a little more
than one rep per set, and leg press per-
formance by a little more than two reps
per set. 1.3-2.3 extra reps per set may
not sound like too much to write home
about, but it represented a ~27-35% in-
crease in the total number of reps com-
pleted. It’s also more than we tend to see
from supplements that purport to im-
prove strength performance (like bicar-
bonate, beta alanine (4), beetroot juice,
and citrulline). The set-to-set trends are
striking as well. From set 1 to set 2,
when subjects breathed normally for the
whole recovery period, they lost about 3
leg press reps. That’s about what you’d
expect following a set to failure. From
set 1 to set 2, when subjects hyperven-
tilated for the last 30 seconds of the re-
covery period, they didn’t lose any reps.
Between sets 4 and 5, they lost about
1.5 reps when breathing normally, and
gained about 2 reps following hyperven-
tilating. That’s wild. You just don’t ever
see people improve their performance
107
during their fifth set to failure on a com-
pound lower body exercise. Individual
results are also quite striking. All but
one subject performed better when hy-
perventilating for both bench press and
leg press.
In terms of study design, there was
one thing I loved and one thing I dis-
liked about this study. Starting with the
gripe, while the set-to-set trends are
cool to see with alternated hyperventi-
lation and normal breathing, I wish the
authors would have just separated the
conditions. I can’t think of a physiolog-
ical reason that would lead me to sus-
pect that the benefits of hyperventilation
wouldn’t stick around for back-to-back
sets, but it would still be nice to veri-
fy. It would also help us make more di-
rect comparisons between this study and
other literature looking at the effects of
various interventions on acute strength
endurance. However, the thing I liked
about this study was a huge plus: they
used long rest intervals. Subjects rest-
ed for five minutes between sets, which
should be long enough for any “nor-
mal” recovery that was going to take
place. If the subjects just rested for one
minute between sets, it would be easy
to come away with the conclusion that
hyperventilation helps people get back
to baseline a little bit faster following a
set, but I’d be hesitant to conclude that
it actually improves acute strength en-
durance. With five-minute rest intervals,
I’m much more confident that hyperven-
tilation actually improves performance,
rather than just accelerating acute recov-
ery.
I don’t want this discussion section
to just sound like a sales pitch, though.
There are some drawbacks and caveats
to consider. For starters, prior studies on
hyperventilation haven’t had such im-
pressive results (5, 6). They also show
improvements in performance, but the
effects are smaller. One major factor
may be the type of exercise performed.
A prior study found only modest im-
provements during a knee extension
protocol (6). In the present study, the ef-
fects were larger for the leg press than
the bench press. Across these two stud-
ies, leg press caused the largest systemic
disruption (highest blood lactate, lowest
blood pH), followed by bench press,
followed by knee extensions. Thus,
the benefits are probably only notable
during compound exercises, and espe-
cially lower body compound exercises.
Hyperventilating probably won’t help
you bust out more triceps extensions.
The systemic metabolic stressor needs
to be sufficiently large for hyperventila-
tion to help much. Second, it seems that
the appropriate application of hyper-
ventilation is a bit finicky. A prior study
tested hyperventilation durations of 15
and 45 seconds, and found that neither
improved performance during repeated
pedaling sprints (7). 15 seconds may
have been too short to be effective,
while 45 seconds may have been long
108
enough for side effects (such as dizzi-
ness or paresthesia) to set in. Finally, as
I just mentioned, hyperventilation is not
without potential side effects. No side
effects were noted in the present study,
but the researchers were monitoring the
subjects to ensure their PCO2 levels got
to the target range (15-25mmHg) but
didn’t get too low. Hyperventilating too
hard can cause pretty intense lighthead-
edness, which isn’t recommended when
trying to lift weights.
With those caveats in mind, hyperven-
tilation seems pretty promising for acute-
ly improving strength endurance during
multiple sets. If you decide to give it a
shot, and you don’t want to time out ex-
actly 30 seconds, ~25 fast, deep breaths
will probably do the trick, since the sub-
jects in this study had a respiration rate
of approximately 50 breaths per minute.
I’d recommend trying it out before you
go to the gym, just to make sure you
don’t get lightheaded – you wouldn’t
want to make that discovery in the mid-
dle of a set. Then, I’d recommend first
testing it out on exercises with reason-
ably low risk. Rows and deadlifts would
be strong candidates, since you can
just drop the weights if you start feel-
ing lightheaded. I wouldn’t recommend
testing out squat or bench press until
you’re really confident about how you
respond to pre-training hyperventilation
(and even then, make sure you have a
spotter you trust, and safety pins set to
the appropriate height). Personally, I’m
IF HYPERVENTILATION CAN
IMPROVE THE RATE AT WHICH
YOU RECOVER BETWEEN
SETS, IT MAY BE ESPECIALLY
USEFUL FOR FOLKS WHO
NEED TO TAKE SHORT REST
INTERVALS BETWEEN SETS.
probably not going to give it a shot un-
til we have longitudinal data showing
that it actually improves strength gains
or muscle growth. I’m also a reasonably
risk-averse person, and I have a history
of syncope, so your personal cost/bene-
fit assessment may differ from mine.
As I semi-alluded to earlier, one pos-
sible application for hyperventilation
is for people who have limited time to
train. If hyperventilation can improve
the rate at which you recover between
sets (blowing off more carbon dioxide
to get back to normal muscle and blood
pH faster), it may be especially useful
for folks who need to take short rest in-
tervals between sets. If it could make
two minutes of rest as effective as four
minutes of rest, for example, you could
drastically shorten your training time
without sacrificing quantity or quality.
To be clear, that’s not what the presently
109
 APPLICATION AND TAKEAWAYS
It may be worth experimenting with hyperventilating for approximately 30 seconds
before sets, especially when you’re doing higher-rep training with compound
exercises. Assess your tolerance with low-risk exercises (like deadlifts or rows,
where you can just drop the bar if you start getting light-headed) before you try it
with higher risk exercises (like squats or bench press). If you’re experiencing side
effects like lightheadedness, you should hyperventilate less enthusiastically or for a
shorter period of time, or just go back to breathing normally before sets.

