MONTHLY

By Chris Beardsley

AUGUST 2020
EDITION
August 2020 Edition
Editorial by Chris Beardsley
I was excited to see this study come out,
because it confirmed the hypothesis that
I had formed upon seeing the previous
investigation. It seems that many of the
neural adaptation measurements that are
taken after these short-term training stud-
ies might reflect motor learning rather than
increases in voluntary activation (an in-
crease in the ability to recruit motor units).

Two of the other studies covered in the

strength training section addressed the
way in which central nervous system (CNS)
fatigue differs between either upper and
lower body muscles (in one study) and
between eccentric and concentric contrac-

W elcome to the August 2020 edition!

The lead article this month reviews
a study that assessed the nature of the
tions (in the other study). CNS fatigue is
still very poorly understood in the context
of strength training, and yet and it has the
neural adaptations in the first weeks of a
potential to influence adaptations quite
strength training program, and explored
substantially. As we learn more about how
how these adaptations differ depending
CNS fatigue differs depending on the situa-
on whether the program involves dynam-
tion, we will be able to manipulate training
ic contractions with a self-selected tempo,
programs to minimize its negative effects.
dynamic contractions with a fixed (metro-
nome-paced) tempo, or isometric contrac-
The hypertrophy section is full of contro-
tions. This study builds on the findings of
versy this month. Each of the studies cov-
an earlier investigation that compared the
ered addresses a topic that has been de-
effects of dynamic training with either a
bated extensively by both researchers and
self-selected or a fixed tempo, as well as
other strength training experts alike. Read
motor skill training involving tracking the
on to learn more! See you next month.
position of an object in space over time.

Published by Strength
and Conditioning
Research Limited
 August 2020 Edition
Contents

Strength training
Neural adaptations to dynamic and isometric strength training
1
How do corticospinal excitability and inhibition change after training with different contraction modes?

Effects of cluster training with three different intra-set rest intervals

2
Does the additional fatigue that is caused by shorter intra-set rest intervals enhance hypertrophy?

Central nervous system fatigue in upper and lower body muscles

3
Do spinal and supraspinal mechanisms of central nervous system fatigue differ between the biceps and the quadriceps?

Central nervous system fatigue during eccentric and concentric contractions

4
Does central nervous system fatigue differ between eccentric and concentric contractions?

Athletic performance
Associations between ground reaction forces and sprinting performance
5
How do horizontal and vertical ground reaction forces relate to sprinting performance in each phase of a sprint?

Effects of using different techniques during plyometric training

6
How do stiff and soft landings during training affect changes in maximum strength, tendon stiffness, and jumping ability?

Hypertrophy
Hypertrophy after training with free weight and machine exercises
7
Is there any difference in the amount of muscle growth produced by training with free weights or machines?

History effects of workout volume on strength training adaptations

8
Does the amount of volume performed in one training block affect the adaptations produced by the next training block?

Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy occurs after moderate volume strength training?

9
Does sarcoplasmic hypertrophy occur only after training with lighter loads and higher volumes?

Assessing the role of satellite cells in sarcomerogenesis

10
Do satellite cells have a larger role to play in increasing muscle fiber length than in increasing muscle fiber diameter?

Published by Strength
and Conditioning
Research Limited
 Neural adaptations to dynamic and
isometric strength training

D uring the first few weeks of a strength training

program, maximum strength in the trained exercise
increases rapidly, but changes in strength of other exer-
cises involving the same muscle group are minimal. This
suggests that the major contributor to strength gains
in the early phase of a training program is an improve-
ment in coordination. Such changes in coordination
have been shown to differ between dynamic strength
training programs with fixed and self-selected tempos.
Whether dynamic and isometric contractions each cause
different effects is unclear.

Key findings
In untrained subjects, dynamic training (with self-selected or a fixed tempo) produces
greater gains in maximum dynamic strength (1RM) than isometric training, while isomet-
ric training produces greater gains in maximum isometric strength (MVIC force). Only dy-
namic strength training with a fixed tempo altered corticospinal excitability and inhibition,
but these changes were unrelated to the strength gains.