reviewed study was investigating, but it

would make some degree of physiologi-
cal sense and may be worth experiment-
ing with.

Next Steps
Most of the work in this area is from
a single lab group, so I’d like to see
these results replicated by another in-
dependent group. I’d also be interested
in seeing whether these findings gen-
eralize in circumstances when subjects
aren’t training to failure. Finally, I’d be
curious to see whether hyperventilation
would still improve performance with
shorter rest intervals (60-120 seconds,
rather than at the end of a 5-minute rest
interval).

110
References

1. Sakamoto A, Naito H, Chow CM. Hyperventilation-Aided Recovery for Extra Repetitions

on Bench Press and Leg Press. J Strength Cond Res. 2020 Feb
2. Literally any basic exercise physiology textbook
3. Readers who’ve taken an exercise physiology course may now be wondering about the Hal-
dane effect and the impact of shifting the oxyhemoglobin dissociation curve to the left before
a set of resistance exercise. I don’t think that’s much of a concern, because local CO2 levels
and pH will still drop pretty quickly during a set of resistance exercise, shifting the curve
back to the right as the set progresses.
4. Saunders B, Elliott-Sale K, Artioli GG, Swinton PA, Dolan E, Roschel H, Sale C, Gualano
B. β-alanine supplementation to improve exercise capacity and performance: a systematic
review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2017 Apr;51(8):658-669.
5. Sakamoto A, Naito H, Chow CM. Hyperventilation as a strategy for improved repeated
sprint performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2014 Apr;28(4):1119-26.
6. Sakamoto A, Naito H, Chow CM. Hyperventilation-induced respiratory alkalosis falls short
of countering fatigue during repeated maximal isokinetic contractions. Eur J Appl Physiol.
2015 Jul;115(7):1453-65.
7. Sakamoto A, Naito H, Chow CM. Effects of Hyperventilation on Repeated Pedaling Sprint
Performance: Short vs. Long Intervention Duration. J Strength Cond Res. 2018 Jan;32(1):170-
180.

111
VIDEO: Implementing Light/Power
Training Days
BY MIC HAE L C . ZO URD O S

The best way to recover or to maximize performance the next day is to rest,
right? Well, maybe not. Some research suggests that performing light training
days or power-focused sessions might help you recover faster and lead to better
performance the next day as opposed to just resting. This video provides specific
examples of how to implement those practices.
Click to watch Michael's presentation.