Practical implications
The coordination-related neural adaptations that occur after isometric strength training
and after fixed tempo dynamic strength training are unlikely to benefit maximum strength
to the same extent as the neural adaptations that occur after self-selected tempo dynamic
strength training (although it is quite likely that using a maximal effort would be superior
to a self-selected tempo).

Task-dependent modulation of corticospinal excitability and inhibition follow-

ing strength training. Siddique, U., Rahman, S., Frazer, A., Leung, M., Pearce,
A. J., & Kidgell, D. J. (2020). Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology,
102411. (PubMed)
Background
OBJECTIVE To compare the effects of dynamic (with a self-selected or a fixed tem-
po) and isometric training on changes in maximum dynamic and iso-
metric strength and corticospinal excitability, in untrained subjects.

INTERVENTION
POPULATION
Subjects in the training groups did 3 workouts per week for 4 weeks.
In each workout, the subjects in 2 groups did 4 sets of 6-8 reps of 42 untrained subjects (22
dumbbell biceps curls to failure, with 3 minutes of rest between sets, males and 20 females),
using 80% of 1RM as the starting weight and increasing the weight aged 25.1 ± 5.8 years,
once all reps could be achieved. One of these groups (PACED) trained
allocated into 3 train-
with a fixed tempo (a 3s concentric phase and a 4s eccentric phase)
ing groups and a control
in synchronization with a metronome. The other group (SELF-PACED)
group (CONTROL)
trained with a self-selected tempo. A third training group (ISOMETRIC)
did 4 sets of 6-8 elbow flexion isometric contractions of 7s in duration
(with 7s rest between reps) with 3 minutes of rest between sets, and
starting with 80% of maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC)
force. Once all reps could be achieved with the same force, force was
increased by 1.5%. CONTROL did not train during the study period.

MEASUREMENTS RESULTS
Maximum strength: By 1RM Dynamic strength (1RM) increased to a significantly great-
and by MVIC elbow flexion er extent in PACED and SELF-PACED than in either ISO-
strength. METRIC or CONTROL. There was only a non-significant
tendency for 1RM to increase more in SELF-PACED (by
25%) than in PACED (by 18%). Isometric strength (MVIC
force) increased to a significantly greater extent in ISO-
METRIC than in the other three groups.

Corticospinal excitability CE increased to a significantly greater extent in PACED

(CE): By biceps brachii motor
evoked potential (MEP) ampli-
tude, produced by single pulse
transcranial magnetic stimula-
tion (TMS).
than in the other three groups. Despite a large but
non-significant reduction in CE in SELF-PACED, there were
no significant differences between the other three groups.
Importantly, there were no associations between the
changes in CE and the gains in maximum strength in any
of the groups.

Corticospinal inhibition: By SICI decreased to a significantly greater extent in PACED

biceps brachii short-interval than in the other three groups, and there were no signif-
intracortical inhibition (SICI), icant differences between the other three groups. There
produced by paired pulse TMS. were no associations between the changes in SICI and the
changes in maximum strength in any of the groups.

SUMMARY
In untrained subjects, dynamic training (with self-selected or a fixed
tempo) produced greater gains in maximum dynamic strength (1RM) than isometric train-
ing, while isometric training produced greater gains in maximum isometric strength (MVIC
force). Only dynamic strength training with a fixed tempo altered corticospinal excitability
and inhibition, but these changes were unrelated to the strength gains.

T his study reported that in untrained
subjects, dynamic strength training
(with either a self-selected tempo or a
fixed tempo) produced greater gains in
maximum dynamic strength (1RM) than
isometric strength training with a similar
volume of work, while isometric training
produced greater gains in maximum iso-
metric strength (MVIC force). Even so,
only dynamic strength training with a fixed
tempo affected corticospinal excitability
and inhibition, and these alterations were
unrelated to the strength gains.
Analysis
This study raises two important issues.
Firstly, it addresses the extent to which
dynamic strength training can transfer
to maximum isometric strength, and the
extent to which isometric strength train-
ing can transfer to maximum dynamic
strength. This is an important question,
since strength coaches sometimes im-
plement isometric training with a view to
enhancing sporting performance, which
involves dynamic movements. Secondly, it
addresses the effect of tempo on strength
gains and neural adaptations.

#1. Transfer between dynamic and
isometric strength types
The transferability of one type of strength
training (or exercise) to another is often
debated, but is ultimately impossible to
determine unless a time period is speci-
fied. During a strength training program,
many adaptations occur inside the central
nervous system and inside muscle-tendon
units. Some of these adaptations occur
quickly, while others develop slowly. For
example, coordination in the trained ex-
ercise tends to increase very rapidly, and
probably comprises the majority of the
strength gains in the first few weeks of a
training program (1–9). Increases in vol-
untary activation are slightly slower, but
can sometimes also be observed within
four weeks of training (7,8). Muscle growth
is much slower, and gains in muscle size
that contribute meaningfully to maximum
strength may take several months.
Consequently, when looking at short-term
training programs (such as in this study),
the transferability of one type of strength
training to another depends greatly on
the extent to which coordination gains in
the trained exercise or contraction type
can improve coordination in the untrained
exercise or contraction type. Indeed, there
are indications that the other adaptations
that contribute to strength gains contribute
to a very minor extent during the first few
weeks of a strength training program.
Analysis
For example, recent research has shown
that multi-joint strength training for four
weeks does not bring about any gains in
single-joint strength, not even when the
single-joint exercise tests the strength of
the muscle that is the limiting factor in the
multi-joint exercise (10). If meaningful
increases in voluntary activation (the abil-
ity to recruit high-threshold motor units),
lateral force transmission (the efficiency
of force transfer from the muscle fiber to
the surrounding collagen layer), or muscle
fiber growth had occurred, then the multi-
joint strength training program would have
produced strength gains in the single-joint
exercise test.
The effects of isometric strength training
on maximum dynamic strength are less
well-understood than the effects of dynam-
ic strength training on maximum isometric
strength. A small number of studies have
assessed the effects of isometric training
on dynamic strength gains (11–21) and
some of these have compared the effects
of isometric and dynamic strength training
(11,12,14–18). A few of these latter in-
vestigations found that isometric training
was less effective than dynamic training for
increasing maximum dynamic strength or
related measures (12,14,17), while others
found that dynamic training was less effec-
tive than isometric training for increasing
maximum isometric strength (15), which
agrees with the findings of this study.

M ost of the studies that have assessed
the effects of isometric training on dy-
namic strength are longer than four weeks,
and therefore involve multiple adaptations
that could contribute to strength gains, in
addition to improved coordination (such as
increased voluntary activation or increased
muscle fiber size). The findings of this
current study suggest that without these
extra adaptations, the effects of isometric
training on dynamic strength are minimal
(and this is apparent even when the test of
dynamic strength involves a stretch-short-
ening cycle, as in this study).
Exactly why isometric strength training
fails to contribute to gains in maximum
dynamic strength through improvements
in coordination, even when the joint ac-
tion is the same, is not entirely clear. It
may be because the functions of stabilizing
and antagonist muscles differs between
dynamic and isometric contractions of the
same joint. Changes in the activity of the
stabilizers and antagonists do seem to
contribute substantially to strength gains
through improvements in coordination
(6,22,23). Indeed, this possibility is sup-
ported by the observation that studies that
have compared the effects of dynamic and
isometric strength training have found that
when multiple joint angles are trained with
isometric contractions, this produces sim-
ilar gains in dynamic strength to dynamic
strength training (16).
Analysis
#2. Effects of tempo
A couple of years ago, a very important
study discovered that strength training
with a fixed tempo produced smaller gains
in maximum dynamic strength compared
to strength training with a self-selected
tempo, even though training with a fixed
tempo also produced greater changes in
corticospinal excitability and inhibition,
which might be expected to underpin
changes in voluntary activation (24). This
same study also showed that the changes
in corticospinal excitability and inhibition
after strength training with a fixed tempo
were similar to the changes in corticospinal
excitability and inhibition after skill train-
ing involving position tracking. This finding
suggested that these neural adaptations
did not relate to increases in voluntary ac-
tivation but rather to an improved ability to
perform slow, controlled movements.
This study agrees with the previous inves-
tigation, as the fixed tempo training pro-
gram was the only one that altered corti-
cospinal excitability and inhibition, and the
gains in maximum dynamic strength were
greater after using a self-selected tempo
than after using a fixed tempo. In practice,
it seems likely that the coordination chang-
es after fixed tempo training differ from
those after self-selected tempo training,
and a fixed tempo has a potentially nega-
tive effect on strength gains, which is an
important consideration for athletes.