112
Relevant MASS Articles
1. Acute Power-Type Training Potentiates Explosiveness for Up to 48 Hours. Volume 1, Issue
2.
2. Should You Train to Recover? Volume 3, Issue 5.

References
1. Bartolomei S, Totti V, Griggio F, Malerba C, Ciacci S, Semprini G, Di RM. Upper-Body
Resistance Exercise Reduces Time to Recover After a High-Volume Bench Press Protocol in
Resistance-Trained Men. Journal of strength and conditioning research. 2019 Mar.
2. Tsoukos A, Veligekas P, Brown LE, Terzis G, Bogdanis GC. Delayed effects of a low-volume,
power-type resistance exercise session on explosive performance. The Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research. 2018 Mar 1;32(3):643-50.
3. 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
traditional configuration in powerlifters. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.
2016 Mar 1;30(3):784-91.

113
 VIDEO: Overtraining in
Resistance Exercise
BY E RI C HE LMS

We’ve discussed how intro weeks provide graded exposure to training so you can
complete what’s programmed, how to implement deloads when mesocycle stress gets
high, and how to functionally overreach. However, we haven’t yet defined and discussed
over training. In this video, we do just that.
Click to watch Eric's presentation.

114
Relevant MASS Videos and Articles
1. VIDEO: Implementing Deloads, Part 1
2. VIDEO: Implementing Deloads, Part 2
3. VIDEO: Overreaching in a Peaking Phase

References
1. Meeusen R, Duclos M, Foster C, Fry A, Gleeson M, Nieman D, Raglin J, Rietjens G, Stein-
acker J, Urhausen A, American College of Sports Medicine. Prevention, diagnosis, and treat-
ment of the overtraining syndrome: joint consensus statement of the European College of
Sport Science and the American College of Sports Medicine. Medicine and Science in Sports
and Exercise. 2013 Jan;45(1):186.
2. Grandou C, Wallace L, Impellizzeri FM, Allen NG, Coutts AJ. Overtraining in Resistance
Exercise: An Exploratory Systematic Review and Methodological Appraisal of the Litera-
ture. Sports Medicine. 2019 Dec 9:1-4.
3. Fry AC, Schilling BK, Weiss LW, Chiu LZ. β2-Adrenergic receptor downregulation and
performance decrements during high-intensity resistance exercise overtraining. Journal of
Applied Physiology. 2006 Dec;101(6):1664-72.
4. Margonis K, Fatouros IG, Jamurtas AZ, Nikolaidis MG, Douroudos I, Chatzinikolaou A,
Mitrakou A, Mastorakos G, Papassotiriou I, Taxildaris K, Kouretas D. Oxidative stress bio-
markers responses to physical overtraining: implications for diagnosis. Free Radical Biology
and Medicine. 2007 Sep 15;43(6):901-10.
5. Fry AC, Kraemer WJ, Ramsey LT. Pituitary-adrenal-gonadal responses to high-intensity re-
sistance exercise overtraining. Journal of Applied Physiology. 1998 Dec 1;85(6):2352-9.
6. Fry AC, Kraemer WJ, Van Borselen F, Lynch JM, Triplett NT, Koziris LP, Fleck SJ. Cate-
cholamine responses to short-term high-intensity resistance exercise overtraining. Journal of
Applied Physiology. 1994 Aug 1;77(2):941-6.
7. Fry AC, Kraemer WJ, van Borselen F, Lynch JM, Marsit JL, Roy EP, Triplett NT, Knuttgen
HG. Performance decrements with high-intensity resistance exercise overtraining. Medicine
and Science in Sports and Exercise. 1994 Sep;26(9):1165.

115
 Just Missed the Cut
Every month, we consider hundreds of new papers, and they can’t all be included in
MASS. Therefore, we’re happy to share a few pieces of research that just missed the
cut. It’s our hope that with the knowledge gained from reading MASS, along with our
interpreting research guide, you’ll be able to tackle these on your own.