Conclusions
In untrained subjects, dynamic training
(with self-selected or a fixed tempo) pro-
duces greater gains in maximum dynam-
ic strength (1RM) than isometric training,
while isometric training produces greater
gains in maximum isometric strength
(MVIC force). Only dynamic strength
training with a fixed tempo altered cor-
ticospinal excitability and inhibition, but
these changes were unrelated to the
strength gains.
Analysis
Practical implications
The coordination-related neural adapta-
tions that occur after isometric strength
training and after fixed tempo dynamic
strength training are unlikely to benefit
maximum strength to the same extent
as the neural adaptations that occur after
self-selected tempo dynamic strength
training (although it is quite likely that
using a maximal effort would be superior
to a self-selected tempo).

1. Gabriel, D. A., & Kroll, W. P. (1991). Successive in-
duction effects upon maximal isometric strength. Clinical
Kinesiology, 45, 3-10. (Link)
2. Gabriel, D. A., Basford, J. R., & An, K. N. (1997). Re-
versal of antagonists: effect of elbow extension strength
and endurance. Archives of Physical Medicine and Reha-
bilitation, 78(11), 1191. (PubMed)
3. Griffin, L., & Cafarelli, E. (2007). Transcranial magnetic
stimulation during resistance training of the tibialis ante-
rior muscle. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology,
17(4), 446. (PubMed)
4. Weier, A. T., Pearce, A. J., & Kidgell, D. J. (2012).
Strength training reduces intracortical inhibition. Acta
Physiologica, 206(2), 109-119. (PubMed)
5. Green, L. A., Parro, J. J., & Gabriel, D. A. (2013).
Quantifying the familiarization period for maximal resis-
tive exercise. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabo-
lism, 39(3), 275-281. (PubMed)
6. McGuire, J., Green, L. A., & Gabriel, D. A. (2014). Task
complexity and maximal isometric strength gains through
motor learning. Physiological Reports, 2(11), e12218.
(PubMed)
7. Nuzzo, J. L., Barry, B. K., Jones, M. D., Gandevia, S. C.,
& Taylor, J. L. (2017). Effects of Four Weeks of Strength
Training on the Corticomotoneuronal Pathway. Medicine &
Science in Sports & Exercise, 49(11), 2286. (PubMed)
8. Giboin, L. S., Weiss, B., Thomas, F., & Gruber, M.
(2018). Neuroplasticity following short-term strength
training occurs at supraspinal level and is specific for
the trained task. Acta Physiologica, 222(4), e12998.
(PubMed)
9. Mason, J., Frazer, A. K., Avela, J., Pearce, A. J., Howat-
son, G., & Kidgell, D. J. (2020). Tracking the corticospi-
nal responses to strength training. European Journal of
Applied Physiology, 1-16. (PubMed)
10. Ansdell, P., Brownstein, C. G., Škarabot, J., Angius, L.,
Kidgell, D., Frazer, A., & Thomas, K. (2020). Task-specific
strength increases after lower-limb compound resistance
training occurred in the absence of corticospinal changes
in vastus lateralis. Experimental Physiology. (PubMed)
11. Chui, E. F. (1964). Effects of isometric and dynam-
ic weight-training exercises upon strength and speed of
movement. Research Quarterly. American Association for
Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 35(3), 246-
257. (Link)
12. Moffroid, M., Whipple, R., Hofkosh, J., Lowman, E., &
Thistle, H. (1969). A study of isokinetic exercise. Physical
Therapy, 49(7), 735-747. (PubMed)
13. Lindh, M. (1979). Increase of muscle strength from
isometric quadriceps exercises at different knee angles.
Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 11(1),
33. (PubMed)
References
14. Knapik, J. J., Mawdsley, R. H., & Ramos, M. U. (1983).
Angular specificity and test mode specificity of isometric
and isokinetic strength training. Journal of Orthopaedic &
Sports Physical Therapy, 5(2), 58-65. (PubMed)
15. Behm, D. G., & Sale, D. G. (1993). Intended rather
than actual movement velocity determines velocity-spe-
cific training response. Journal of Applied Physiology,
74(1), 359-368. (PubMed)
16. Folland, J. P., Hawker, K., Leach, B., Little, T., & Jones,
D. A. (2005). Strength training: isometric training at a
range of joint angles versus dynamic training. Journal of
Sports Sciences, 23(8), 817. (PubMed)
17. Symons, T. B., Vandervoort, A. A., Rice, C. L., Over-
end, T. J., & Marsh, G. D. (2005). Effects of maximal
isometric and isokinetic resistance training on strength
and functional mobility in older adults. The Journals of
Gerontology, 60(6), 777. (PubMed)
18. Ullrich, B., Kleinöder, H., & Brüggemann, G. P. (2010).
Influence of length-restricted strength training on ath-
lete’s power-load curves of knee extensors and flexors.
The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 24(3),
668-678. (PubMed)
19. Alegre, L. M., Ferri-Morales, A., Rodriguez-Casares,
R., & Aguado, X. (2014). Effects of isometric training on
the knee extensor moment–angle relationship and vastus
lateralis muscle architecture. European Journal of Applied
Physiology, 114(11), 2437-2446. (PubMed)
20. Noorkõiv, M., Nosaka, K., & Blazevich, A. J. (2015).
Effects of isometric quadriceps strength training at differ-
ent muscle lengths on dynamic torque production. Journal
of Sports Sciences, 33(18), 1952. (PubMed)
21. Bogdanis, G. C., Tsoukos, A., Methenitis, S. K., Seli-
ma, E., Veligekas, P., & Terzis, G. (2019). Effects of low
volume isometric leg press complex training at two knee
angles on force-angle relationship and rate of force devel-
opment. European Journal of Sport Science, 19(3), 345.
(PubMed)
22. Rutherford, O. M., & Jones, D. A. (1986). The role of
learning and coordination in strength training. European
Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiolo-
gy, 55(1), 100. (PubMed)
23. Trezise, J., & Blazevich, A. J. (2019). Anatomical and
Neuromuscular Determinants of Strength Change in Pre-
viously Untrained Men Following Heavy Strength Training.
Frontiers in Physiology, 10, 1001. (PubMed)
24. Leung, M., Rantalainen, T., Teo, W. P., & Kidgell, D.
(2017). The corticospinal responses of metronome-paced,
but not self-paced strength training are similar to motor
skill training. European Journal of Applied Physiology,
117(12), 2479-2492. (PubMed)
 MONTHLY

By Chris Beardsley

Knowing the science

of strength training
will help you write
better programs for
yourself, your clients,
and the athletes
you train

SUBSCRIBE AT
sandcresearch.com