1. Jovanovski et al. Can dietary viscous fiber affect body weight independently of
an energy-restrictive diet? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized
controlled trials
2. Sweeney et al. Impaired Insulin Profiles Following a Single Night of Sleep Restriction:
The Impact of Acute Sprint Interval Exercise
3. Cheatham and Stull. Roller Massage: Difference in Knee Joint Range of Motion
and Pain Perception Among Experienced and Nonexperienced Individuals After
Following a Prescribed Program
4. Wu et al. Effect of Loading Devices on Muscle Activation in Squat and Lunge
5. Statuta. The Female Athlete Triad, Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport, and the
Male Athlete Triad: The Exploration of Low-Energy Syndromes in Athletes
6. Moberg et al. Exercise Induces Different Molecular Responses in Trained and
Untrained Human Muscle
7. Fernández-Sanlés et al. Physical Activity and Genome-wide DNA Methylation: The
REgistre GIroní del COR Study
8. Heilbronn et al. Effects of Periodized vs. Nonperiodized Resistance Training on
Army-Specific Fitness and Skills Performance
9. Ramis et al. Effects of Traditional and Vascular Restricted Strength Training Program
With Equalized Volume on Isometric and Dynamic Strength, Muscle Thickness,
Electromyographic Activity, and Endothelial Function Adaptations in Young Adults
10. Centala et al. Listening to Fast-Tempo Music Delays the Onset of Neuromuscular
Fatigue
11. García-Ramos et al. Mechanical and Metabolic Responses to Traditional and
Cluster Set Configurations in the Bench Press Exercise
12. Farney et al. The Effect of Aspartate and Sodium Bicarbonate Supplementation on
Muscle Contractile Properties Among Trained Men
13. Bobos et al. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Effect of Multi-ingredient
Preworkout Supplementation on Strength, Exercise Volume, and Anaerobic
Capacity in Healthy Resistance-Trained Individuals

116
14. Lyons et al. Can Resistance Training at Slow Versus Traditional Repetition Speeds
Induce Comparable Hypertrophic and Strength Gains?
15. Elliott and Massey. Effect of acute antagonist static stretching on upper-body
agonist power
16. Månsson. The effects of inorganic phosphate on muscle force development and
energetics: challenges in modelling related to experimental uncertainties
17. Brown et al. Effects of Prior Cognitive Exertion on Physical Performance: A
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
18. Wilke et al. Acute Effects of Foam Rolling on Range of Motion in Healthy Adults:
A Systematic Review with Multilevel Meta-analysis
19. Halperin and Emanuel. Rating of Perceived Effort: Methodological Concerns and
Future Directions
20. Grandou et al. Overtraining in Resistance Exercise: An Exploratory Systematic
Review and Methodological Appraisal of the Literature
21. Abaïdia et al. Effects of Ramadan Fasting on Physical Performance: A Systematic
Review with Meta-analysis
22. Nunes et al. Does stretch training induce muscle hypertrophy in humans? A
review of the literature
23. Grønfeldt et al. Effect of blood‐flow restricted vs heavy‐load strength training on
muscle strength: Systematic review and meta‐analysis
24. Zouhal et al. Exercise Training and Fasting: Current Insights
25. Schmitz et al. Sex Differences in High-Intensity Interval Training–Are HIIT
Protocols Interchangeable Between Females and Males?
26. Neto et al. Gluteus Maximus Activation during Common Strength and Hypertrophy
Exercises: A Systematic Review
27. Lundsgaard et al. The Importance of Fatty Acids as Nutrients during Post-
Exercise Recovery
28. Fernández-Lázaro et al. Modulation of Exercise-Induced Muscle Damage,
Inflammation, and Oxidative Markers by Curcumin Supplementation in a
Physically Active Population: A Systematic Review
29. Larsen et al. Injuries in Novice Participants during an Eight-Week Start up CrossFit
Program—A Prospective Cohort Study
30. Martorelli et al. The interplay between internal and external load parameters
during different strength training sessions in resistance-trained men.
31. Moore et al. Exercise as a treatment for sarcopenia: an umbrella review of
systematic review evidence.
32. Aube et al. Progressive Resistance Training Volume: Effects on Muscle Thickness,
Mass, and Strength Adaptations in Resistance-Trained Individuals.
33. Chandrasekaran et al. Science of sleep and sports performance – a scoping

117
 review
34. Guardado et al. Effects of strength training under hypoxic conditions on muscle
performance, body composition and haematological variables
35. Maszczyk et al. The effects of resistance training experience on movement
characteristics in the bench press exercise

118
 Thanks for
reading MASS.
The next issue will be released to
subscribers on May 1, 2020.

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

119